| Revision as of 21:14, 28 October 2013 view sourceSpartaz (talk | contribs)Administrators52,776 edits →blocked: new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:08, 17 December 2024 view source Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators153,161 edits Happy Holidays! |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
<!--{{Notice|The Wikimedia Foundation is not a software development organisation, and ought not to be pretending to be one. Let's try and make that clear to them by a regular Monday boycott until they come to their senses.}} |
|
{{quote|text="It was reading the ultimate paragraph of this post: 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."|sign=<small>Extract from Giano's retirement statement</small>}} |
|
|
|
{{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} | Monday | {{wikibreak|message=It's Monday now, so I'll be gone until tomorrow.}} |}}--> |
|
<!--<center> |
|
<!--<center> |
|
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;"> |
|
<div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: #591b00 solid 2px; background: #FCC200; -moz-border-radius: 8px; width:75%;"> |
| Line 9: |
Line 10: |
|
|archive = User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s |
|
|archive = User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{sidebar |
|
{{sidebar with collapsible lists |
|
| outertitle = Archives |
|
| outertitle = |
|
| topimage = ] |
|
| topimage = ] |
|
| bodyclass = hlist |
|
| bodyclass = hlist |
|
| style = {{box-shadow}} {{border-radius}} background: #F8EABA; font-size: smaller; |
|
| style = box-shadow: 4px 4px 4px #CCC; border-radius: 8px; background: #F8EABA; font-size: smaller; |
|
|
| expanded = |
|
|
|
|
|
| contentstyle = text-align: left; |
|
| contentstyle = text-align: left; |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading1 = 2007 |
|
| heading1 |
|
| content1 = |
|
| list1name = 2007 |
|
|
| list1title = 2007 archive |
|
|
| list1 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 29: |
Line 33: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading2 = 2008 |
|
| heading2 |
|
| content2 = |
|
| list2name = 2008 |
|
|
| list2title = 2008 archive |
|
|
| list2 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 44: |
Line 50: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading3 = 2009 |
|
| heading3 |
|
| content3 = |
|
| list3name = 2009 |
|
|
| list3title = 2009 archive |
|
|
| list3 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 59: |
Line 67: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading4 = 2010 |
|
| heading4 |
|
| content4 = |
|
| list4name = 20010 |
|
|
| list4title = 2010 archive |
|
|
| list4 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 74: |
Line 84: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading5 = 2011 |
|
| heading5 |
|
| content5 = |
|
| list5name = 2011 |
|
|
| list5title = 2011 archive |
|
|
| list5 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 89: |
Line 101: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading6 = 2012 |
|
| heading6 |
|
| content6 = |
|
| list6name = 2012 |
|
|
| list6title = 2012 archive |
|
|
| list6 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 104: |
Line 118: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading7 = 2013 |
|
| heading7 |
|
| content7 = |
|
| list7name = 2013 |
|
|
| list7title = 2013 archive |
|
|
| list7 = |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
| Line 116: |
Line 132: |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| heading8 |
|
| content34style = text-align: center; margin-top: 1em; |
|
|
| content34 = |
|
| list8name = 2014 |
|
|
| list8title = 2014 archive |
|
<span style="display: inline;"><span style="display: table-cell; border: 5px solid rgba(64,255,64,0.9); {{box-shadow|0|0|2.0em|rgba(64,255,64,0.9)}} {{border-radius|0.5em}} background-color: #eee; opacity: 0.9; -moz-opacity: 0.9;">]</span></span> |
|
|
|
| list8 = |
|
<p> |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
]! |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
</p> |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading9 |
|
|
| list9name = 2015 |
|
|
| list9title = 2015 archive |
|
|
| list9 = |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading10 |
|
|
| list10name = 2016 |
|
|
| list10title = 2016 archive |
|
|
| list10 = |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading11 |
|
|
| list11name = 2017 |
|
|
| list11title = 2017 archive |
|
|
| list11 = |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading12 |
|
|
| list12name = 2018 |
|
|
| list12title = 2018 archive |
|
|
| list12 = |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| heading13 |
|
|
| list13name = 2019 |
|
|
| list13title = 2019 archive |
|
|
| list13 = |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
| content35 = |
|
| content35 = |
| Line 135: |
Line 248: |
|
| navbar = none |
|
| navbar = none |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{-}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Precious again == |
|
== TFA == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User QAIbox |
|
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 60em; {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 )}} {{border-radius|1em}} border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> |
|
|
|
| image = Sunflower against sky, Ehrenbach.jpg |
|
<div> |
|
|
|
| image_upright = 0.8 |
|
<div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}} {{border-radius|0.5em}}">]</div> |
|
|
|
| bold = ] · ] · ] |
|
'''forum'''<br /> |
|
|
|
}} |
|
Thank you for content such as today's ], for adding quality to the articles of others, for speaking up to the point with "]", and for running your talk as a fascinating forum of ideas and beers, - and yes, to quote you, "", - repeating: you are an ] (30 September 2010)! |
|
|
|
Thank you today for your share in ], introduced (in 2010) by your conom: "I am nominating this for featured article because... it's not a bishop! Or a horse! Actually, it's horse related. Although one of the more obscure episodes in Thoroughbred history, it details an attempt by the English Thoroughbred breeding establishment to ensure the "purity" of their breed. However, it never really worked as they intended, and eventually was repealed. Although it's popularly known as an "Act" it was never actually legislation, just a rule for the registration of horses, not enforced by any governmental authority. It's been copyedited by Malleus, who also graciously helped with the English research on the subject. Photos should be good, as I took one and the other is from 1857! Malleus should be considered a co-nom."! - I miss you. -- ] (]) 07:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Io Saturnalia!== |
|
--] (]) 05:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
</div></div> |
|
|
A year ago, ] of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in ]ly style. What do you think of "move at greater than the speed of consensus because any large discussion results in no consensus"? - Thank you for today's ], it's your day! Thank you for leaving the Olympus of an awesome Wikipedian ( anyway) to be a human Olimpick gamer, Eric ;) --] (]) 09:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FF0000;" |
|
:Thanks Gerda, very kind of you. ] ] 12:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|rowspan="2" | |
|
::How do you like the game ] for GA? (I will have to ask ] if he scheduled on your day on purpose.) --] (]) 14:26, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Io, ]!''' |
|
::ps: tell George that I mentioned ] ] (although I don't like it so much) (you have to scroll, infobox discussions grow fast) --] (]) 14:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*Interesting article, I enjoyed this, thank you.--<span style="">] <span style="font-size:70%; vertical-align:sub;">]|]</span></span> 21:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::did I say "grow fast"? - reached the ] again, look for "gang", that's probably me ;) - but ] (You shall weep and wail) is <s>almost</s> GA now, the other still open, --] (]) 14:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Do you remember polishing the lead of several articles, including ]? If you have a few moments: 1) I started the ], 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''? --] (]) 21:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::: |
|
|
:::]: {(unblock)} I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque. It is not disputed that I did not make the edit for which I was blocked.. (snip) |
|
|
:::]: You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name. |
|
|
::: -- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::By now ] seems also Kafkaesque, - at least the term "off topic" is mentioned eventually. --] (]) 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. ] ] 20:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That would not help at all, they would still have to deal with me ;) - . - 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, --] (]) 21:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
]esque: it's his birthday, you saw it on or the Main page, even without you improving the lead ;) --] (]) 14:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:That's good. Was I supposed to have improved the lead? ] ] 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". ] ] 15:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{tps}} I saw that too, but in a -- ] <sup>]</sup> 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. ] ] 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 , --] (]) 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 ''']''' must cope with ambiguous words like '']'', which refers both to traffic and sexual intercourse? --] (]) 15:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::SCOMN! (Snorted coffee out my nose)! Hugs to all! Great accomplishment! ]<sup>]</sup> 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.) ]'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), --] (]) 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. ] ] 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 ]? No! (] 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 ]. - As I was not part of the longest opera on Misplaced Pages in 25 acts (see my talk for that, "25 acts" appears twice), I supplied some recent evidence, awaiting The Judgement ;) --] (]) 15:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Remember ]? Just heard him, singing not only ] and ], but as an encore the Agnus Dei from Teh Mass on top of my talk! - I used the image to ], DYK? --] (]) 21:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::]. - The kafkaesque longest opera keeps us waiting for ], --] (]) 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 ]), --] (]) 07:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Update: now I show other fascinating music and a bit of campaigning there, --] (]) 14:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::New pic there: the latest GA by GA, --] (]) 13:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== FLC again == |
|
|
|
|
|
Following the latest "success" with the Sharpe and Paley list, I thought I would offer ] as a candidate. It incorporates the lessons learnt from the review of the previous FLC, and is of the same format. Would you be prepared to copyedit the text and make any helpful comments? Appreciated, as always. --] (]) 13:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Of course, but it might take me a day or two to get there. ] ] 18:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Absolutely no rush. It's been sitting around for a time while we enjoyed our golden wedding celebrations. --] (]) 19:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Now that really is something to celebrate, Congratulations to you both, I hope one day we can say do same. ] (]) 20:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I think I've had enough. What was good enough for this reviewer last time is not good enough now. Another day wasted. I can't design templates anyway. --] (]) 21:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I could change the template, but no doubt that would make someone else unhappy. Every day here is a wasted day. Nobody cares about your work unless you're working on a "vital" article such as ]. ] ] 21:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Thanks for the offer, but please do not change the template. What matters to me is that the list, its links and its refs work for the reader, which they do. I don't really care that the bottom of the page, which no sensible reader studies anyway, looks pretty for a reviewer. This reviewer demands consistency, but is not consistent himself. I'm pretty pleased with the list, certainly from the point of view of the reader, and I'm reluctant to waste any more time on it. Will sleep on it, anyway. Thanks for your concern, and sorry to have wasted your time. I shall certainly continue to write more articles and lists, but these will be for the sake of the readers and not to satisfy pedants. Gold stars are nice (and flattering) but life's too short. --] (]) 22:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::As you wish. I'm really not sure that FLC/FAC is worth bothering about anyway. The rules seem so arbitrary, particularly in the case of FLC. ] ] 22:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::If you can be arsed (and I'm sure you and I have a million and one better things to do, particularly with a feisty kitten), what's arbitrary about the rules at FLC? Just wondered in case there's any scope for improving it instead of just slating it. ] (]) 18:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And at one time I seem to remember that you tried to persuade me that embarking on FAC was a good thing! I see a parallel here with the management of the NHS. It seems more important to follow the letter of the MoS than to make the content more accessible to the "ordinary" viewer with few or no IT skills; just as NHS management seems to be more concerned with meeting government targets than having the patient at the centre of their concerns. Ah well, today I've enjoyed the therapy of writing a couple of church articles; much more important IMO than making a list of references look like each other. --] (]) 18:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I am not withdrawing the nomination. --] (]) 11:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::No reason why you should withdraw the nomination, just the luck of the draw with reviewers. I wouldn't try and persuade you of that now Peter, and I can't really see me ever taking another article to FAC to be honest. Can't be arsed really. ] ] 16:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Of course, never a problem at FAC. Goodraise has made a few ] edits lately, I'm not sure why. ] (]) 16:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It's a problem at FAC as well, of course. ] ] 16:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I don't know if you're following the happenings at FLC, but I have to admit to a certain mischievous delight when a pedant cannot deal with the apostrophe. --] (]) 21:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Made it at last! A greater struggle than I had anticipated; thanks for your help, advice and support. Not sure whether to get any more lists in the series up to FL quality; will think about it. --] (]) 10:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== GA project grumbling == |
|
|
|
|
|
] 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 ] 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. ] ]] 15:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There's much to grumble about here, don't you think? ] ] 15:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Indeed - and where would we be without it? ] ]] 17:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::EVeryone who stalks this page will appreciate this: . Best phrase for trolls I've heard - ever! ]<sup>]</sup> 04:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Your talk page has been unusually quiet of late Eric.♦ ] 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...) ]<sup>]</sup> 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? ] ] 19:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::She just tromped on someone's petticoats and they took offense. You know...the usual stuff around here. ]] 19:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Ah yes, I've seen the ANI report now. Ridiculous, quite ridiculous. ] ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 02:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pop quiz == |
|
|
|
|
|
Which of these sentences is better? |
|
|
# "Bournemouth has become a popular nightlife destination ''with'' UK visitors" |
|
|
# "Bournemouth has become a popular nightlife destination ''for'' UK visitors" |
|
|
|
|
|
Somebody here will know. ] ] ] 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"). ] (]) 15:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't agree with the above analysis, I think that "popular for" is to be preferred. ] ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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".) – ] 16:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I agree with you that rewriting is preferable. My only observation was between the two alternatives being offered. ] ] 16:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Just curious, how s/ this possible option be rated by compare?:<blockquote>Bournemouth has become a popular nightlife destination of UK visitors.</blockquote>Thx, ] (]) 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. ] ] 19:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::OMG! (I never saw that angle! What a tricky darn preposition.) Thx, ] (]) 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 ?? |
|
|
* http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-282X2012000700014&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en |
|
|
* http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-282X2008000600035&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en |
|
|
Best, ] (]) 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? ] ] 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, ] (]) 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. ] ] 18:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Thanks ... ok, so at ] and ], 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? ] (]) 18:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'd probably say "late 15th century", but that's a small thing. ] ] 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: Thanks, will do ... done for the day, slow going in here ! ] (]) 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. ] ] 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. ] (]) 20:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A barnstar for you! == |
|
|
|
|
|
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |
|
|
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] |
|
|
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Copyeditor's Barnstar''' |
|
|
|- |
|
|- |
|
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. ] (]) 15:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | 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 <small> can I use the excuse I'm female? {{smiley}} </small> Am I allowed to ask if I can have you on the equivalent of speed dial, please? ] - ] 13:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|} |
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
:Being female is no excuse. On the contrary, females are often better with words than males. ] ] 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) --] (]) 13:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'll be very happy to take a look Gerda. ] ] 17:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I'd have another one to look at first, ], 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, --] (]) 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 ;-].♦ ] 22:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think we might find out what Sue Gardner really thinks once she leaves the WMF. ] ] 23:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
Ahh, this award was certainly deserved - I just came to thank you for of ]. ] <sub><sup>]]</sup></sub> 19:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Glad you liked it. Some people seem to take offence when their perfect prose is tampered with. ] ] 19:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::You are always very welcome to tamper with my prose any time! {{smiley|wink}} ] - ] 19:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Help! Hyphen alert! == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Since the mid-2000s, blah blah blah" or "Since the mid 2000s, yada yada yada"? ] (]) 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''. ] ] 17:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Interesting. So you don't see it as an adjective? ] leads to ], whose lead lends credibility to your dictionary's suggestion (setting aside the Greek/Latin issue). ] (]) 18:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::How could it be an adjective, as it's followed by a comma, not a noun? ] ] |
|
|
::::I mean "mid". ] (]) 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? ] ] 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 ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 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. ] ] 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. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 13:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's great. I look forward to reading through the article again later. ] ] 13:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Brislington House == |
|
|
|
|
|
If you have any time would you take a look at ]. 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.— ] <sup>]</sup> 09:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Law school of Beirut == |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for taking the time to read this :) -<span style="border:1px solid #fffff2;padding:0px;background:#ffffff">] ]</span> 16:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've only skimmed it so far, but it's an interesting article. ] ] 16:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
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 ], where a character remarks that “… in this country it’s good to kill an admiral now and then, to encourage the others.” (My translation from .)—]]] 21:58, 13 Octoberdsess |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm very well aware of the source of the quotation, that wasn't my question. ] ] 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.—]]] 04:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I reverted your revert on ]: The article has problems with punctuation (especially commas) and monolithic paragraphs that need breaking up. Best regards, --] ] 16:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:And I reverted your revert, as you clearly have no idea what you're doing. ] ] 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 Misplaced Pages with the lack of civility and unprofessionalism. --] ] 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 Misplaced Pages, hence I feel qualified to comment <small> 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 .... {{smiley}} </small> ] - ] 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. ] - ] 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? --] ] 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. ] ] 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. --] ] 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? ] ] 17:21, 22 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? ] ] 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 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. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 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 Misplaced Pages was ruled by pompous autocrats..." etc. etc. ] (]) 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::But in every one of those cases ''when'' is redundant. ] ] 16:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Neither does ''the time'' contribute much of significance, to these contextless fragments at least.—]]] 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. ] (]) 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". ] ] 09:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::But they have slightly different meanings. ] (]) 09:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::No they don't. ] ] 09:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Absolutely xxxxall == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear sir, the management are delighted that you have recently tried a ] or ] from our establishment. May we interest you in a main course - perhaps ], or a ]? A full ] is available and we are open all hours. Sincerely, ] ]], Maître d'. |
|
|
|
|
|
:When I stumbled across ] 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. ] ] 19:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::ON the topic of cuisine, I noted this today: . ]<sup>]</sup> 20:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::... and I noted a delicious ] where I had the last <s>word</s> bite - so far, --] (]) 21:45, 18 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. ] ] 22:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: ... don't miss the absurdity part, you will enjoy it, --] (]) 23:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Gerda, let me ask you as a woman what you think about ] I decided to try and salvage a couple of days ago. ] ] 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 ] -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 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 "{{diff|Talk:Edward Clark (conductor)|571608893|571582600|"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) --] (]) 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. ] (] '''·''' ]) 22:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I like haggis as well. To me it's like a spicey hamburger. ] ] 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 ]. 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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 09:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::You obviously know more about this kind of thing than I do Richerman. ] ] 15:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
I wonder if ] would be as attractive to eat...♦ ] 11:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, judging by her expression. At least she has bananas. ] (]) 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 ] or for those claiming a GSOH, "]" might be just the thing. ] ]] 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 {{tl|Unreferenced}} tag to an article should be tied to a gun carriage and flogged. I came across another one today, ], an article on a beautiful place made deliberately ugly by this lazy vandalism. ] ] 16:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::What really pisses me off is when someone adds an {{tl|Unreferenced}} tag and googling the fact comes up with half a dozen references for it. Laziness in the extreme. The {{tl|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. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]</span> ] 18:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::That {{tl|globalize}} tag is another one that really pisses me off. Why should an article on ] 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? ] ] 19:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I am happy an ugly POV tag on an article written with love (not by me) , after ] 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." --] (]) 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 ] 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::These tags are added by lazy ignorant people. Simple as that. ] ] 20:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Or it's subversive advertising by sneaky multinationals trying to soften us all with tacky word associations....] (] '''·''' ]) 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Whatever it is, I worked hard on the ] 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 ... ] ] 20:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Eric I was wondering if you think ] 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, . ♦ ] 18:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That shouldn't have been listed as a GA, for a number of reasons. ] ] 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 ] 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.♦ ] 19:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Okay.... == |
|
|
|
|
|
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? ] - ] 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— 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), 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 gives a surprisingly accurate picture. – ] 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... ] - ] 15:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::. 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. (] 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.) – ] 15:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Death penalty should apply. ] (]) 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... ♦ ] 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 . Sometimes it's beyond parody. – ] 19:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
. This passes for news nowadays!♦ ] 19:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It's a steady job, but he wants to be a ]... ]<sup>]</sup> 00:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If you've got any further evidence against ''The Daily Mail'', feel free to pop over to ] and add it there. ] ] ] 15:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi. Since you contributed to the resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at ]. --] (] · ] · ]) 16:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Confused == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why did you revert my change in the information tech article. "consists" seems right. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:44, 20 October 2013</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
:. One thing "consists", several things "consist", so Eric is right and you're wrong, I'd say. ]] 20:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
: Eric is correct here. ] - ] 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
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? ] - ] 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. ] ] 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. ] - ] 19:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Adding a note to explain that Scottish use of the word ''policies'' would probably be a good idea. ] ] 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. ] - ] 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 , 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 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.... ] - ] 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 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? ] - ] 17:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== for you == |
|
|
|
|
|
http://jezebel.com/okay-im-sorry-but-this-weasel-is-ridiculously-adorab-1446898945 ] (]) 16:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Thanks for the edits on ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
Appreciate the grammatical proofing on ], one gets so involved in writing all the details the little stuff is missed! ] (]) 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. ] ] 18:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've been slowly making my way down through the refs to check all of them out. ] (]) 19:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== BLP for you and watchers == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, ] just showed up on a dab page I watchlist (]). 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, ] (]) 13:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't know if you'll be able to access this BBC report, 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. ] ] 13:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks guys - I should have checked it myself. ] (]) 13:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Thanks both-- faster than a noticeboard :) ] (]) 13:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Glastonbury Tor == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Would you (or your talk page stalkers) be able to take a look at ]. I have just done a major reorganisation and expansion and any copy-editing would be appreciated.— ] <sup>]</sup> 12:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{tps}}...I'll have a go! -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Good man!. I've got a few more early aircraft articles to destroy. ] ] 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! ;) -- '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 22:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thanks ] - any further contributions appreciated.— ] <sup>]</sup> 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 ] and ]. 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.] (]) 21:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:In my short time here on Misplaced Pages, 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 <u>not</u> ''arsed'', why wouldn't you address these issues on the articles' talk pages? --] (]) 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.] (]) 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? ] ] 19:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::. 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 ]. ] (]) 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. ] ] 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Somebody my own size?? I don't do bullying.] (]) 08:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think it's very clear that you do. Either that or you're an idiot. ] ] 13:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::and, in case you missed it, that recent edit flypast ] (]) 21:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Books and Bytes: The Misplaced Pages Library Newsletter == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="border: 2px dashed #ADC2E4; margin: 1px; padding: 1em 2% 1em"> |
|
|
<center><big><big><big>''''']'''''</big> |
|
|
<p>Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 |
|
|
<p>] |
|
|
<p>by {{user|The Interior}}, {{user|Ocaasi}}</center> |
|
|
<big>'''Greetings ] members!'''</big> 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 ]. There's lots of news this month for the Misplaced Pages Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... |
|
|
<p>'''New positions:''' Sign up to be a Misplaced Pages Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Misplaced Pages Librarian |
|
|
<p>'''Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries:''' Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. |
|
|
<p>'''New subscription donations:''' Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? |
|
|
<p>'''New ideas:''' OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges |
|
|
<p>'''News from the library world:''' Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY |
|
|
<p>'''Announcing WikiProject Open:''' WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions |
|
|
<p>'''New ways to get involved:''' Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration<br> |
|
|
<p><big>]</big><br><br> |
|
|
''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 ]. --] 21:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)'' |
|
|
</div> |
|
|
<!-- EdwardsBot 0651 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
== blocked == |
|
|
|
|
|
I guess its ok to not give a fuck but telling someone else to fuck off is always unparlimentary. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC) |
|
.jpg)