Hullo, me again—You were kind enough to comment at this article's (somewhat informal!) peer review, and I thought I'd let you know it's now a featured article candidate. The discussion is here, and any further comments you may wishto make would be naturally very welcome. Thanks again! ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look later. Eric Corbett 11:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

There is an atmosphere of distrust here on Wikipedia that I find most distasteful and rather demotivating. What's prompted my comment is that my application to have the template editor right - given automatically to every administrator regardless of need or competence - has been rejected.

So I'm clearly not trusted to behave myself with protected templates, which I find rather insulting. Eric Corbett 16:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd be insulted too if I were you Eric. I have never known you do anything that doesn't improve the encyclopedia. J3Mrs (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I am at a total loss to know why you were declined, Eric. I know, and you know far better, that a lot of what you have done over the years has been controversial, but as far as I know none of that has had any bearing whatever on your competence to edit templates. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't have said "a lot", but some certainly. But if I ever stop being controversial I'll know I'm doing something wrong. Eric Corbett 19:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you still want it, Eric? I'll give it to you. I only ask first because of the possibility of pointless drama; not sure if you want to be bothered with that. I can try to absorb as much of the drama as possible, but some might leak. Also because there's a possibility of someone taking it away from you in retaliation, which I fear would drive you away, which would deeply suck. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, it's much appreciated. I've decided though that I'm not interested in joining a club that so clearly doesn't want me. Groucho Marx may have had something to say about that. And as you say, someone would no doubt take it away for whatever reason anyway, so it wouldn't stick. I'll probably end up writing my own series of templates with a generic naming system I haven't decided on yet. Eric Corbett 19:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that probably makes sense. Let me know if you change your mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Back to the beginning: you don't have to be a certified template editor to write a template. The only thing you need it for is to change a protected template. Otherwise: just write it. Anything starting with "template:user" is even playground. Look at Template:user QAIbox, perhaps. - Remembering the old days: Eric, do you remember Andreas Scholl and editing under your real name? Yesterday, I through Mr. Scholl's weight in a deletion discussion ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Isn't she the best? Their reasoning appeared to be based on guidelines, not personal, but we know such guidelines can be overridden. I think you can be trusted (an incident when a certain cookie-cutter admin FA writer edited the template on one of "his" FAs, to disingenously discourage any other editing of "his" POV comes to mind ... now that was a problem).

By the way, Eric, I got an email the other day from someone absolutely in stitches about a conversation we had in September 2010. Who knows how or why someone dredged that up (search my Sept 2010 archive for tits) but it was a reminder that we once could have fun in here, and that helped in dealing with the wackiness.

So, on my latest crusade ... have you had your annual bend over test and prostate cancer screening? Since I am rather fond of you, please do. If wikipedia had an article as bad as our suite of prostate cancer articles in an area that affected women ... things would likely be different than what men like my husband are now facing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

She is indeed. I'll have a look for that conversation you mentioned shortly - could do with a laugh. I saw a posting of yours earlier today about prostate cancer and what your husband's facing. It's rather shocking that our suite of articles on the condition isn't more reliable. My neighbour had prostate cancer, must have been about five years ago now, and his prognosis wasn't great. But he beat it and he's now back to normal. Or as normal as he's ever been anyway. As for myself, I've never been tested for it, and having recently been diagnosed as diabetic, caused I firmly believe by a drug I was prescribed to control stomach acid, I'm not in any hurry to put myself in the hands of doctors again any time soon. You're probably right about the different attitudes to male and female conditions. When my wife had breast cancer the care she received was absolutely fantastic. But I will think seriously about prostate cancer screening once I've beaten this diabetes.

The very best of luck to you and your husband. Eric Corbett 19:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I was not aware of your diagnosis, Eric. If it's any help ... I volunteer now as a Spanish-language interpreter at a Free Clinic for migrant farm workers, and have occasion to encounter about six cases of diabetes a month. It is very beatable with education and life-style changes (which are almost impossible for migrant farm workers, but I digress) ... you just gotta do the stuff they tell you to do re diet and exercise. And, I am not advocating for this, and not even sure I believe it, but we have a friend whose husband had quite severe diabetes, and he has been able to go off all medication by following a paleo diet. At least that is her claim. Please do not wait to get a PSA ... you are at the doctor anyway, and it is just another blood test. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I've got an appointment with my diabetic consultant next week, so I may mention it. I've heard of many people who've beaten diabetes by losing weight or diet or exercise, but I (perhaps perversely) determined not to do any of that. I eat exactly as I did before, haven't lost any weight, and am exactly as lazy as ever, but over the past month or so I've had to stop taking any insulin at all, to keep my blood sugar up in the normal range. I had other medical problems as well last year, and my doctor said to me that sometimes when you're ill your pancreas goes AWOL for a while, and I'm thinking that's what happened to mine. Anyway, we'll see how things pan out. Eric Corbett 20:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This all reminded me of an old medical school adage concerning prostates...."He who does not put his finger in it, puts his foot in it...." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Very good, Cas! I am going to be using that frequently! OK, here is my husband's favorite prostate joke (he authored it himself :). When he was once at said useless GP, a resident or intern was in tow, and they were both "down there" examining the beast. My husband looked down and remarked ... this will get you two an award from the AMA ... two doctors with a lawyer by the balls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It has been shown that diabetes can be reversed by dieting but you have to go on a pretty extreme diet - 600 calories a day for two months. see:[1] Not for the faint hearted and, I should think, only to be tried under medical supervision. Richerman (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The guy who lives across the road from me developed Type 2 about 10-11 years ago. His diet was then and remains poor but since retirement he has got into the habit of doing a lot of walking on the moors/hills etc - big-ish stuff, he's ex-army and thinks 20 miles without a break is a stroll, although I am sure some of that is bravado and in the past I've outwalked him more times than not. Anyways, he was told just before Christmas that he is now medically not diabetic. I'm not sure how much can be read into it. Certainly, though, Type 2 is fairly easily managed for most people. - Sitush (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It certainly hasn't been much of a problem for me, although it's a bit inconvenient having to inject twice a day, especially if you're out and about. Some people object to seeing anyone injecting themselves, but I'm sure that nursing mothers have it much worse. Eric Corbett 01:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed - I cannot imagine why you should have been refused (We've had our differences and you're welcome to remove this, but sincerely I would support you in this.) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

  I've got a rather short memory for differences with others, or perhaps there are too many for me to remember. :-) Eric Corbett 22:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Witchcraft in Orkney 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elspeth Reoch 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The article Elspeth Reoch you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Elspeth Reoch for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The article Witchcraft in Orkney you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Witchcraft in Orkney for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Eric, just wanted to drop you a line and let you know that I've nominated the article on the Shorwell helmet at FAC. (Took a little bit longer than anticipated, as I ended up nominating the article on the Pioneer helmet first.) Though I'd obviously appreciate it if you again weighed in, I also wanted to thank you again for taking the time to review the article and offer your suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have hopefully resolved your comments in case you did not receive my ping.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, don't be so hard on yourself ("Don't worry though, my opinion will carry no weight"). I value every opinion, especially an editor of your caliber. In fact, I consider it an honour to be resolving your queries.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In case you did not receive my ping, I mentioned at the FAC that the article's lead is now a lot better. You can proceed likewise with the rest of the article.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Your co-nominator doesn't seem too happy with my changes, so I think I'll leave it now. Eric Corbett 15:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I didn't even mean that. I just said, "I'm not sure what to say" since it deviated from the format I generally follow. But I ultimately agreed that your edits were fine, and your comments on the FAC page were constructive. I even thanked you for them, despite the oppose symbol. ----Kailash29792 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that you're prepared for the changes I might end up making to your article – which you clearly think is the bees knees already anyway – so I'll simply wish you luck with your nomination. Eric Corbett 19:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I've made a few edits to the article. Hope it looks better. Sorry if I'm bothering you too much. I really would like your help even if it means at least striking off your oppose. I plan to include the article as a part of the WikiCup challenge if it passes FAC.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:58, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

... for saying what I feel: that a certain arb case should not exist and is a time sink. I thought I'd manage to not participate, but didn't quite succeed ;) - Perhaps I should say there that of course I don't believe that someone hates me, but even that seems more effort than the proceedings deserve. Perhaps I should say that this case has nothing to do with a former case named Infoboxes (or rather: misnamed, should have been "Reverts of infobox opera"). Perhaps I should say that there was no infobox discussion I remember in all 2017 (only about reverts), so what's digging up old unrelated stuff? I should perhaps say that there is no evidence of an infobox brigade in action. But I prefer article writing. - I held my chin up as you told me, in 2013 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said on that case before one of the clerks removed my comment as "inappropriate", I challenge anyone to find any recent evidence of an "infobox war". There have been a couple of arguments on occasions either where someone has added a box to an article that didn't have one, removed a box from an article which did, or changed the design of an existing box. That doesn't constitute any kind of systemic problem; that arb case is purely a small clique of cronies trying to take advantage of an inexperienced new committee to get rid of an editor they happen personally to dislike. (Whatever they may say, this case is purely about personal interactions and not about setting policy about infoboxes. Arbcom couldn't mandate infoboxes on all articles even if they wanted to, since there will always be some articles—e.g. War, Mathematical logic, Website, Happiness, Cheese—for which an infobox will never be appropriate, so if they are stupid enough to mandate "an infobox on every article" their ruling will just be ignored. Even Opera doesn't have an infobox, nor has anyone ever tried to add one.) ‑ Iridescent 14:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

We could go on with things for which there's no evidence, such as this "every article needs an infobox" nonsense. - Opera: perhaps I was too short: Infobox opera was introduced in 2013, for use in operas, not Opera, of course. Btw, Infobox is also without. Infobox opera has been used, thanks to people like Viva-Verdi who equipped all Verdi operas. Some French operas won't get one, because their authors don't like it, which is easy to respect with the little extra effort to look up article history. Once I missed it - after four operas by the same composer I didn't look up the fifth, Maritana. That was 2016, and hasn't hapened again. I stopped looking how many inclusions the template has, because some took offense that I made a note of the number once a month ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda:I'm so happy that you kept your chin up, and still do, even though you're a woman and I'm an alleged mysogynist. ;-) (To even say that is probably a blockable offence in the current climate, but what the heck.)

@Iridescent: I really couldn't agree more, and if this Arbcom is so blind that they can't see what's really going on under their noses then God help them. I really would prefer to have one Cassianto than ten of these civility wariors, who quite clearly have a very twisted interpretation of what civility actually means, and no conception at all that whatever that is, it also applies to them. Eric Corbett 15:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I recently had an interesting chat with Cassianto (archived, as it was getting very long), I took part in a FAC of SchroCat and several of Ceoil and Smerus, I wrote articles with Nikkimaria and Smerus. I am open to good relations with everybody interested. Sadly, some who seem to seriously think I'm running a brigade (and that's the nicest of the terms used) behind the scenes don't fall in that group. - I stopped thank-you clicks for infobox-related edits, - so you get these "hand-written" notes instead, you two ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(don't want to start a new thread, and your history question is archived ...:) women, one pictured - and below some names of users who our kind community blocked and banned, in my tradition to sing their praises which started on this talk. - DYK, Eric that an article was recently saved from deletion, possibly because I related the singer to Andreas Scholl "whom" you helped to improve? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		There being no Gallant Knight Errant barnstar, this will have to do, for riding to the rescue today. Tim riley talk 19:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, but I just did what anyone would do. Eric Corbett 20:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Like Hell you did! There are, you will have noticed from time to time, my dear Eric, a few unfeeling and nasty people out there, and your riding to the aid of an editor beleaguered and bullied by them as you did was the act of a veray parfit gentil knight. But I shall say no more. Tim riley talk 21:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)