Jump to content

User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2013/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


GA project grumbling

We have a project with a significant population of such headed individuals, a lot to grumble about as Eric says!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Malleus - it's yourself! Ciamar a tha thu? Sorry I didn't recognise the trademark grumbling, but serves you right for changing your name. I spotted you at Priest Island recently as well - must have a go at fixing this but I don't think I have the sources to hand. I took a few weeks off earlier this year and its amazing the messes that keep turning up that were perpetrated when I was off duty. Serves me right too. Ben MacDui 15:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There's much to grumble about here, don't you think? Eric Corbett 15:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed - and where would we be without it? Ben MacDui 17:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
EVeryone who stalks this page will appreciate this: "shrill, boorish specimens of the lower Internet phyla". Best phrase for trolls I've heard - ever! Montanabw(talk) 04:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Your talk page has been unusually quiet of late Eric.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

That's because TFA was the hotbed of drama right now, plus I've gotten myself in hot water, see my page. The Illustrious Mr. Corbett is a baaaaaad influence! (grinning, ducking, running...) Montanabw(talk) 18:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I haven't really been paying much attention recently to what's been going on here, so what have you been up to Montanabw? Eric Corbett 19:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
She just tromped on someone's petticoats and they took offense. You know...the usual stuff around here. Intothatdarkness 19:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, I've seen the ANI report now. Ridiculous, quite ridiculous. Eric Corbett 19:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It's now closed by calmer heads. Sound and Fury, signifying nothing. Onto the next absurd drama. Montanabw(talk) 02:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Pop quiz

Which of these sentences is better?

  1. "Bournemouth has become a popular nightlife destination with UK visitors"
  2. "Bournemouth has become a popular nightlife destination for UK visitors"

Somebody here will know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Either "popular among" or "popular with" are correct. "Popular for" is incorrect in this context, as that would imply that the visitors are what makes it popular (consider "Edinburgh is famous for its architecture"). 89.240.40.140 (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree with the above analysis, I think that "popular for" is to be preferred. Eric Corbett 16:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll disagree with both Eric and 89.240 here. I think "popular for" is ambiguous, as the IP is correct in saying that "for" can describe the cause of the popularity rather than the people with whom it's popular; "popular with" is grammatically correct, but ought to be avoided as a single misplaced comma can drastically change the meaning of the sentence, and Eric can testify that commas on Wikipedia have a habit of wandering; "popular among" is preferable as it's unambiguous. Compare (1) "Indonesia is popular for wild orang-utans", (2) "Indonesia is popular with wild orang-utans", (3) "Indonesia is popular, with wild orang-utans" and (4) "Indonesia is popular among wild orang-utans"—only (2) and (4) have the meaning you're looking for in this case, but a single misplaced comma will turn (2) into (3) so it ought to be avoided. ("Las Vegas is popular among tourists for its casinos with free drinks".) – iridescent 2 16:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you that rewriting is preferable. My only observation was between the two alternatives being offered. Eric Corbett 16:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Just curious, how s/ this possible option be rated by compare?:

Bournemouth has become a popular nightlife destination of UK visitors.

Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that's worse than any other of the options so far considered. You could say that "Robert Dudley was a favourite of Queen Elizabeth I" of course, but in this context "of" carries an implication of being one of the constituents of Bournemouth's nightlife. Eric Corbett 19:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
OMG! (I never saw that angle! What a tricky darn preposition.) Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Up your alley ?

Are you able to shed any light on this? One source says 1486 for the Malleus publication, the other says 1489 ??

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It was definitely published in 1486. I'll have a scuttle around to try and find out if there's any good reason one of those papers says 1489. Dare I look at WP's article? Eric Corbett 18:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I haven't looked at WP's article, but I did discover after pinging you that both articles seem to be citing the same original source, so one of them goofed! Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh God, I just looked at WP's Malleus article for the first time, yet another battleground. I think the authors of the paper citing 1489 have indeed goofed. Eric Corbett 18:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks ... ok, so at History of Tourette syndrome and Tourette syndrome, I just called it "15th century", since the exact date is not that critical there, and I may need to use both papers if Colin and I ever finish up the History article (which would be fascinating to write, and I told him YEARS ago-- when appointed delegate-- that I would get back to it and we would do it ... time flies!). Easier for now than sorting the discrepancy ... do you think that's OK? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd probably say "late 15th century", but that's a small thing. Eric Corbett 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, will do ... done for the day, slow going in here ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Certainly is, but I ought to clarify my previous statement. Malleus was written in 1486, but may not have been published until the following year. Either way 1489 is just plain wrong. Eric Corbett 07:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Funny thing is, both articles may have been wrong, because I think they both said "published" rather than written (I didn't take time to recheck) ... anyway, I shall avoid the whole issue by using late 15th century. I just emailed you. I am spending hours a day trying to update the entire suite of TS articles per DSM-5, and getting one or two sentences per hour of work. Would that medical topics would be once and easily researched and hardly ever changed or updated as in some other content areas! I've gotten as far as I can today, and have added maybe four sentences. I need a medical library. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Help! Hyphen alert!

"Since the mid-2000s, blah blah blah" or "Since the mid 2000s, yada yada yada"? Drmies (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

For me mid-2000s is better because mid isn't a word in that context, it's what my dictionary refers to as a combining form. Eric Corbett 17:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. So you don't see it as an adjective? Combining form leads to [Classical compound]], whose lead lends credibility to your dictionary's suggestion (setting aside the Greek/Latin issue). Drmies (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
How could it be an adjective, as it's followed by a comma, not a noun? Eric Corbett
I mean "mid". Drmies (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
You're the professor, not me. I'm just a non-Wikipedian, so what does it matter what I think? Eric Corbett 21:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

New Brighton Tower

Hi Eric. I've given New Brighton Tower a once over, probably leaving it in a more sorry state than it was previously. If you have a little time, could you have another look at the GA review that you've left on hold? Cheers WormTT(talk) 13:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I was about to pop over there a little later on anyway. Thing that's bothering me most about the article is the lack of any mention of the Tower Theatre. Eric Corbett 13:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
No longer an issue. I can expand the section, which is currently about a paragraph long, but it would probably end up being a long list of the different acts that have performed there. Most of my sources are the newspapers that advertise them. I've already written everything I can find on the theatre itself. WormTT(talk) 13:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
That's great. I look forward to reading through the article again later. Eric Corbett 13:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Just to say a huge "Thank you" for tidying up some of the articles I have been working on - it really is very much appreciated ... I've been trying to watch the things you've had to correct and will try not to get them wrong again; I also know I have a habit of being 'wordy' and not using a particularly encyclopaedic tone can I use the excuse I'm female? Am I allowed to ask if I can have you on the equivalent of speed dial, please? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Being female is no excuse. On the contrary, females are often better with words than males. Eric Corbett 13:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you ;) - Could you see if it is so in my latest GA, pictured by me on top of my talk? (as kind of PR before PR) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll be very happy to take a look Gerda. Eric Corbett 17:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Would you, please, look at the one below? The article was written by I don't know and then two who improved. I tried a lead but am sure you could do it better, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd have another one to look at first, Patrice Chéreau, because you are the lead artist. Difficult to draw the line between superlative praise (just read the titles of the obituaries) and the simple facts that are there now. I saw only one of his productions (pictured) which I still recall vividly. Yes, I know that you hate opera ;) - it will make for an independent look, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Very true, that's why Sue Gardner is gunning for 80% female editorship and is out there actively campaigning for the promotion of females on wikipedia ;-].♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we might find out what Sue Gardner really thinks once she leaves the WMF. Eric Corbett 23:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, this award was certainly deserved - I just came to thank you for your nice copy edit of Rainham Hall. violet/riga [talk] 19:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. Some people seem to take offence when their perfect prose is tampered with. Eric Corbett 19:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
You are always very welcome to tamper with my prose any time! SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Brislington House

If you have any time would you take a look at Brislington House. Its a new article I've written and I'm thinking that once I get some photos it might head towards GA, but you know what my grammar is like.— Rod talk 09:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Law school of Beirut

Thank you for taking the time to read this :) -Elias Z 16:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I've only skimmed it so far, but it's an interesting article. Eric Corbett 16:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Pour encourager les autres

Hello, Eric! Just saw your question on AN and felt compelled to impart some trivial information: it’s a quotation from Voltaire’s Candide regarding the execution of John Byng, where a character remarks that “… in this country [England] it’s good to kill an admiral now and then, to encourage the others.” (My translation from this text.)—Odysseus1479 21:58, 13 Octoberdsess

I'm very well aware of the source of the quotation, that wasn't my question. Eric Corbett 01:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Fine, understood: although it‘s often used as a jocular and general euphemism for exemplary punishment, it certainly had rather dissonant implications in that context, considering that the unfortunate admiral’s crime was apparently what amounts to insufficient enthusiasm for his mission.—Odysseus1479 04:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Basic English grammar in Salem Witch Trials

Eric,

Basic English: we say, "between x but before y." We don't say "between x but before y." If you prefer something like the latter, you need to say, "after x but before y." That's why I made the change on the Salem Witch Trials article. You reverted it without explanation.

You're a fine one to be talking about basic English. Do you really believe that "after the time when" is a proper construction? Eric Corbett 16:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry? is that, we do say "between x but before y" or we don't say "between x but before y"? Confused? - you will be. Richerman (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
This is very worrying for us non-natives - who unlike most of today's English children, have had to study constructing a sentence in English.  Giano  15:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
"after the time when you were due to appear..."
"after the time when we last met..."
"after the time when Wikipedia was ruled by pompous autocrats..." etc. etc. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
But in every one of those cases when is redundant. Eric Corbett 16:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Neither does the time contribute much of significance, to these contextless fragments at least.—Odysseus1479 03:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Words may sometimes be superfluous in written English. But this does not mean that the sentences which use them are “wrong” or that the phrases in which they appear are not “proper constructions”. There seems to be, in the case of some editors, a zealous belief that “fewer words are always better” and that “encyclopedic language equates with the densest possible text, where all linguistic padding is removed and every sentence is rewritten, sometimes repeatedly, to ensure it contains the fewest possible words. I think this is a mistake. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
You may of course think whatever you like, but I have absolutely no doubt that "after we last met" is infinitely preferable to "after the time when we last met". Eric Corbett 09:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
But they have slightly different meanings. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
No they don't. Eric Corbett 09:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Confused

Why did you revert my change in the information tech article. "consists" seems right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectroPro (talk • contribs) 20:44, 20 October 2013‎

Diff. One thing "consists", several things "consist", so Eric is right and you're wrong, I'd say. BencherliteTalk 20:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Eric is correct here. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay....

This either scares me because it's so politically correct or amuses me greatly to see that England isn't immune to the idiocy of political correctness. What's next - all the Brits copying Yank greetings? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That's the Daily Mail, which has roughly the same relationship to newspapers as the Weekly World News did in the US—Jimmy Wales's description of it is fairly on the money. It exists for the primary purpose of whipping up xenophobia (with a particular obsession on the idea that immigrants are munching their way through Britain's swans[1][2][3]), with side orders of "aliens walk among us", "political correctness is destroying our way of life" and "miracle cure for cancer being covered up by homosexual-socialist conspiracy". The Daily Mail Headline Generator gives a surprisingly accurate picture. – iridescent 15:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a bit more reliable than the WWN! Yeah, it probably slants things badly, but at least they don't run pictures of werewolves... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm. They may have calmed down since the "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!" glory days, but they still have a respectable level of crazy; they also have a very long tradition of fabricating stories about local authorities, in the knowledge that under English law a local authority can't sue for libel or provide any assistance to its staff to sue as individuals. If a story appears in the Mail but not anywhere else, it's a fairly safe bet they've made it up. (SandyGeorgia can no doubt expand on the work the Mail did relentlessly promoting and popularising Andrew Wakefield's falsified research "proving" that measles vaccination is the cause of autism, and the numerous deaths in the subsequent and ongoing epidemic among Mail readers who refused to allow their children to be vaccinated.) – iridescent 15:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Death penalty should apply. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the Daily Mail's other purpose, to tell impressionable young girls that they should be looking like the Kardashians, TOWIE, Made in Chelsea and the other wannabee "beautiful" plastic people and that the likes of Justin Bieber and Harry Styles are "hot"... The DM is probably the shallowest newspaper out there now I think, far worse than the Sun or the Star in its coverage of trashy people who promote a certain image/lifestyle... Occasionally it has some useful info on things like restaurants/hotels, but generally yeah, it should be avoided... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You forgot "if you don't look like a celebrity, you're worthless scum and should move to Europe where ugly people like you are still tolerated, because Europeans are all ugly worthless scum themselves".
And as if on cue, the Daily Mail headline changes to "Aliens visit Shipley, West Yorkshire". Sometimes it's beyond parody. – iridescent 19:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Today's random article. This passes for news nowadays!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a steady job, but he wants to be a Paperback Writer... Montanabw(talk) 00:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If you've got any further evidence against The Daily Mail, feel free to pop over to User:John/Is the Daily Mail a reliable source? and add it there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Wife selling

I reverted your revert on Wife selling: The article has problems with punctuation (especially commas) and monolithic paragraphs that need breaking up. Best regards, --Unicorn Tapestry {say} 16:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

And I reverted your revert, as you clearly have no idea what you're doing. Eric Corbett 17:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Then if you're going to insult as well as revert, you should recognise basic editing skills, which happen to include punctuation, you know– like commas, ellipses, and the fullstop at the end of this sentence. It's little wonder women are driven from Wikipedia with the lack of civility and unprofessionalism. --Unicorn Tapestry {say} 07:04, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Eric certainly doesn't need anyone to stand up for him but I'm going to add my tuppence worth anyway: I think you will find if you glance through this talk page that reams of editors come to Eric for help/advice with punctuation, grammar etc as we are all very appreciative of his editing skills and expertise. Many are female and he has always helped rather than driven away. And, yes, I'm female and possibly have nowhere near the thickest skin needed to cope with some events on Wikipedia, hence I feel qualified to comment or stick my nose in, uninvited - a definite female trait; I'll lay odds on that I've got spelling, grammar or punctuation wrong in this comment somewhere too .... SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, I'm female (and a Yank! Two strikes!) and I don't find Eric at all lacking in civility or professionalism. Of course, I don't tack on "best regards" to a statement that says I'm reverting someone's reversion and expect that this will cover my butt for civility. If you do something bold, and you're reverted - the solution isn't to revert again, but it's to discuss things. That might explain why you got less civility than you wanted. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to put myself in a position of being more flagellated than I am now, but (a) you weren't the one attacked, and (b) the discussion suggested might have taken place before my edit was reverted (in case anyone else might have taken a look at it). I've mentioned nothing about being a Yank nor would I, given half my parentage is American and I spend part of my time in the States.
Disagreeing with a literary construct shouldn't be a cause to bring down wrath and calls of incompetence. Frankly, there's no good reason for incivility when people are donating their time and skills. One might disagree with another, but why get personal? --Unicorn Tapestry {say} 16:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not uncivil to point out the evident fact of your incompetence Unicorn Tapestry, rather it's an indicator of something you should work on. Just take a look at your comment above for another example: "lack of ... unprofessionalism" seems like a good thing to me, but that's clearly not what you meant. Eric Corbett 14:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
And yet, if it doesn't seem petty to point it out, I'm the one (perhaps amongst many) working editor, writer, and reviewer here. --Unicorn Tapestry {say} 16:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "the one ... working editor, writer, and reviewer here". Are you suggesting that I don't edit, write, or review? Eric Corbett 17:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

for you

http://jezebel.com/okay-im-sorry-but-this-weasel-is-ridiculously-adorab-1446898945 Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits on Białystok

Appreciate the grammatical proofing on Białystok, one gets so involved in writing all the details the little stuff is missed! Ajh1492 (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I think we all have a tendency to read what is we meant to write, as opposed to what we actually did write. You may already be aware of this, but there's a problem with ref #19 and #20, which don't point anywhere. Eric Corbett 18:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been slowly making my way down through the refs to check all of them out. Ajh1492 (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

BLP for you and watchers

Hey, Ray Teret just showed up on a dab page I watchlist (Terets). I don't know anything about the Daily Star, or about this DJ, but the claim that he is a convicted sex offender is not repeated in the BBC reports, so something smells off here. I'm hoping you or your talk page watchers can help, since noticeboards aren't working well anymore. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you'll be able to access this BBC report,[4] but Teret has recently been charged with the rape of 15 girls and is currently on bail awaiting trial. So far as I'm aware he's not been convicted of any sex offences, and the Daily Star is more of a comic than a reliable newspaper, so I'm going to remove that claim. Eric Corbett 13:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys - I should have checked it myself. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks both-- faster than a noticeboard :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Pitfour estate

Hi, a quick question - 'Policies' is used by Buchan as a sub heading in his book; the chapter heading is 'The Estate' then sub headings of 'The Mansion House', 'The Policies' and 'The Wider Estate' etc. The text under policies is about the grounds (acreage or parklands?) around the mansion extending as far as including detail about the lake and racecourse. The Wider estate is about St Fergus, Inverugie and the out lying areas. Wilson-Smith also refs to it as policies in his 1949 series of articles. Would using "the parklands surrounding the mansion" be a reasonable substitute? Alternatively, would including a note explaining the use of 'policies' by Wilson and Buchan be a better option? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just checked my dictionary, which says that policies in the sense the article is using the word is a specifically Scottish term for the improved grounds surrounding a country house, so I'd be inclined to avoid it in favour of something along the lines you suggest. Eric Corbett 14:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Aah, that explains why I thought it was common - I think perhaps the title deeds for our little house even use the term. I added a sentence about the earlier owners and small mansion; the Wilson-Smith piece on the lands before purchase is him fantasising about the romance of the first Ferguson taking his bride-to-be round the lands on horseback. I'm hoping to get the Old Baronies of Buchan book back from the library but I have copies of Buchan, McKean and the old Wilson-Smith articles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Adding a note to explain that Scottish use of the word policies would probably be a good idea. Eric Corbett 20:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
thanks, I'll add a note in the morning when I'm not trying to edit with an iPad! I'll also look at re-jigging the lead. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for continuing to help with this. Do you think the change I made to the lead yesterday taking the quotes out is better? I've left 'policies' out as I think 'parklands' is an adequate alternative? On closely reading through it again, I realised a couple of errors had inadvertently been introduced by the GOCE, which I should have picked up earlier but have now corrected.
The earliest record mentioned seems to be 1383, which I added. From then until the Charles II 1667 charter (already included) the detail is sketchy and leaves huge gaps. Part of one short paragraph in the Buchan book has "Egidia Stewart, a member of the Royal family" selling half her Pitfour lands to a burgess of Aberdeen, John Andree [Anderson?], in 1477 but then it becomes a bit convoluted! In 1493 feudal superiority was secured by Walter Innes of Invermarkie to all of Walter Rothwene of Lunan's Pitfour land. Thomas Innes purchased John Anderson's [Andree's?] land in 1506. The land belonged to the Innes family for "at least the next 75 years", then it jumps to the 1667 charter. Should I try and include some of that or leave it as I have it at the moment - "several owners"? I can't work out who Egidia Stewart is.... SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I've finally managed to get hold of the "Old Baronies of Buchan" book again and it confirms what Choess' changed to the other Alexander Stewart, so I've dropped the Buchan ref and used Ferguson's for it. Choess has also directed me to a Latin version of the charter here, page 39 but I don't know how to include it - should it be 'further reading'? I tried it as an efn but it didn't look right .....
Do you think that part needs further elaboration? SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Glastonbury Tor

Hi, Would you (or your talk page stalkers) be able to take a look at Glastonbury Tor. I have just done a major reorganisation and expansion and any copy-editing would be appreciated.— Rod talk 12:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)...I'll have a go! -- CassiantoTalk 22:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Good man!. I've got a few more early aircraft articles to destroy. Eric Corbett 22:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Ha, so I see. Good luck, feel free to come fly over and "destroy" my edits too if you like! ;) -- CassiantoTalk 22:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Cassianto - any further contributions appreciated.— Rod talk 18:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Edits to aircraft articles

I fail entirely to see what you were trying to do in your recent edits to Bristol Boxkite and Farman III. Apart from a typo & a full stop, the substance of your edits to the Boxkite aeticle seemed to be altering the referencing format to one you prefer. All the aircraft articles I have worked on are referenced in the format that was used in the article, which is not a bizarre one peculiar to aircraft articles. If it aint broke , why fix it? and what's with the addition of 'magazine' to the visible bit of the cites to Flight. From memory you didn't even do the job thoroughly. What a cock-up. Fortunately it only took a moment to undo the lot. With the Farman article your corrections to format' actually destroyed information. I'm tempted to be rude to you since I see from looking at your contributions that you don't believe in WP:CIVILITY, but I can't be arsed.TheLongTone (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In my short time here on Wikipedia, I have noticed more than numerous attempts by editors to instigate something on Corbett's talk page. Aside from throwing up a chicken(cock up) and you being not arsed, why wouldn't you address these issues on the articles' talk pages? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Because this is to do with this prat's editing, not the Boxkite. Cock-up is a printers term. Now commonly used to mean the creation of a mess.TheLongTone (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I see you succumbed to the temptation to be rude. Rather ironic for one of the defenders of WP:CIVILITY don't you think? Were you born a hypocritical clown or did you have to undergo rigorous training? Eric Corbett 19:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
This is every change Eric has ever made to the Farman article. Would you care to point out the "information he destroyed" or the "altering the reference format to one he prefers", as I'm having trouble seeing it? As far as I can see every change he's made has been correct and in line with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. 94.197.165.191 (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The cock up is entirely on your part, so fuck off and go try hassling someone closer to your own size, where you may have more luck. Eric Corbett 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Somebody my own size?? I don't do bullying.TheLongTone (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's very clear that you do. Either that or you're an idiot. Eric Corbett 13:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
and, in case you missed it, that recent edit flypast in full 31.55.15.33 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Building an encyclopedia

Glad to have you back. Take care and have fun. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely xxxxall

Dear sir, the management are delighted that you have recently tried a morsel or two from our establishment. May we interest you in a main course - perhaps rabbit, or a nice plump bird? A full menu is available and we are open all hours. Sincerely, Ben MacDui, Maître d'.

When I stumbled across Inchcape it had one of those awful disfiguring tags on it, so I thought I'd do enough to justify removing it. Then I remembered having seen that BBC programme about the construction of the lighthouse and one thing led to another. Still got more to add though, and I see that there are lots of other little rocky outcrops that need attention. I need to do a bit more with Southey's poem as well, which I moved to its own article. Eric Corbett 19:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
ON the topic of cuisine, I noted this today: [5]. Montanabw(talk) 20:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
... and I noted a delicious cheeseburger where I had the last word bite - so far, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The absurdity was archived ;) - I will watch the Tower as far as I can. Nice to share the Main page with you again for my modest ... that Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how this turned into a cuisine discussion, but I'm hankering for a hot dog right now ... maybe I'll wait until tomorrow though, and have my usual Friday night curry instead. Eric Corbett 22:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
... don't miss the absurdity part, you will enjoy it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, let me ask you as a woman what you think about this article I decided to try and salvage a couple of days ago. Eric Corbett 23:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
The first thing that jumped into my mind when first seeing this article was an old 1980's Porsche 911 which I owned about 10 years ago. I had a lovely huge pair of Sabrinas on that! -- CassiantoTalk 04:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The first thing that jumped into my mind was that it lacks a picture in the infobox. The second that it will not take long until Nikkimaria removes the Nationality parameter because it can be assumed from the birthplace. Third: nice and factual, not ""drained of any colour"! Now let me ask you as someone who understands irony what you think of "my template" mentioned under cheeseburger (and my description of it)? (If you need a fast link, it's the third word on my user page) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
We tried haggis in Scotland a few weeks ago - I wasn't fussed really but my son absolutely loved it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I like haggis as well. To me it's like a spicey hamburger. Eric Corbett 22:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Haggis and chips - lovely! I'm rather fond of the occasional faggot too (can I say that?) oh sorry, I meant faggot. They are both similar in that you take all sorts of stuff that you wouldn't eat, chop it up, add some spices, and turn it into something delicious. Getting back to the Sabrina article though - impressive as 1000mm breasts sound, I think body measurements are normally given in centimetres rather that millimetres. Richerman (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
You obviously know more about this kind of thing than I do Richerman. Eric Corbett 15:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if Garnatálg would be as attractive to eat...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

No, judging by her expression. At least she has bananas. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
This has all become a little off-topic - perhaps I can interest those who are still hungry in some black pudding or for those claiming a GSOH, "Castle Aaaaarrrrrrggghhh" might be just the thing. Ben MacDui 14:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC) PS On the topic of ugly tags, perhaps we could request a bot that, after a reasonable period of time, would alert editors who placed them that no action had yet been taken by third parties and that they might consider doing so themselves? Preferably the message would be in a large font and accompanied by icons in lurid colours.
I've got a better idea. Anyone who adds the {{Unreferenced}} tag to an article should be tied to a gun carriage and flogged. I came across another one today, Loch Linnhe, an article on a beautiful place made deliberately ugly by this lazy vandalism. Eric Corbett 16:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
What really pisses me off is when someone adds an {{Unreferenced}} tag and googling the fact comes up with half a dozen references for it. Laziness in the extreme. The {{globalize}} tag is another one that really annoys me. People write about what they know - if it's different in your country then do some research and add something yourself. Richerman (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
That {{globalize}} tag is another one that really pisses me off. Why should an article on wife selling let's say have to include sections on wife selling in England, wife selling in France, wife selling in China ... If you want to write about wife selling in China then write the fucking article, don't make an existing one indigestible. And here's a question for MacDui. I'm half-Scottish on my mother's side and I was brought up on the west coast of Scotland until I was a teenager. If Scotland votes the wrong way in Salmond's referendum would I be able to apply for Scottish citizenship? My brothers and sisters were all born in Scotland, so presumably they would automatically become Scottish citizens? Eric Corbett 19:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I am happy an ugly POV tag on an article written with love (not by me) went today, after a discussion that mentioned: "I've seen many articles drained of any colour in the last two years through overly rigid application of well-meaning essays and guidelines; this is a big loss especially for biographies about colourful personages." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly with the ridiculousness of the "globalize" tag, your example illustrates the inherent ridiculousness of such things. Dana's cabbage article almost hit a speed bump at FAC over this sort of nonsense. Also agree that POV tags in unneeded places make for bland, meaningless articles. Montanabw(talk) 20:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
These tags are added by lazy ignorant people. Simple as that. Eric Corbett 20:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Or it's subversive advertising by sneaky multinationals trying to soften us all with tacky word associations....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Whatever it is, I worked hard on the workhouse article, and it's not finished yet. I can't even begin to imagine the dog's dinner it would look like if it had to include workhouses in Scotland, workhouses in Ireland, workhouses in Denmark ... Eric Corbett 20:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Eric I was wondering if you think Shemini Atzeret is fine for GA? I just looked at the bulleted sections and I find it very difficult to read and understand with lots of unfamiliar terms. Sourcing looks dodgy to me, blogs like this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

That shouldn't have been listed as a GA, for a number of reasons. Eric Corbett 19:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I see so many problems with it that I think I'll open a GAR on it. I've started Talk:Shemini Atzeret/GA2 if you Eric or anybody else here feels like commenting on it. I'm not sure how long it should typically be kept open but a week for starters seems fair to allow them to improve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

forum
Thank you for content such as today's Chadderton, for adding quality to the articles of others, for speaking up to the point with "amore e studio elucidandae", and for running your talk as a fascinating forum of ideas and beers, - and yes, to quote you, "we need some perspective", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 September 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 139th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style. What do you think of "move at greater [speed] than the speed of consensus because any large discussion results in no consensus"? - Thank you for today's Cotswold Olimpick Games, it's your day! Thank you for leaving the Olympus of an awesome Wikipedian (never a Wikipedian anyway) to be a human Olimpick gamer, Eric ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, very kind of you. Eric Corbett 12:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
How do you like the game BWV 39 for GA? (I will have to ask Bencherlite if he scheduled on your day on purpose.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
ps: tell George that I mentioned Little Moreton Hall as an example (although I don't like it so much) (you have to scroll, infobox discussions grow fast) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
did I say "grow fast"? - reached the swamp again, look for "gang", that's probably me ;) - but BWV 103 (You shall weep and wail) is almost GA now, the other still open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you remember polishing the lead of several articles, including Franz Kafka? If you have a few moments: 1) I started the blurb for TFA, improvement welcome. 2) I would like to see the writing of the pivotal "Das Urteil" (in one night, after meeting Felice Bauer) mentioned in the article lead. 3) Shouldn Kafkaesque perhaps be kafkaesque? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Now this is Kafkaesque:
HULLABALLOO: {(unblock)} I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque. It is not disputed that I did not make the edit for which I was blocked.. (snip)
SANDAHL: You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name.
-- Hillbillyholiday talk 22:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
By now the swamp event seems also Kafkaesque, - at least the term "off topic" is mentioned eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Can't believe the infobox rubbish is still rumbling on when it would be so easy to solve by banning Andy Mabbett for another year. Eric Corbett 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
That would not help at all, they would still have to deal with me ;) - I wish him good recovery. - Kafkaesque: he started "stalking", a few edits later it was "infobox" again, he was caught by emergency surgery, but - as you said - it's still "rumbling on", - thanks for a new phrase, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Kafkaesque: it's his birthday, you saw it on Google or the Main page, even without you improving the lead ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That's good. Was I supposed to have improved the lead? Eric Corbett 14:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
BTW, I saw on the BBC News web site yesterday that "shitstorm" is now an official German word, maybe in exchange for your very perceptive "schadenfreude". Eric Corbett 15:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I saw that too, but in a far more respectable source. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 15:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
"The French don’t even have a term for ‘bell end’, that’s how far behind they are." That's unbeatable. Eric Corbett 15:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Define "supposed". Read above for the expression of a certain hope in the matter. - If you read above about a kafkaesque thread, it was mercifully closed after three weeks ("the expectation of the community is the editors involved need to figure out how to get along") and archived, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
ps: While I never succeeded adding Hitler to a Bach cantata DYK for more clicks, I at least managed this little birthday gift: "DYK ... that translators of Franz Kafka's works must cope with ambiguous words like Verkehr, which refers both to traffic and sexual intercourse? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
SCOMN! (Snorted coffee out my nose)! Hugs to all! Great accomplishment! Montanabw(talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
What do you think about the myth that an infobox is supposed to summarize "the article"? (I just saw that mentioned a second time.) Kafka's infobox of course doesn't summarize his personality and creation, only some key facts, as a simple practical tool (with two endangered collapsed parameters), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I think that if infoboxes stuck to a short summary of the basic facts there wouldn't be half as much controversy surrounding them. The problem is with the metadata zealots like Andy Mabbett, who demand everything plus the kitchen sink in them. Eric Corbett 15:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
To answer the edit summary: I don't think Kafka thought of translation, - his prose is complicated - as probably he was. Would I like to have inspired Das Urteil? No! (Felice Bauer obviously did, inspire and like, they were engaged twice.) - Andy: I would like a citation, not for the kitchen sink, but for "demanding" and "everything", both terms. The Andy I know (is it possible that he has changed?) is a master of being short, also of (self?-)irony. - As I was not part of the longest opera on Wikipedia in 25 acts (see my talk for that, "25 acts" appears twice), I supplied some recent evidence, awaiting The Judgement ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Remember Andreas Scholl? Just heard him, singing not only BWV 82 and BWV 169, but as an encore the Agnus Dei from Teh Mass on top of my talk! - I used the image to illustrate the longest opera, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
2 more pics. - The kafkaesque longest opera keeps us waiting for Teh Judgement, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The pic now decorates my talk and user, - image of an impressive concert (no opera, five young men singing psalms in Hebrew article under construction), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Update: now I show other fascinating music and a bit of campaigning there, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
New pic there: the latest GA by GA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
New pic pumpkin --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC/U

I have just started Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eric Corbett. It is still empty for the moment, I'll start filling it out soon. You are welcome to present your perspective, opinions, evidence, solutions, ... although you are obviously not obliged to participate. My aim (perhaps naively) is to decrease tensions, find solutions and compromises, so that you can focus on productive editing and no further blocks (for anyone involved) and long discussions are needed. I hope that you are willing to give this a shot. Fram (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Fram, were there proper enforcement mechanisms you would be blocked indefinitely for disruption. Please stop hounding content contributors and start taking a collegial and cooperative approach to editing. Obviously you are not the only one, but we have to start addressing the pattern abusive admin behavior somewhere. Candleabracadabra (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
User:Fram, can you please move that out of RfC space so that it can be worked on prior to creation. That is one option that might have to happen, but I think it's premature - and that the fact that you're creating it empty is unhelpful. WormTT(talk) 08:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
WTT, "creating it empty" is what the template does: plezase try to file an RfC/U via the RfC pages and not have it empty. Fram (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is now at User:Worm That Turned/Eric Corbett, the rest of my above comment remains the same. Fram (talk) 08:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The overall issue really is "reaction breeds reaction". If everybody stopped reacting none of this would happen. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Baiting and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we all know how that will end up, but of course being blocked I can't take part in your lynching anyway. Eric Corbett 00:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you wish to be unblocked for the purpose of participating directly in the arbitration request? AGK [•] 00:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
For god's sake just say yes and defend yourself.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
No. Eric Corbett 00:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Then if you wish to make a statement, please post it here and somebody (probably a clerk) will copy it over. AGK [•] 00:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't wish to make a statement, there would be no point anyway. Eric Corbett 00:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I know you mean well, AGK, but the man was just blocked and had his own talk page fully protected by a member of the committee just a few short hours ago. If the goal is to calm things down a bit, the better offer might be to unblock him so that he can go back to writing his articles and ask him to refrain from engaging on the arbcom pages until the "proposed decision" phase. It's supposed to be about writing an encyclopedia (or so they say), right? --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 00:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't help but agree here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. The lack of even-handedness, from previous events, is not surprising, but it certainly does directly contribute to bringing wikipedia into (more) disrepute.  DDStretch  (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


Well, so far, we once again are well on our way to destroying wikipedia from within by running off content editors (or restricting them from doing the thing they do best) and at the same time allowing the people who actually know what they are going to be baited by trolls until they snap, at which point we go hug the poor "widdew baby twool" for being slapped by that mean grown-up who is trying to teach some manners. That recent piece by Sue Gardiner about the curmudgeonly old editor and the cub reporter notwithstanding, without the curmudgeon (and the illustrious Mr. Corbett is the epitome of that archtype), the cub reporter would publish misspelled rubbish lacking any semblance of proper grammar, spelling or punctuation. But Eric, you really could just tone down the four-letter words? You can say the same thing far more creatively. And it would be more fun for the rest of us in the peanut gallery if you were a more creative curmudgeon. You have a diverse array of advocates, give us something to work with, please. Montanabw(talk) 04:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

MT's point about this place's abysmal record when dealing with baiting is spot on. Reporting a baiter usually earns such pearls of wisdom as "just ignore them," "go take a walk until they go away," and so on. This from admins who supposedly know better. The problem has a much wider scope than Eric, and if people would just pull back from their myopic block fixation they might notice that. I know Montana's had some experience with serial baiters, and I've gotten involved in some of those disputes as well. Most of those baiters are tenacious, fixated little bastards, yet to a myopic observer they appeared somewhat civil so the usual platitudes about talking walks and deep breaths flowed. When you admin on a serious message board, baiters are among the first folks you whack with big sticks. Here...you enable them. Even promote them. Pathetic. Intothatdarkness 13:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Totally agree. It's a sad state of affairs.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#Request for data/evidence for my attempt to get some actual numbers on baiting. I would really like to see another count by someone who holds a different position than the editor who did the first count. Is anyone here willing to help? Please note that I have no dog in this fight. I just want decisions to be based upon evidence as opposed to impressions and anecdotes. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
The challenge is that I'm not just looking at baiting of Eric, but at baiting as a wider problem. And there will be many instances where people simply don't report it, or take the poor advice to "walk away" or "take a short wiki-break." That's harder to track. In this particular case, the whole thing seems to have had its origin in the Guy Fawkes talk page. I also have to admit that I'm wary of relying on numbers (even though I know that's the current fad here and elsewhere). Numbers are far too easy to manipulate and don't capture the actual human impact of this problem. Intothatdarkness 14:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Well I see the request for arbitration was withdrawn almost two and a half hours ago but no-one seems to have bothered to inform Eric - unless it was done by email. Richerman (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Why would anyone take the trouble to tell me? I'm just a piece of shit on the sole of the admin's shoes, or so I've been told. Eric Corbett 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eric_Corbett/Archives/2013/October&oldid=1142531482"