User talk:Eric Corbett

"It was reading the ultimate paragraph of this post: [1] that finally convinced me it was time to go, yes, Hans is quite right, I am stuck in a vicious circle and there was no likelihood of things improving."

— Extract from Giano's retirement statement

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)

Still xxxxall

I noticed you scrabbling about on the Inchcape rocks again. If island fever is troubling you I can recommend a splendid cure. Monro's Description could do with a copy edit by someone with a smattering of English and Scots prior to an attempt at FL - and if that doesn't cure you, nothing will. Ben MacDui 19:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm scrabbling about with Southey's poem really, yet to get back to the rock. Eric Corbett 22:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Islands, poetry, it's still rock and roll to me. Ben MacDui 09:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That's quite a piece of work MacDui. Eric Corbett 22:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I had a lot of help of course, especially from the amazing, multi-lingual Akerbeltz. I like a good mystery and it was quite an exercise, beginning with the Auld version and various attempts by modern authors to interpret their own patch. It was only when I got hold of a copy R. W. Munro that it started to fall into place. Many thanks for your help. Ben MacDui 09:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Interesting...

I'd never heard the term "wife-rent" used. Merchet I'd heard of. Here. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term wife-rent either, interesting indeed. But if we were to write something on that I despair of the wallies who'd want to add something on Wife-rent in Somalia, Wife-rent in Zambia ... Eric Corbett 03:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The Thatchers with the Reagans standing at the North Portico 1988

The image entitled, "The Thatchers with the Reagans standing at the North Portico of the White House before a state dinner, 16 November 1988" lacks a reference. 88.104.29.216 (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It does indeed, but so what? Eric Corbett 19:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought that |verifiability was an important part of Wikipedia, I'm surprised you dismiss it with "so what". Just because it is a picture caption makes no difference at all. 88.104.20.198 (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know the provenance of the image then click on it and have a look. Eric Corbett 11:21, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

4 Hamilton Place

I passed this through Articles for Creation earlier today, and it looks in a bit of a sorry state. Can anyone here help clean it up a bit? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Needs quite a bit of work. Eric Corbett 19:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I know you like a challenge ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Taiko

Hi Eric. Can't say I've done very much content work in terms of getting articles to GA (and never bothered trying to get one to FA yet), but I'd like to start with the one above. It's currently going through a GAN, but I wanted to ask if you had any suggestions for making it better. I've worked a lot on this one, but I think it has a long way to go. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW, this horrendously long "other references" list is something that was there before I started editing the article, and I figured I'd keep it there because it might be useful for readers (and for future improvements). I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's the kind of article I hate. Taiko in Brazil, taiko in Australia ... hopeless really. Eric Corbett 03:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see a different organization to the article that better integrates those sections someplace else. I'll see what I can do. Anyway, thanks. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Margaret Thatcher

You know, I really don't care about that cn tag. I was only doing it for the edit requester. But I do think that, after I stuck my head over the parapet for you over the not-a-wikipedian nonsense ([2], [3]), you might have tried to be gracious. You can have your uncited sentence by all means. I'll stick my head over other parapets, for sure; it's something I do. Just probably not for you. Ciao, --Stfg (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you apply any logic or common sense to the requests for citation? Why should I be gracious when you consort with an anonymous editor to basically vandalise the article? Eric Corbett 17:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Not only did I apply those, I explained it there. Of course, if the only way you can find to prop up your posture of omniscient superiority is to issue glib put-downs that make not the slightest attempt to address what was said, then those with insights that differ from your own can't expect you to be gracious. <shrug> It's one way to grasp for ownership, I suppose. --Stfg (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

As it happens I somewhat agree with what you've said about, for instance, observance in New Zealand, but you've banging this drum for far too long now. Eric Corbett 18:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Concealed shoes

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Concealed shoes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd forgotten all about that. Eric Corbett 17:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks also for finally convincing me that the GA process is utterly hopeless. Eric Corbett 17:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Wells Cathedral

I've put Wells Cathedral up for a peer review in the hope of pushing it towards a FA nomination. If you or any of your talk page stalkers would be kind enough to take a look that would be great.— Rod ^talk 16:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing isn't something I'm likely to be spending any more time on in the future. Eric Corbett 17:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Concealed shoes

The article Concealed shoes you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Concealed shoes for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Midnightblueowl -- Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Date ranges

Greetings. I noticed that you made this edit (and many others like it) with the sarcastic edit summary "ever read the MoS?" I was wondering if you could point me to where in the MoS it says that a fully specified date range (e.g. 1945–1965) is discouraged. I want to make sure I'm doing it right in the future. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 20:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you take the trouble to read the fucking MoS? Eric Corbett 20:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your format fixes and legitimate contributions, but your rudeness and general incivility are unacceptable on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If ever I feel in need of your opinion then I'll be sure to rattle your cage. Eric Corbett 20:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

No need to be so snippy in this instance, it was a legitimate question since the main page of the MOS doesn't specify it. Quadell, the line in question is A closing CE or AD year is normally written with two digits (1881–86) unless it is in a different century from that of the opening year, in which case the full closing year is given (1881–1986). For clarity, years with fewer than four digits may be written in full (355–372). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.43.236.11 (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many things

I admire those of you who continue to battle against the stupidity of "anyone can edit", but I'm afraid I'm no longer among you. I really do feel that now it's better to allow WP to sink under the weight of its own incompetent governance. Eric Corbett 21:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

From someone no doubt participating in and contributing to the "stupidity", could you clarify if is this another retirement or something different? Since the "governance" seems irrelevant, I'm not sure why editors improving articles couldn't just carry on regardless. Or is it just that sometimes you want to tell people to fuck off without rebuke? Just an honest question or two.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll continue to do as I please, as I always have. Eric Corbett 21:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That goes without question. I just wondered what this section was about, it seems startlingly similar to other "do as you please, I'll do as I please" sections. What's different? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't really care, but have you looked at the recent nonsense around articles such as Guy Fawkes Night and Margaret Thatcher? Eric Corbett 21:40, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I do care, but I have far more pressing matters in real life. I've tried to keep up with things but not everything, obviously. In any case, as you've said, you'll do as you wish regardless. I'll finally find some time in due course to catch up but it'll be too late, probably, for this episode. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Work it out for yourself. I won't be back here until some serious changes are made. Eric Corbett 22:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Guessing those "serious changes" happened? Point me to them if you get a fraction of a second. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Why don't you just fuck off? Eric Corbett 21:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem, I'd be honoured to do so. I'll take the wolf and tears with me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be finding it rather difficult to fuck off. Eric Corbett 00:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Rules

Rules are for guidance, you said, but where you said so, "guidance" is probably also not known. I spoke about teh rulez just before, and the witch ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Talking of rules

Talking of rules, someone drew my attention to this amusing little grammar quiz and it made me think of you, I was disappointed to only score 84% - especially as I think its American and I wanted to be better at grammar than they are. Interestingly I came unstuck on the bit about apostrophes and year's/years' - I really never knew that before; did you?  Giano  17:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I did know that, yes, so 100% for me. Eric Corbett 18:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Me too, but you'd never know it when I start writing. J3Mrs (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

My other stumbling block which has always baffled me, is when to use 'that' and when to use 'which', can you put it onto simple language for me? Oh yeah and do commas go inside or outside speech marks?  Giano  19:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You use which when you could drop the clause it introduces without changing the sense of the sentence. As in "My car, which needs servicing, is a Jaguar". As compared to "My car is the one that is red". I never put commas inside speech marks, but some people do if the comma itself ends the quotation. I think that's a silly notion though. Eric Corbett 19:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit, @Giano: “which” in the first example above is what’s termed a non-defining relative pronoun, while “that” in the second is defining—compare with the indefinite and definite articles (“I drive a rattly car” / “I drive the red car”). Which is frequently used in the latter case as well; this is grammatically unexceptionable, but Fowler and others recommend avoiding it because of the potential ambiguity between defining and non-defining senses, which can sometimes only be distinguished by the absence or presence of a comma. OTOH it‘s never right to use that to head a non-defining clause.—Odysseus1479 03:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Eric, while we are on the subject of punctuation, which is your preferred way of writing the following..."In November 2013 Bloggs bought an Austin Healey 3000..." or "In November 2013, Bloggs bought an Austin Healey 3000...". It is a comma that has confused me for a long time. Some use it, others don't. Any thoughts? --Cassianto^Talk 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The first, but I'm led to believe that American schoolkids are incorrectly taught the latter. Something to do with a silly rule that there should be a comma after every subordinate clause, a bit like the equally silly rule that sentences ought not to start with a conjunction. I've long thought that the American government ought to impose a tax on commas. Eric Corbett 20:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps they think they own it like the moon ;) --Cassianto^Talk 20:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We like commas. Commas create clarity. Commas are safe. In the USA, a phrase like "the panda eats, shoots, and leaves" requires many, many commas lest we be accused of being soft on gun ownership by the NRA.  ;-) But, I will freely begin a sentence with a conjunction, though I am frequently criticized for doing so. And yes, we are taught this from elementary school through college. UK and US English differences are not confined to the silly way YouPeople spell things with too many letters and the weird terms you have for things like the hood and the trunk of a car ... :-P Montanabw^(talk) 05:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

About those things we spell with too many letters, do you mean things like your "elevator" which is our "lift", or your "apartment" which is our "flat", and then there is the American couple I heard of who had a pet dog whose name they spelt "Phideau" (our "Fido"). Even your "trunk" has one more letter than our "boot". I think we're about equal, actually.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I was always taught (admitedly by a Sicilian who pronounce 'th' as 'da', that one never puts a comma before 'and' is that correct. I always do now, but onlybecause so many other people do and I'm a flocking animal.  Giano  08:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Well if you're a flocking animal, flock knows what I am. Nortonius (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Giano. Your Sicilian teacher was wrong. Just think of the now well known Eats, shoots, and leaves. Eric Corbett 15:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Like most priest he was wromg on a number of levels! However, if one were to say "they went into the garden and fornnicated" would one have a comma before the and or not? I would say not.  Giano  16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Depends. If they fornicated in the garden then no, but if they went into the garden and then fornicated potentially elsewhere, i.e, the two events are essentially unrelated, then yes. Eric Corbett 17:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

(watching) makes sense! (never did so far) - Ping for Chéreau, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Most confusing. I shall continue as I always do - write it and then sprinkle the odd bit of punctuation on the top.  Giano  17:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Without the comma you're saying that they went out and fornicated in the garden. With the comma, you're listing the things they did: they went out into the garden and they fornicated, not necessarily in the garden and not even necessarily in that order. Eric Corbett 19:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I see, so they might "have gone into the garden, admired the flowers, watered the lawn, and then went into the summer house, which was heated, and fornicated."  Giano  22:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  Quite. At least that's my take on it. Eric Corbett 22:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Your question

Hi Eric, last night you asked a question. I don't know who is demiurge1000, but I know something about him. He's one of the nastiest users one could come across on Wikipedia, and he has something of a sadist in him. On Wikipedia his greatest interest is corporal punishment, and all other articles about school punishments. He's the second top contributor to corporal punishment. As a matter of fact Demiurge1000 used to have this user box at his user page. The user box was made by his special request. He also likes to mentor young boys-editors, and sometimes his "mentoring" is taking place off-Wiki and against the wishes of the parents. Another example that could help one to understand who is Demiurge1000: a few months ago a plane crashed in San Francisco. It was a horrible disaster, with three teenaged girls killed, and dozens were badly hurt. What a normal person would say, when he/she is told about such disaster? Now let's see what Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) says: http://wikipedialogs.com/logs/wikipedia-en2013-07-06.txt

• Jul 06 15:07:57 <Slopabottomus> Asiana Airlines Boing 777 crashes while landing at San Fransisco Airport

  Jul 06 15:08:16 <Demiurge1000> Would be more dramatic if it was a Dreamliner 50.143.131.96 (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've had my own unpleasant experiences with Demiurge1000, as I'm sure have many others. Eric Corbett 15:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Grammar advice "however" and "proven"-v-"proved"

Wells Cathedral is currently undergoing a very helpful peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Wells Cathedral/archive1 (prior to a possible FA nomination). The reviewer has questioned the use of "however" in the sentence "Theories explaining their construction at these secular cathedrals range from processional to aesthetic; none, however, are proven." (and also suggested the use of "proven" may be controversial). Could you (or any of your talk page stalkers) suggest a better wording to avoid these issues?— Rod ^talk 09:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I would think an unproven theory remains a theory, as opposed to a fact? Parrot of Doom 11:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I share the view of Karl Popper that theories can never be proven, only disproven, so I'd simply drop the last part of the sentence after the semicolon. The semicolon is incorrect anyway, as what follows ought to be a complete sentence. And to take an even more strictly Popperian stand I'd suggest that theory is questionable as theories have to make testable predictions, so I'd probably say these are ideas rather than theories. Which would leave us with something like "Explanations for their construction at these secular cathedrals range from processional to aesthetic". Eric Corbett 14:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I've used your suggested wording. Also thank for sorting the possessive apostrophe. Would you have any thoughts on the query about the volunary choir "spending the first two sentences in the singular and then becomes plural for the rest of the para" as spotted by the reviewer.— Rod ^talk 15:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that later, got to pop out now. Eric Corbett 15:35, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's a trickier one. The Vicars Choral on the face of it looks it should be considered a plural, but that leads to the sort of nonsense seen in almost every article on a pop group, such as "The group continue to play live on a regular basis ...". In what universe is group a plural noun? Also, if Vicars Choral is considered a plural then so should Wells Cathedral Voluntary Choir, but "The Wells Cathedral Voluntary Choir are a mixed adult choir of thirty members" just looks ridiculous to me. On balance I'd rewrite wherever possible to avoid the singular/plural distinction, and where that's not possible go for a consistent singular. Which I've had a go at doing, so see what you think. Eric Corbett 19:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think all the edits you are doing are great. As you know my knowledge of grammar is limited and I'd willingly go with your changes. When looking again at the first paragraph of the Cathedral Choir section I did notice two occurrences of "since" very close together on the first line and "alternately" on the third - but I have no idea how to improve them.— Rod ^talk 20:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

My knowledge of grammar is probably no better than yours, I just go by how the language feels to me. Eric Corbett 20:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Many collective nouns can be construed as either singular or plural. From Fowler, under NUMBER: “Such words as army […] may stand either for a single entity or for the individuals who compose it, and are called nouns of multitude. They are treated as singular or plural at discretion—and sometimes, naturally, without discretion. The Cabinet is divided is better, because in the order of thought a whole must precede division; and The Cabinet are agreed is better, because it takes two or more to agree. That is a delicate distinction [… I]f the decision whether a noun of multitude is to be treated as a singular or as a plural is often a difficult business, and when ill made results at worst in a venial blemish, failure to abide by the choice when made, and plunging about between it and they, have and has, its and their, and the like, can only be called insults to the reader.“ Burchfield says, “In BrE it is in order to use either a plural verb or a singular verb after most collective nouns, so long as attendant pronouns are made to follow suit […] By contrast, in AmE the choice is much more restricted. For such words the following verb and any attendant pronouns are usually in the singular.“

The article says, “The Vicars Choral and the choristers generally perform together except on Wednesdays, when singing alone the Vicars Choral have the opportunity to present a different repertoire.” Here I would write “has” rather than “have“, as ISTM the Choral would be a single entity with respect to its repertoire—but I may be biased because plural collectives are nearly as rare in CanE as they are in AmE. More importantly, I note that this is a run-on sentence: the comma should be replaced by a colon, semicolon or full stop.—Odysseus1479 20:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

They can indeed, but that changes the meaning. For instance, a family may be considered either singular or plural depending on whether we're talking about the family itself or the members of the family. In this case of the choir though I think it's clear we're talking about the singular choir, not its members. I agree with you about have vs. has in this case, I just missed that. Eric Corbett 20:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me from their website that "Vicars" is a plural noun and "Choral" an adjective, rather than "Choral" being a noun (wouldn't it be Chorale?) and "Vicars" a descriptor of some sort (which would need an apostrophe perhaps). So it has to be "... singing alone the Vicars Choral have the opportunity ...". PamD 23:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like that to me, for instance "The body of Vicars Choral has been in existence since the 1100s. Eric Corbett 23:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

In that example the grammatical subject is “The body“. That said, while I agree with Pam’s analysis, I’m not sure it requires plural agreement, being something of a fossilized term. It could go either way, but my instinct is to follow the underlying sense in preference to the outward form.—Odysseus1479 00:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't work. To continue the quotation it says "The body of Vicars Choral has been in existence since the 1100s, singing the daily round of divine services in the Cathedral in place of the canons. Initially they lodged among the townsfolk rather than on Cathedral grounds. So the singular body has been in existence since the 1100s, but initially they lodged in the town? Eric Corbett 00:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That’s definitely a problem, then, what I quoted Fowler above calling “plunging about”. “The body” is itself a collective term that can be either singular or plural (in BrE at least, and according to sense), but certainly not both in the same passage. Since the first sentence concerns the group as an entity, but the second the comprised individuals, I would recommend changing the latter to read something like “Its members initially lodged …”, which would agree with the change in number.—Odysseus1479 00:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not in charge of the cathedral's web site. Eric Corbett 01:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, lost the plot for a moment: read “… if the passage appeared in an article, I’d recommend ….”—Odysseus1479 02:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I think Today there are nine Vicars Choral and three Choral Scholars (their website) shows that the Vicars are individual people. PamD 10:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

And the OED (ah the joys of UK public libraries' online services!) defines "vicar choral" under "Choral (adj)" as b. choral vicar, vicar choral: ‘one of the officers of a cathedral whose duty it is to sing that portion of the music of the services which can be performed by laymen or men in minor orders. In some of the old cathedrals they formed a corporation, often jointly with the priest vicars. In many cathedrals the vicars choral were formerly in priests' orders’., and also lists it under "Vicar" where it says The pl. occurs in various forms, as vicars choral, †vicars chorals, and, rarely, vicar chorals.. PamD 10:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

That raises the additional question in my mind whether Vicars Choral ought to be capitalised in the article. If it is, then clearly it's a collective singular noun like the name of a band, and if it isn't it's referring to the members of the choir rather than the choir itself. Eric Corbett 14:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Policies in Scotland

Hi Eric, I wonder if I could impose on you to give me a note of the definition you found for 'policies' (house and policies) as used in Scotland? I seem to be stumbling on a number of instances when parkland, acreage etc. just doesn't feel right. Every other draft I'm working on at present seems to include it, so I could probably use a fairly standard note in them all. Maybe it's just because it's a term I'm familiar with but I hadn't realised it wasn't in common usage! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

From the OED: "The enclosed (and often ornamental) grounds, park, or demesne land surrounding a large country house." Eric Corbett 15:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow! That was mega fast - thank you, it's very much appreciated, especially as I've just typed 'and policies' into a draft article! SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

But they (or estate agents anyway) seem to use it for large gardens surrounding not very large country or suburban houses also. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Estate agents say all sorts of things. I think I'd prefer to go with what the OED says. Eric Corbett 02:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for your edits to Wells Cathedral! I like nearly all of them, even if I do seem a bit pedantic.... Amandajm (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Edinburgh#RfC:_Content_of_the_Lead

Posting this here as alot of people who lurk here (a) write and copyedit content about (b) towns and cities, and (c) may have some interest in Scotland. Rather than get in an edit war, I hope people will offer opinions at Talk:Edinburgh#RfC:_Content_of_the_Lead...and I don't mind/care/give a toss if people tell me I'm pissing up the wrong tree....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Punctuation question

"The newspaper asked "why should the law in this species of offence inflict a severer punishment upon a woman, than upon a man"." - the quoted material doesn't use a question mark, but the sentence, as I've constructed it, seems to demand one. So would you replace the full stop with a question mark, or leave it as is? Parrot of Doom 23:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't change the punctuation of the quotation, but you could alter your sentence slightly to put the punctuation outside the quote, as in "The newspaper asked "why should the law in this species of offence inflict a severer punishment upon a woman, than upon a man"? Eric Corbett 01:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I've done. Parrot of Doom 12:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have, in any of your sources on witches, anything I could use to put to bed the suggestion that many witches were burnt at the stake? AFAIK the reality is that this only happened in Scotland, and rarely. Parrot of Doom 16:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Any reputable history of heresy trials will include this fact as an aside—try the Historical Dictionary of Stuart England if you just want a quick-fix citation. The matter is complicated by the fact that a number of witches were burned after execution (to prevent resurrection and necromancy; in places where the vampire tradition is stronger, this tradition survived until very recently and possibly to the present day), and thus reports can legitimately say "she was sentenced to be burned and the sentence was carried out" or "500 suspected witches were burned" without actually meaning execution by burning.

The National Museum of Scotland has an excellent and dispassionate section on Scottish witch-trials, and could probably point you in the right direction to sources on the Scottish aspect. Given the crowd-pleasing status the subject currently has, I imagine they'd be delighted to help with something that would increase knowledge that the NMoS is more than Bonnie Prince Charlie's snuff-box and the handwritten lyrics to the Proclaimers' Scotland's Story.* – iridescent 2 17:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

*Before someone accuses me of stereotyping, both these items are on prominent permanent display.

(edit conflict) Where are we talking about? Even in Scotland the victims were invariably either hanged or garrotted before their corpses were burned, although I suppose there might have been a few cases where they weren't, or weren't quite dead when they were thrown on the fire, as in the case of one of the Paisley witches. Eric Corbett 17:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Just England right now (limiting the scope of this discussion to Britain). I've found instances of women in England being burnt alive before 1656 (excepting one accidental burning alive after then). But it appears that in Scotland, witches were burnt alive well into the 18th century. It's just that I've read here and there that the burning of witches in England is a common misconception, and I wanted to find out if there was any truth to that and if so, if it deserved mention. Parrot of Doom 17:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There were relatively few witches executed in England compared to other parts of the world, fewer than 500 between the early 15th and early 18th centuries, and I don't know of any that were burned alive; the penalty in England was hanging, as it wasn't witchcraft itself that was the crime but causing harm by witchcraft, very often murder or attempted murder, so the sentence was the same as for a murderer. How about this for a source:

In England the legal method of executing a witch was by hanging; after death the body was burnt and the ashes scattered. In Scotland, as a rule, the witch was strangled at the stake and the body burned.

Murray, Margaret Alice, Witch Cult in Western Europe: A Study in Anthropology, 2003, Kessinger Publishing, 9780766144552, p. 17.

Eric Corbett 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

PS. Burning witches at the stake happened quite commonly on the Continent of course, but not here. Eric Corbett 18:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. My understanding is that women were burnt only for treason (high and petty), presumably then witchcraft was never treasonous? Perhaps I'm looking at this from the wrong angle; perhaps the burning of witches in England is an urban myth that should be paid no attention? Parrot of Doom 18:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Causing harm by witchcraft was a crime like any other, not treasonous. Except I suppose if it could be "proved" that the king had been in some way harmed by witchcraft. But even the North Berwick witches, who were accused of raising storms against the fleet accompanying King James VI back from Denmark to Scotland with his new wife, were strangled before being burned. England actually had a relatively relaxed attitude towards so-called witches, except for temporary aberrations such as Matthew Hopkins, and unlike Scotland even forbade them to be interrogated under torture. Eric Corbett 18:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you've got reliable sources claiming that witches were burned in England then it might be good to debunk that in your article. I'm only thinking about the inevitable talk page discussions on "why haven't you included the burning of witches?" Eric Corbett 19:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It's one of those subjects like Resurrectionism, where I'm having to effectively create a new article using multiple sources that each discuss different facets. There's no single book that covers the whole issue. Most sources are concerned with punishment in general, and owing to the much greater incidence of executed men, what material I can find on women is somewhat scant. The best sources I have, Gatrell and Devereaux, are an exception, but I admit I've only just started and there are probably more detailed books out there. Writing about the abolition of burning is easy, but writing about when burning started, how it developed (particularly through Mary's reign) and what exactly went on when women were burned, is much more difficult. I shall soldier on. Parrot of Doom 19:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of another common misconception, that all witches were women. But men were also charged with causing harm by witchcraft, and in fact two of the Pendle witches were male. Eric Corbett 19:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Based on this conversation, I've made this change. A reminder, if anything, of how much rubbish there is on this site, and how important it is to patrol the decent articles. Parrot of Doom 20:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to look very far to find rubbish on here. It would indeed have been a sad state of affairs if everyone accused of witchcraft was burned at the stake. In reality, at least in England, most people accused were acquitted. Eric Corbett 23:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a great article, thought I, as I searched to find the main contributor so as I could ask him for help with this. Is there anything you haven't edited on here? Parrot of Doom 14:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you remember that old football song? "He's here, he's there, he's every fucking where [insert name of player here]". Eric Corbett 15:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I also remember "The referee's a... The referee's a...", which given recent events is probably more appropriate :) Oddly enough I'm filming in Sheffield tomorrow for Soccer AM, so will be shooting at least one football chant. Parrot of Doom 15:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

One of my favourites. Football chants are rather interesting I think. I wonder if WP has the usual tedious stub on them? Eric Corbett 22:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Many referees certainly would benefit from a visit to Specsavers an optician (no promo allowed). Of course WP has a piss-poor chants article. Such things are in close competition with completely unverifiable stuff but at least there is some hope. I'd be astonished if there have not been academics who have made pronouncements regarding football chants and might see what I can turn up on JSTOR. I know that sociology is often derided as an academic discipline but, if nothing else, there'll be some history in there. And on the subject of history, what do you think of my overblown phrasing at William Beach Thomas? I've had a facsimile of all issues of the Wipers Times gathering dust on my bookshelf for several years and have finally got round to reading it - those guys were funny! - Sitush (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Can you tell me if you think the first paragraph makes sense? Essentially, treason wasn't legally defined back then, and people apparently weren't too keen on the idea that crimes could be committed against the state (king) rather than against one's lord. It seems that there was some effort to make high treason much worse than petty treason, at first, there being little distinction between the two. I'm just trying to set the reader up to understand how these laws came into existence. It's especially difficult because while many sources say that the 1351 act defined what was high and petty treason, my understanding is that the law only says what you can't do against the king - petty treason (not mentioned until 1421, some 70 years after the earlier act) seems to have developed separately. It's incredibly complicated and I may be going into too much detail. Parrot of Doom 13:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. Eric Corbett 22:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm going to restrict it to the burning of women, I don't fancy trawling through a tonne of books on Queen Mary... Parrot of Doom 16:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

thought for the day

we seem to have a link to WP:CHILDPROTECT ... I wonder if WP:AdultProtect will ever be a blue link. Just idle thoughts. — ChedZILLA 10:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

We certainly need one. I've been arguing for a "Don't be a cunt" essay to match the "Don't be a dick" one currently linked to from WP:CIVILITY. But of course there's no chance of that, even though there are far more cunts here than there are dicks. Eric Corbett 18:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Eric, there's time we both go beyond the pale. Personally? At this point in life I couldn't care less. Free knowledge is great, and I love the project - but the crap that's coming into it? .... Fuck that. You are an amazing writer, and even if you get hammered with the "be nice" shit - it doesn't diminish what you've done. Don't hate the kids that are trying ... we were young and bold years ago too. Thank you for what you have given. I personally do greatly appreciate it. — ChedZILLA 18:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I do go beyond the pale, but clearly some others do. Those sensitive flowers would do well do avoid to avoid knocking on my door. There's this meme that people on the Internet say things they wouldn't say to your face, but that's never been been my view. Although to be honest I haven't called anyone in real life a dishonest lying cunt in over four weeks now, so maybe I'm getting a bit soft in my dotage. Eric Corbett 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In the USA, we often are allowed to just pull out our favorite semi-automatic weaponry; we who resist and control the urge to open fire usually find that a useful side effect is we also learn to minimize our use of four letter obscenities. (Except in film and television, where we store them!) I generally only say shit, fuck and damn on your page, Mr. Corbett! (LOL) :-P Well, damn might appear elsewhere... and, with a Yankee fondness for indirect speech and clever euphemism, I am free with acronyms such as WTF, BOHICA or [[SNAFU] ! Montanabw^(talk) 03:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Oooh, I'm so scared! Eric Corbett 01:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Eric. Happy Holidays. I suggest you remove your last talk page comment. It's not appropriate or constructive. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Aw, come on Eric, please don't do that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree. We need to be careful for fear of what that sort of comment may lead to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  I can't keep up with all these complaints about what I say, far too many of them. But I think those complaining ought to spend a little time listening to their to their consciensces, if they have one. Eric Corbett 02:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Frankly I suspect that those that complaining have little conscience.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  I suspect you're right. Eric Corbett 02:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Click the link in my edit, if you didn't already. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
• I did take a peek. We all have a tendency to take ourselves far too seriously. Eric Corbett 03:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I looked as well and don't understand the point of using a humor link. I didn't find it funny in this instance Brad.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  You have to remember that I'm just a piece of easily replaceable shit. Eric Corbett 03:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

What I understand is that Brad's link could well be seen as a threat from an arbcom member. That is what I took from the exchange. The only thing is, Brad uses humor a great deal to defuse situations. Thank god (or the deity of your choice) I understand that or I would swear Brad just threatened your life. But I don't actually think that, just that others might. We should be far more careful how we attempt to use humor. Some won't find it as funny.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I thought it completely apt, and hilarious. It's the Onion, for pete's sake! Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, for the record, I was not threatening anyone's life. I don't think anyone could reasonably have inferred that I was, but I apologize if I am wrong about that. (Editing Wikipedia brings something new every day; I am fairly sure this is the first time the concepts of "Newyorkbrad" and "threatened someone's life" have been conjoined on-wiki.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Me too. SCOMN! (Snorted coffee out my nose). Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course you weren't. I said as much Brad...but that sort of humor is easily mistaken, that is the point. Don't you think you crossed some sort of line here. I do, but it is short of anything to worry about. You were just using humor to point out that copy editor's lives were threatened. Perhaps you will think about that the next time you use the Oniion in this fashion. My guess is you were more insulted by my comments than you were concerned about your own actions. But then humor is such a subjective thing...isn't it?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to take up any more of Eric's talkpage with what was meant as a silly throwaway comment, but I'd be interested in whether anyone else shares your concern about this. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I took it as a "silly throwaway comment", nothing more. Eric Corbett 04:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I took it as an attempt to defuse the usual drama with snark and humor (humour). I wholeheartedly approve! Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I would call it being over-sensitive, because a little thought and work would discover exactly what The Onion was like. Objecting to this would be much like people who object to the use of certain words under any

circumstances (like "fuck off") when they are merely used a colourful way of saying "buzz off". The automatic use of a list of word to block someone means that us admins are not doing our jobs carefully enough, since we could be simply replaced with robots if that is the kind of way we operate in this case. Think "Turing Test".  DDStretch  (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c*2) I have read the comments on the relevant talk page. But for the fact that he or she has already stopped, I would have thought a short block for making threats about reporting you and blocks from your complainant, Eric, could have been in order. I think you need to know things like this.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Some third/fourth opinions there would be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Done.  DDStretch  (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll just say that you (Brad) were clearly using humor (again, as I have stated). However, you should know that others are stalking Eric's page.. You made no indication that you meant this as humor. What you did was state that: " We need to be careful for fear of what that sort of comment may lead to." and linked to an article that stated as the headline: "4 Copy Editors Killed In Ongoing AP Style, Chicago Manual Gang Violence". That seems to have crossed a line Brad, whether you think it is a throw away comment or not.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

But the important part is that Eric saw it as a throw away comment. If he feels that way there is little more to discuss. But I would still suggest far more caution when linking the Onion with articles about dead editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) You are probably correct in my opinion, even if it would just be a case of removing the chance of drama from over-sensitive editors and admins waiting for a chance... (However, we must be careful not to be driven into a position where everything has to be wrapped in cotton wool and done in such a way that 18th century drama-queens have never any reason to swoon or reach for their smelling salts.)  DDStretch  (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we could just ask arb com members to refrain from using humor articles about killing copy editors in this manner, but I would probably be called names for that as well...--Mark Miller (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

But Brad just lost my support for Arbcom elections. Period. (not that that matters in any interpretation of this).--Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

But Brad isn't up for re-election, and I haven't taken offence at his humorous posting. What the Hell is going on here? Eric Corbett 05:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just me complaining about what I saw as rather insensitive, but you get the humor and that is really all that matters. (I actually like Brad and was just taken aback from what I thought crossed a line, but crossing such a line is in the eye of the beholder).--Mark Miller (talk) 05:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad and I haven't always seen eye to eye, or even ever seen eye to eye, but I've always thought of him as trying to be fair. Eric Corbett 05:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, which is why it seemed a little out of place, but then when one stops and thinks clearly, it isn't that far a cry from his official response to one of those arbcom cases that made me fall of my chair with laughter. I believe it was the Fuck off with the strike through. I get it...most of the time. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)renrenttly

There are far bigger fish to fry, such as the anonymous priest calling me a git. Not something I'd be expecting any priest to do, but apparently it's OK here. Eric Corbett 06:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Eric, I was already commenting about that on the relevant admin board before I saw your message about it.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it's OK for me to be called a git, not at all uncivil. But if I call someone an idiot, or even sycophantic, I get blocked. Eric Corbett 14:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't all right, and I've made that point on the admin board thread, though been attacked for doing so.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobody in "authority" really cares is the truth. They're just interested in editor numbers. Eric Corbett 16:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think we need to restore the default "if you are not willing to [have your edit be edited] then do not submit it language in the editing frame. Why did that ever get tossed, anyway? Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• The content dispute seems to be resolved as far as I can tell per what appears to me to be a strong consensus on the article's talk page (and in discussion elsewhere including the edit war noticeboard page). Perhaps one of the kind admins here can remove the page protection so editors can resume work on the article? As it's being worked up for FA it seems there is a timing issue and some frustrations have been expressed regarding the protection issue. I think leaving a page protected for an extended time over this type of dispute can in fact be a kind of disruption and in this case there doesn't seem to me to be much of a remaining dispute? Numerous editors have weighed in. I wouldn't think more would be needed but I suppose an RFC could be conducted it the outcome isn't abundantly clear already? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems suitable. Everyone, move along now? Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't ever move when I know I'm right. I'm that well-known immovable object, which even the irresistible force can't move. Eric Corbett 21:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Another reason for everyone else to move along. Your lack of movement is beginning to remind me of Chuck Norris facts. Montanabw^(talk) 02:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Survival strategies

A discussion on the talk page of Wells Cathedral has made it very clear to me that one needs to develop strategies for survival as an editor here on Wikipedia. Some choose to go down the "meek as a mouse" route (not really my style), trying never to upset anyone. Others form gangs on IRC in an effort to have their enemies blocked. Yet others create multiple sockpuppets to create the illusion that a particular editor is widely despised and should be ejected from the mythical community.

For myself, I'm considering only working on articles I've substantially created myself, or those I'm asked to help out with by those I trust. The others can go hang. Eric Corbett 16:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, and that was editing in the house of God too, which is supposed to sacred. Please don't blame Rod (who asked you) it's not his fault; the problem, as I know to my cost is when you start to edit a big, famous building, every tourist who has ever used its public loos think they are an expert on it.  Giano  16:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't blame Rodw, but there's a limit to the number of times one can be insulted (patronising git from a self-proclamed priest comes to mind) and still be interested in contributing. Eric Corbett 18:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that I may return to FAC reviewing, as it seems to be pretty much the only way you can get editors to listen to reason. Eric Corbett 18:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

My dear, dear son, may I invite you to pray with me? I do hope you're not suggesting that their may be bogus priests on Wikipedia. Oh pray, do perish the thought. Let's have a cup of tea and then pop along to Benediction together and pray for the salvation of your poor, overtaxed soul. Rev Dr Augustus Deepthought (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but be reminded of the reverend User:Pastor Theo, who did a great job at impersonating a man of the cloth. But of course he's by no means the only one to have done that. Eric Corbett 20:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And then there is that pathetic colonial female, User:Amandajm, one of the major contributors to the article, who, having thanked you for some previous edits, is now complaining of your bullying manner over a matter of preferred expression. Do we go with your minimal word "most" or her preferred "the majority of"?

Does it require sockpuppetry to deal with your bullying? Is that the usual method? Bill Paterson.

What a confusing username. Which is it, Amandajm or Bill Patterson? In reality I think that the faux priest Anglicanus ought to be investigated as being a sockpuppet of the ex-administrator Rodhullandemu, but that's separate story. Eric Corbett 01:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Complaint

I don't think I have ever complained before, but I really couldn't see any reason not to. [4] I not sure how to format this so as to link the section directly. It is No 34 on the current list

Amandajm (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I've rarely seen you do anything but complain. Eric Corbett 03:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Good God, Eric Corbett! You call yourself Malleus Factuorum. I ask you if you would be politer if I had a male name, and so very, very, VERY OBVIOUSLY assume one, linking it directly to my own page. And you Malleus Corbett etc, find it "freaky" that a male is using a female name?Amandajm (talk) 02:07 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've never called myself Malleus Factuorum Amanda/Bill. Eric Corbett 09:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Even the first four letters of Amandjm's user name puts doubt over the female assumed title. ;) Cassianto^Talk 10:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

If you follow the link you'll see that the user name is actually Amandajm, so not much doubt about the assumed female persona I don't think. There's no user:Amandjm registered. Eric Corbett 12:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, excuse my typo, I did of course mean Amandajm Cassianto^Talk 10:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

May the ghost of Leslie Nielsen hang (or be hung) around EC until he finishes freaking out. :-) Link to section and diff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Rude edit summary

I suggest that the edit summary you provided in a revert at Hanged, drawn and quartered was unnecessarily rude. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? I personally thought it was spot on. Especially for someone who has no other edits - it appears they don't have a grasp of basic grammar. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that you're also a fucking idiot BarrelProof. Eric Corbett 19:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and timely response. I will try my best to take it into full consideration in my future editing. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you been in touch with your fellow idiot yet, the one who believes that hung is the correct verb to describe an execution by hanging? Eric Corbett 19:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The source cited in the edit summary says that since the hanging in this context is only a prelude to the more lethal parts of the procedure, it should be conjugated as the ordinary verb, not as the means of execution. A silly claim IMO, and a distinction I’ve never seen being made elsewhere, but the editor may be more ill-advised than ignorant. (I take the fixed expression from sentences of execution, “hanged by the neck until dead”, to imply that the scope of hanged is not so narrow.) OTOH—abandoning my A of GF—it might just be a case of someone seizing on an excuse to troll.—Odysseus1479 23:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The explanation given in that link is completely incorrect, since the sentence was used many times over a period of centuries and during that time, not all traitors were cut down before they were strangled. Also, not everyone who was hanged ended up dead - some survived. Parrot of Doom 23:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

May I enter a competition for rude edit summary? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly that editor is no stranger to Wikipedia, and questions should therefore be asked. Eric, with all the fuss you may have missed my question above, but if you haven't I apologise and I'll leave you to it. Parrot of Doom 22:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

With all respect due to a book by a "publishing house" based in a farm outbuilding in Hitchin with a roster of three books, all by the same author, I'm more inclined to believe Brewer's, which is unambiguous that "hanged" is the correct form. (And LOL at "I don't think I've ever complained before" in the thread above—in all my time on Wikipedia I don't think I've ever come across anyone who spent more time complaining, and that includes the Peter Damians, Merridews and Ottavas who actually had something to complain about.) – iridescent 00:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

He's hanged, she's hanged, you're hanged, I'm hung (and swinging freely in the breeze). Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The idiot has the answer, and thanks for that BarrelProof, I don't expect to have my editing mocked in such a manner when it actually correct. My point is correct for modern English, but the phrase using 'Hanged' is most likely Ye Olde English; many old phrases are incorrect for modern linguistics. This isn't of course any help to a modern scholar seeking the correct English and finding not whiff of an explanation as to why this isn't the case. I would therefore suggest that this is added to the article but I fear the overlord may edit it out and name me Sir, a fool. Just because you have been editing Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time doesn't mean you are always right. The modern English term 'Hung, drawn and quartered', the term that I have known since childhood, being as I was, born in Merry Olde England gives a specific referral to that fact that you would have been hung up, as opposed to hanged, which in modern English means you are hung by the neck WITHOUT support and therefore killed by this singular process. The hanging up of a person is NOT the point of the sentence. It's really not as fun to cut of someone's entrails and burn them in front of them if the are already dead. The Ye Olde English would be intended to mean the same but does not clearly differentiate, hence I would assume, the change. I also corrected some basic spelling errors, did you also change those back when you undid my edit? I hope you were thorough, Sir. Psyzzlewazzle (talk) 08:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Whoever you are, whichever account is your main (or blocked) account, you're talking right out of your arse. Parrot of Doom 09:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have taken great offence to your edit summary. It's not on Eric, your comments are designed to belittle people like me. --212.187.138.114 (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I am a fucking idiot as well, so don't worry about it, I thought it was hung, not hanged as well. So today I learnt something new. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I never met an idiot I didn't like!—John Cline (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I was once told that I'm "hanged" like a donkey ;-] ...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If the person is left hanging, the neck gradually stretches until the feet reach the ground. I think this may be an explanation for the name of Robin a'Tiptoe Hill in Leicestershire. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't Eric Corbett horrible?! I think he should apologise to us. Eric Corbett, I demand you apologise! 212.187.138.114 (talk) 13:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

IP, no he is not horrible, he was right, accept the lesson and move on. Xanthomelanoussprog, according to Cross Country: English Buildings and Landscape From Countryside to Coast the guy was so tall that he stayed on his tippytoes till his mates came and cut him down, not cos he was there so long his neck stretched. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

IP, Considering your summary here, don't you consider that just a little hypocritical? - SchroCat (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage makes the comment "If you make a point of observing the distinction in your writing, you will not thereby become a better writer, but you will spare yourself the annoyance of being corrected for having done something that is not wrong." --Boson (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The OED's definition of hanged is "Put to death by hanging by the neck". That ought to be good enough for anyone. Eric Corbett 16:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The OED also says "though hung is used by some, esp. in the south of England" immediately afterwards, and quotes (among others) Shelley as having written "These men were..at last brought to the scaffold and hung". The point being made is that an edit summary such as "hanged is also correct and more usual" would have served just as well. The insult was unnecessary. DrKiernan (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't say that in the edition I was looking at. Pictures are hung, people are hanged, and in this particular instance the relevant article is about the legal sentence invariably known as hanged, drawn and quartered. So it's not a case of what's "more usual", it's a case of what's correct. Eric Corbett 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Ignore this trolling ip, he just restored an infobox to Peter Sellers. If he continues he'll be blocked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

If you come along to a featured article, make changes without discussion and suggest that the title is grammatically incorrect with an edit summary that says you are "shocked this was once a featured article" then you can expect a less than polite response. A simple Google search of "hung or hanged" would have shown that the interpretation at trackerpress was a minority opinion. Richerman (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Did any of you actually read what I wrote and are any of you actually English?? Everyone I have asked today here in England, including English teachers, say it is hung. The sentence is NOT for a person to be hanged. Sentencing a person to be hanged is a death sentence by hanging, whether the person dies or not in this process is irrelevant, that is the intention. Take a look at the picture at the top of the article. The man is not hanging, he is hung up, like a coat on a hook. He has not been hanged, he is hung. The intention is not to kill the man by hanging. The intention is that the man is hung up so that the gruesome sentence is undertaken whilst he is still alive and in the displaying of the body by being hung up, (a coat is hung up NOT hanged up) the crowd can witness the sentence. http://www.trackerpress.com/reference/hanged-or-hung.php This link gives the correct English in modern day English; the meaning is the same as the antiquated 'hang-ed' (as was the pronunciation at the time), it is NOT the same as the modern use of the word hanged in every context. Well, I suppose you won't take my word for it, but I doubt a pub near Tower Bridge is going to be wrong.. http://hung-drawn-and-quartered.co.uk/ Psyzzlewazzle (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Where have you got "The sentence is NOT for a person to be hanged" from? The exact wording of the sentence was "You are to be drawn on hurdles to the place of execution, where you are to be hanged, but not till you are dead; for, while still living, your body is to be taken down, your bowels torn out and burnt before your face; your head is then cut off and your body divided into four quarters". Trackerpress is a one-woman self-publishing outfit, not a reliable source by any conceivable definition of the term. – iridescent 23:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Loving the idea that we're expected to think "a pub near Tower Bridge" is a better authority than the OED and Brewer's, though.

It's like watching a child having a tantrum after being told he can't have any chocolate. Parrot of Doom 23:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you consult a proper authority Psyzzlewazzle, instead wasting your time in a pub near Tower Bridge? You might start with Fielding's 1994 The Hangman's Record, in which "hanged" occurs 80 times, referring to the method of execution. "Hung" occurs only once, in the sentence beginning "Both men were still hung over from a weekend of drinking". Eric Corbett 09:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem might be that Psyzzlewazzle is not in fact anywhere near a pub in that area, but is instead thousands of miles away. Were he to visit England and venture into a pub near Tower Bridge, he might find that the regulars' approach to such questions would be to consult Wikipedia's article Hanged, drawn and quartered, to which Google would quickly lead them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Quite possibly, but in that case he or she is lying; "Everyone I have asked today here in England, including English teachers, say it is hung." Eric Corbett 22:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Eric was quite right to revert the incorrect change, which was also made with a somewhat inappropriate edit summary. As a matter of linguistic interest, though, I believe the phrase "hung, drawn and quartered" is quite common (compared with "hanged, drawn and quartered", of course), particularly (but not exclusively) in colloquial English. This may be because "hanged drawn and quartered" is either difficult to say or hardly distinguishable from "hang, drawn and quartered". I don't think many people would say "He should be hanged drawn and quartered for that edit summary!" This Google Ngram viewer output, showing US and UK usage is quite interesting, though there are a number of caveats.--Boson (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "I could care less" is also rather common, but equally incorrect. Eric Corbett 02:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Wrong for an entirely unrelated reason. A legitimate argument is that usage is evolving towards the obsolescence of "hanged". A usage argument is invalid with "I could care less". Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are making this claim? The OED, for instance, doesn't flag "hanged" as being obsolete. Let's remember that this is an article about the legal sentence, which was undoubtedly "hanged, drawn and quartered". Eric Corbett 20:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I never made the argument that it was correct—notice how I called it "wrong for an entirely unrelated reason"? I was pointing out the flaw in saying it was "equally" wrong as "I could care less", which is not just unaccepted by the OED—it's just plain wrong wrong wrong. I would never myself let another editor get away with "hung" for "hanged". Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Brabham BT46

Dunno what lunacy is going on above me. I'll point out https://www.google.co.uk/#q=hanged+site:legislation.gov.uk in the hope it provokes an outbreak of stunned silence for the numpty brigade above. Hanged refers to execution, hung refers to hanging up clothes in the eyes of British legislation.

Anyway, I was wondering if I could get you to give Brabham BT46 a quick read through and if possible, the quickest of quick copy edits to the intro, which sounds a bit clunky, I'm only asking as I can't figure out the best way to rewrite. Cheers, Nick (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It's just ignorant numpties trying to take the piss in an effort to get me blocked again. The Brabham though looks interesting. Tomorrow. Eric Corbett 01:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts?

What do you think of this? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why expert reviewers would want to edit Wikipedia for free. Eric Corbett 20:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Would you consider looking at this article and reviewing it for grammar, prose, etc.? I am trying to take it to FA, and while I can get the material together, I'm afraid that prose is not my strong point. That, and a number of people have told me that you are the best one for reviewing potential FA articles. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 20:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Brown and the Cherokee Nation ought to be examining their consciences. Eric Corbett 20:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate you taking a look at the article. GregJackP Boomer! 21:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you probably withdrew the nomination prematurely, as I don't see too much wrong with your article. Eric Corbett 22:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It is nice for you to say so, but it won't hurt it to wait a few days to resubmit, plus there are a couple who are going to make sure that I caught all of the right legal points (not that the media ever f's that up in its reporting). Again, thank you for looking at it for me. GregJackP Boomer! 22:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Home (The X-Files)

Hi Eric,

Do you have the time to review the prose? I have some reservations and would appreciate your opinion. Graham Colm (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

After a quick read through I've opposed its promotion at FAC. Eric Corbett 22:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If you aren't too busy, could you give me a quick idea how much work needs doing on the prose for this article, and how far away you think it is? I supported it earlier, and did some tweaking, so I feel slightly responsible for missing anything. I'm quite happy to give it another going over for prose, depending on how much you think needs doing. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still a little unhappy with certain aspects of the prose, such as "Mulder is a believer in the abnormal". Well, we're all believers in the abnormal, so what does this really mean? Paranormal? Eric Corbett 21:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've had another look through, and tidied what I can. If you get another chance to look, I'd be grateful, but I think I've done all I can for the article now and had better leave it to the nominator. I promise not to keep coming back, as I'm not too sure how I got involved in the first place! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you've done a good job with that. I'll have another look through tomorrow and probably drop my oppose. Eric Corbett 23:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

MOS number advice for Wells Cathedral

Who is the best person to ask for advice on MOS number issues? On Talk:Wells Cathedral#Some further comments there is a comment about "Some inconsistencies in number formatting, you use numbers for measurements and centuries but "four hundred" and "twenty-four" you use words, but you are at least consistent with this other than the measurements and centuries." and I'm not sure what to do. Any other help with the comments would be appreciated but recognise that editing Wells Cathedral has been confrontational in the past and I don't want to make that worse.— Rod ^talk 11:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Me, but I'm not going to get involved. Eric Corbett 11:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems the MOS guidelines permit this, my point was that numbers were used for the centuries but not the other. Usually if I see somebody write the numbers in words I see centuries written as words too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification request: Argentine History

Hello Eric, can I please ask you to self-revert this edit or, at least, rephrase your comment? The part about Sandstein being aroused by blocking others is a personal attack and detracts from the point you're trying to make. As I'm sure you know, statements such as that one make it easier to ignore another person's complaint, without even examining its merits... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You can certainly ask. Eric Corbett 22:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I see the entire Argentine issue is still not resolved....somehow I didn't think this was going away fast.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no, then... And will restore AGK's edit myself; please, do not revert. Good night. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

What you may take it as is that I think you're a complete arse. Eric Corbett 23:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Jaguar XJ220

Worth a punt for Featured Article ? Nick (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Not worth the effort. Eric Corbett 00:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. My favourite car, hence my username. I'll be happy to help out. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Borley Rectory

The item you reverted back into the lede is not represented in the main article. If you think it's important enough for the lede (which I don't), you should insert an extended version of this item in an appropriate place within the main article, perhaps in a new section. Valetude (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't talk wet. Eric Corbett 13:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Your rudeness is totally unwarranted, quite apart from breaching Wiki rules of civility. To refresh your memory, the lede is supposed to summarise the main article. Your insertion does not conform to this requirement. Valetude (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC).

I'd resolve this [minor] issue by finding out when she died and moving the disputed text to a position somewhere before the point where she admits having made it all up. And I'd rename the critical reception heading or remove it altogether, as it seems quite inappropriate for this subject. Parrot of Doom 14:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not happy with that Critical reception section name either as it happens. That section was originally called Society for Psychical Research investigation and was changed quite recently for some unknown reason, so I've changed it back. And I've really got no time at all for the slavish interpretation of what the lead may or may not contain as exemplified by Valetude. Sure, it has to summarise the article, but that's not all it can do. Eric Corbett 14:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The lead does indeed summarise the article, so your point is irrelevant. Nowhere is it set in stone that that's all the lead can be used for though. Eric Corbett 14:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

From the Wiki Guide: 'Each word, phrase, and sentence in a lead should be covered by equivalent content in the body of the article, preferably in the same order they appear in the article. The content in the body of the article will usually be longer and more detailed.' Valetude (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Try reading it again, all the words this time, even the big ones you don't understand. "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." The issue then becomes one of weight, and I don't consider the cancellation of the BBC programme to be all that significant. Interesting perhaps, but not significant to a discussion of the rectory and its hauntings. Note also that it says "should not", not "must not". Eric Corbett 15:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I realize that mentioning civility to you only gets an open laugh, but Eric, what is wrong with you that you talk to people like this? It's not effective to express your points, and it harms the encyclopedia by making everyone's experience nastier. This has been pointed out to you many times, of course, and I realize that the most likely explanation for why you so consistently ignore the advice is that you're someone who can only feel big when belittling others through the comfortable distance of the Internet. But I'll never understand why otherwise sensible admins like @Drmies:, @Crisco 1492: and others always faithfully line up to defend this behavior. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What's wrong with you Khazar2, that makes you feel emboldened to talk to me like this? You simply haven't got a clue. Eric Corbett 13:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note: I don't recall "faithfully lin[ing] up" to defend Eric's rudeness. I'll drop a hint that he may want to stop if I see he's being a little short, but I can't recall defending his behaviour. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• You're right, Crisco, and I sincerely apologize. I'll e-mail you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
• The facts have no place here Crisco. Eric Corbett 13:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Fact is that you, Eric, have always treated me politely, possibly because I did the the same, - it could be easy. - In the above, I like the dislike of "slavish interpretation". Look at the move request of A Boy was Born where people think it's set in stone that we don't use the capitalisation of the publisher and most sources but house style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your page is an excellent place to spot the self-righteous and easily offended brigade, I think they must enjoy being offended as they visit so often. J3Mrs (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Intothatdarkness 14:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"... you're someone who can only feel big when belittling others through the comfortable distance of the Internet." I wonder if Khazar2 has the insight or integrity to recognise the absurdity of complaining to me about incivility while being incivil himself. Eric Corbett 15:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@Khazar. The thing is Eric isn't the type who goes about looking for trouble and makes it a point to go about the website picking on people. He doesn't set out to belittle people on his own accord does he? It's always when somebody turns up to complain about his work in his articles and he finds it irritating, as I do when somebody does it to me and being preachy about my content or deletion tagging me. I don't take deletion requests and negative comments well either, but that doesn't make me a bully or somebody who gets a kick out of being "big" over the Internet. It might seem rude to some people but Eric has zilch tolerance for people who turn up on his talk page who have reverted and start in a negative fashion, especially when he's usually right. Yes, he could probably be less abrasive at times, but I think he's one of the few people here who are honest with people. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Khazar retired, and I miss him, a third time, the voice for Human rights, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Good luck to the pompous windbag, but I certainly won't be missing him. Eric Corbett 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Retired tags don't really mean anything, anyhow. Intothatdarkness 16:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I recently had a very slight but equally very pleasant and constructive interaction with Khazar2, in the GA review of Grandaddy: actually I was struck by the similarity of Khazar2's approach to a GA review to Eric's, for what that's worth. My experience is that I often get a good idea of who people are by working with them: that's how I formed a highly positive impression of Eric, and I got a positive impression of Khazar2, too. I think Eric's critics would do well to adopt the same approach, but generally it seems too much to ask. So, from my own experience, I wish Khazar2 well, but I agree with Dr Blofeld's assessment immediately above. Nortonius (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

But that would require, you know, actually working on those article thingies, something a staggering number of editors seem to know very little about. Eric Corbett 18:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant by adopting "the same approach", and it seeming to be "too much to ask" – it requires actually working on those article thingies, in a coherent way. I wasn't particularly referring to whether or not you could be less abrasive, that's none of my fucking business. ;) Nortonius (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course I could be less abrasive, but equally I could be a lot more abrasive. I'm no shrinking violet, and I don't take prisoners in real life, so I'm damned if I see why I should be expected to pussy foot around here. Eric Corbett 18:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that when a random user comes to your talk page, they do not expect you to beat them at being uncivil. Is a game they themselves start, completely sure that they can win, and then when they discover they are no equal to you at such a game, they go and file a complaint because you were uncivil, forgetting that they, themselves, were the ones who played the game first. I know for sure that my theory is correct because I've never seen you insult somebody out of the blue without them poking you first. So, if a lot of people stopped playing such games, you woulnd't have to play it either, and maybe we can all be happy :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Quite. I don't go looking for trouble, but neither do I back down from it. Eric Corbett 23:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Has anybody here seen Glengarry Glen Ross (film)?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Are you asking whether I've ever taken a dump made me feel like I just slept for twelve hours? Khazar, I don't know what I'm supposed to be having made apologies for here, and I don't really care so much. I think I've worked with you in the past, and I don't recall anything unpleasant; I thank you for ascribing sensibility to me. Your opening statement here wasn't exactly neutral, IMO, and while I would have responded differently (we don't "talk wet" in Alabama), it's common knowledge that I am not Eric Corbett. I've defended a lot of people here on Wikipedia, a lot of whom a lot less likeable than Eric, and most of them couldn't hold a candle to him in terms of writing. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  Are you sure you're not me? I bet the CUs are on the case already. But Khazar's not interested in the truth, simply trying to make a point at my expense. Isn't there some policy against that? Is that why he's gone into temporary hiding under the retirement banner? Eric Corbett 21:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  What Khazar said was uninformed and rude, but I'd like to vouch for him nonetheless. He's done a lot of good here and I'll miss him. Now I will stick my nose out again. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

  Strangely enough I find I can very easily do without uninformed and rude, so fuck him. If you ever see me going to a random user's talk page and abusing him or her as Khazar has abused me then please feel free to bring down the wrath of God. But it makes me sick to my stomach to see the vapid responses on his talk page about bullying, when I get blocked for using the word sycophantic. Just who the Hell is being bullied here? Eric Corbett 22:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Bullying

How is bullying defined here on Wikipedia?[5] Eric Corbett 02:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you asked, bullying is the attitude that made you feel comfortable saying to Khazar2 above, "What's wrong with you Khazar2, that makes you feel emboldened to talk to me like this? You simply haven't got a clue." You're basically asking him what right he has to criticize you, which implies that you are superior to him. Well, guess what: we don't like your acting like you are better than anyone who disagrees with you. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 03:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

How interesting and very revealing that you (We? How many of you stupid cunts are there?) choose to ignore the comment from Kzahar that I was responding to, which to remind you was "you're someone who can only feel big when belittling others through the comfortable distance of the Internet." Still, whatever makes you feel justified in your own stupidity justifies your stupidity I suppose, at least in your own mind. Eric Corbett 03:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Eric, if you're going to complain about someone calling you a bully, does it really make sense to, in the very same post, make remarks about what you consider to be my 'stupidity'? You get called a bully because you act like one. I have tried in the past to respect you, but it's awfully hard to respect someone who chooses to be abusive toward me (and many others). I don't expect you to listen to what I have to say, and this place isn't that big of a deal to me anymore anyway, but I do ask that you keep in mind that you are driving people away from the project with your abusive attitude. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 03:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)