User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20


Copy editing Davenport, Iowa[edit]

Hi! I was wondering if you could copy edit Davenport, Iowa? I am working on getting it to a Featured Article, and one of the suggestions on the peer review was to have a "fresh pair of eyes" copy edit the page, which is a good idea anyway. I will be asking a few people at the PR volunteer's page, to get the widest copyedit perspective I can get. If you can help me, let me know on my talk page or just go ahead and edit the article! If you can't, thanks anyway, a note on my talk would be helpful, but not a big deal if you don't. Thanks again! Ctjf83Talk 01:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I also need to look at sleep medicine. Will do both now! Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, the PR is good too :) Ctjf83Talk 02:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Good find on the building heights! Do you think is a valid site? Not sure who made it, or what ever. Also, do I need to some how specifically point out which buildings are in Image:Downtown Davenport.jpg image? Ctjf83Talk 02:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Would be nice - on the image description page if doing it on the article overwhelms the caption. I think (you would need to check) we are seeing the Figge Art Museum and Fargo Wells Bank Building (left) and the Skybridge, Casino boat and MidAmerican Building (right). Is the Casino boat still there? Is that worth mentioning somewhere in the article? You can probably find a better source for the building heights than that website. Carcharoth (talk) 03:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Wow! great job on the buildings for someone ( I assume) who has never been to Davenport. Yes, the casino is still there, I'll add it to the article. I'm gonna see if I can get a panoramic picture of downtown, to include the stadium, and the two bridges. I'll try that Friday or over the weekend. Ctjf83Talk 19:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you give me a little more help on fixing the last few sections? You said, "Last few sections are a bit short. The article sort of runs out of steam and dribbles off at the end (sorry!). If possible, try and develop a strong forward-looking section (without having it date too much) looking at future plans and developments and forthcoming events. That also gives people a clue as to when the article was last updated." Can you give me a bit more details on how or what needs to be fixed, thanks! CTJF83Talk 17:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Ending on the Livability Award is a good idea. It's the two preceding sections that are a bit short. The "notable natives" and the "sister cities". I would try and merge those into other sections if possible. If not, try and expand them. Any additional material on the sister cities and Davenport - any embassies or visits made between them? It's stretching a bit, so I'd go the merger route. Both "notable natives" and "sister cities" could tag in on the end of the history section, especially the sister cities, as those have dates. Other may disagree, so don't assume what I'm suggesting will work. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I'm not sure about merging that to the history. You have a decent point, but I'm not sure. What other merge options are there? Is it really not good for there to be short sections like that? CTJF83Talk 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking at other city articles at WP:FA? I'll do that now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Ya, just did that :) per the FA Grand Forks, ND I merged sister city to a section of gov't CTJF83Talk 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I looked at Ann Arbor, Michigan! The sister cities are a list (with flags), and there is a 'see also' link to List of people from Ann Arbor. <shrug> If all the articles do it differently, pick what you like best, or what works best. Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Bath, Somerset puts the cities under tourism, Bangalore puts them under culture. There are more cities on WP:FA, but I'll let you go through them if you want. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I don't think Davenport has enough notable residents for its own page. Thanks for your help! Also, how can I fix the cultural and sports section to make them "less touristy"? CTJF83Talk 17:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
The main thing is the tone. I've highlighted in italics the bits that sound wrong to me:

"Davenport offers a number of great parks. [...] For those that prefer a scenic overlook, there is Mount Ida. Mount Ida is on a summit overlooking the Mississippi River. [...] Golfers may test their skills on one of the 9-hole or 18-hole courses. [...] The Celebration Belle offers river cruises from a one and a half hour sightseeing cruise, to an all day, three meal cruises up to Dubuque, Iowa. The Channel Cat boat offers rides across the river, to two stops in Iowa and three stops in Illinois. Riders can take their bicycles on the boat, and be connected to the bike paths that each state has on its river front."

A lot of that sounds like advertisement copy. Some of it is too much that is only of interest to the residents of the city: "The park includes a golf course, rugby, soccer, baseball, and softball fields." - people from outside the city will be bored stiff by that. Those living in the city will wonder what you are talking about, or indeed why you are mentioning that stuff in an article like this. Ditto for the "More than 120,000 rounds are played on these courses each year" bit. Hope that helps. Sorry to break off here, but I need to do something else now. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, make this peer review[edit]

Its for the Jew article. It is a great article, and it would be great for you to see it and make a Peer review of it! --Fixman(Praise me) 05:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit too big a task. Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Up for another copyedit?[edit]

Hello, are you interested in copyediting the former/future FAC The Other Woman (Lost)? DecKiller voted neutral because he felt that it could use another copyedit. Thanks, –thedemonhog talkedits 06:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Want to watch that series at some point! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

People by birth/death[edit]

Hi, I noticed a question you raised at that confusing old date linking debate, and wondered if you would be interested in User:Dsp13/Living people needing categorization by year of birth, User:Dsp13/People needing categorization by year of birth and User:Dsp13/People needing categorization as living or by year of death, which I did back in March (and so I don't know how out of date they are!) Dsp13 (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I had forgotten these. I've already pointed them out in other places, but forgot to thank you here. Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem - & if you hear of a way to list pages without DEFAULTSORT, do let me know! I think I have the same concerns as you about Lightbot's zeal: though i'm happy to see date linking in general as overlinking if that's the consensus of the community ,I don't want anything to get thrown away too quickly if it might be useful to help direct maintenance. Dsp13 (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I pulled these stats yesterday, which I thought you might be interested in: there are currently 561,596 pages categorized by birth or death; 522,416 categorized by birth; 236,557 categorized by death date, excluding those categorized as living people; 307,892 categorized as living people. Dsp13 (talk) 10:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Would you be have time to contribute at Wikipedia talk:Biographical metadata? I've quoted those stats there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My talk page[edit]

I have responded to you on my talk page. Lightmouse (talk) 12:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Random comment[edit]

Hi Carcharoth. You wrote on a certain talk page which I don't read: That reminds me, I saw a comment by Filiocht (the real person, not the WP editor) on a news article comment section somewhere. Bit pointless as I can't remember the article. Hmph. Memory, eh? Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ceoil sent me a link the other day to this Guardian blog entry, which contains a comment by said person and may be what you're looking for. I wanted to provide some art-article samples to the audience of that blog entry to see if they found them any less "dull", but commenting was by then closed. Whiskeydog (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That's the one! Thanks. I got to it from wiki-en-l. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I suppose it's not fair to accuse them of cherry-picking their "dull" articles, because it's probably the majority. I'd be interested to know if the average arts-inclined reader finds the featured articles in the arts any better in this regard... (and the "talk page I don't read" comment was just supposed to be droll, not derogatory). Whiskeydog (talk) 23:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


I've finally returned from India and recovered from my illness, so I can respond to your last question. I would combine "Fandom" with "Reception" and I would combine "Video games" with "Adaptations". Many of the daughter articles seem to be poorly developed, though, so it is difficult to make some of these decisions. Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to hear you've been ill, and glad you are better now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Images on Sarracenia[edit]

Hi. I'm Jehochman's admin trainee. I'm told you are good with images. If you have the time, would you please take a look at Sarracenia and its peer review archive and help me (or teach me how to) fix the images per the peer review? Also, why is it inadvisable to sandwich text horizontally between two images? Thank you for your time. Cheers! SunDragon34 (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot about this. Sorry. Will try and look in the next few hours. Carcharoth (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Will reply on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Of Mice and MOSNUM[edit]


It seems that the latest crusade (and I say "crusade" because there seems to be a mentality of "us right, them wrong, destroy them" when it comes to this new policy) on Wikipedia is to delete any/all links to dates. I can understand how Wikipedia has become overlinked, but sometimes links to dates are useful and make sense. For example, with supercentenarians, news stories love to say "born in year X, Person Y is still alive blah blah blah." Yet deletion-bots like Lightbot:

Don't have the capacity to discern when a link is useful, or not. In particular, I think any birth or death date is useful (does the world media not archive obituaries by year?) as well as links to years of military service (in which the years of fighting are important...such as World War I, 1914-1918). In a particularly galling example, Lightbot deleted links to years when the main point of the article was change over time (or not):

Revision as of 02:07, 6 October 2008 (edit) Lightbot (Talk | contribs) (Date links per wp:mosnum/Other) ← Previous edit Current revision as of 02:08, 6 October 2008 (edit) (undo) Neptune5000 (Talk | contribs) m (Undid revision 243332266 by Lightbot (talk))

Line 201: Line 201:

| align=center | M  | align=center | M 
| 110 years, 50+ days   | 110 years, 50+ days  

- | 1870 + | 1870

| February 19, 1981  | February 19, 1981 
|-  |- 

Line 357: Line 357:

| align=center | F  | align=center | F 
| 112 years 7+ days  | 112 years 7+ days 

- | 1868 + | 1868

| January 7, 1981 

Please also note that repeated attempts made to discuss lightbot's activities have fallen on deaf ears. It seems a bit unfair to use a non-thinking, out-of-control bot to enforce a non-policy that only recently emerged as the preferred guideline position. But even if it were decided that this is the way to go, shouldn't there be some exceptions made?

I do urge that this current push to delete any/all date links be re-thought. Wikipedia is especially prone to recentist bias and a disproportionate number of its users are under 30 and tend not to consider historical context as much as they should. The last thing Wikipedia needs is to delete date links when the year may be relevant. Jeanne Calment was noted as the "Mistress of Time," yet some recent editors wanted to delete a link to 1875, which is particularly egregious.

Sincerely, Ryoung122 07:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, I don't have any more influence over this than you. The discussions you might be interested in would be at WT:MOSNUM. Start here and read down. You might also be interested in this category discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Just stumbled across this thread. I was always under the impression that date-linking was related to WP:Accessibility, i.e. screen-readers. It seemingly turns out that it was only for the convenience of logged-in users, which is indefensible (it could have been extended to geo-presence a la Google localization, but MediaWiki was un-compliant for various reasons). Nevertheless, I too have been distressed seeing the "bot (date audit)" and "dates per WT:MOSNUM (script assisted)". The discussion may have been long, but certainly on the first opportunity, the protagonists acted quickly to create facts on the ground. I've seen that degradation of content happen continuously across my watchlist - and since I'm lazy, probably missed a few vandalisms that happened just before the script came through. :( Franamax (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For injecting a bit of tension-relieving humor in what was getting to be a heated discussion about a DRV here, the Wikimmunity thanks you. Truthanado (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If you mean my WP:TEA comment, thanks. Wikimmunity is interesting. I read that as "wiki-immunity"! As opposed to wiki-community. :-) By the way, it would help if you and Postdlf resolved your disagreement at some point. I'd suggest doing that at one or other of your talk pages, rather than at the DRV. Carcharoth (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to response from CBDunkerson[edit]

Your comment[edit]

  • "I realise the "category" people want to put an end to the categories before they spread (though actually, they can be implemented using templates and enabled and disabled at the flick of a switch on the template), but the aim here should be for people to work together to get a result that satisfies everyone, not for people to stick to and focus on their "specialities", whether that be categories, biographical data, or whatever."

That (especially the first phrase of the sentence) would seem to be a rather broad accusation. Would you please clarify? - jc37 21:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I was observing that some people specialise in category discussions (both participating and closing). That is fine up to a point, but I think that sometimes if some people work in areas such as discussing or closing categories for too long (or with too little support) the impression of a cabal can arise. I'm sure if I closed category discussions that would happen as well. I'm not the first to observe that (as well as the sometimes low levels of participation in category discussions - it is frustrating when one person nominates, a few oppose, a few suport and then the discussion is closed as delete, when a relisting or no consensus would be just as possible), and I'm sure I'll take some flak for saying it, but I disagree rather strongly with some of the ways in which category discussions are closed. In this particular one, saying that a DRV was inevitable really set the wrong tone. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, first, your comments apply to every XfD, then, not just CfD.
And my experience of AfD closures has been a case of a lot of vote counting, and all too often, a "friend" rushing to be the closer. (Which typically desn't happen at CfD. It runs more like DRV in that there are a few of "regular" closers, with others occasionally helping with the backlog at their own discretion.) As Hiding said elsewhere, if you don't like the closes, start closing discussions yourself. Your help would be welcome. (I'll refrain from accusing you of lazily attacking from the sidelines (armchair quarterbacking) rather than joining in the process; as my experience of you is greatly different than that, but I have to admit that your comments really gave/give me pause in that respect.)
I think part of my indignance concerning your comments is that Kbdank (and others) at cfd tend to shine when it comes to being closers. They read for content rather than count votes. They stay neutral to the topic, and try to determine both the consensus of the current discussion, and do the reasearch to note whether this falls within overall Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Among many other things. I would presume that this should be the standard to emulate, not spit upon.
As for the statement about DRV. That's also become rather standard at all XfDs. Anytime someone closes a discussion based upon weigh of arguements than by counting "votes", a DRV happens. Let's presume that he's not dumb, and knows that this is a regular occurence. So this comment is more as a note of resignation to the fact that it would happen.
But let's lay all that to the side for a moment.
I've respected you in the past for being someone to think "outside the box" and to be able to read for content.
I won't ask how you would have closed this particular CfD, but in general, in a similar situation, what would you suggest be done? - jc37 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I would have suggested continuing discussion about what is to be done. And looked for other solutions. Which as you will see from my comments at the DRV, is exactly what has happened. I was serious when I said it is incredibly frustrating to see people arguing over categories when they are, in my opinion, missing the point about the bigger picture. I don't in general, close XfD discussions, because I know that it can be difficult to avoid interjecting my own opinion. I tend to see both sides of an argument and so would conclude "no consensus" more often than most, and that wouldn't satisfy anyone. Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well first, I think you would be good as a closer because you are able to see more than one "side" (perspective) in a discussion. (And can read for content, etc.) And I would guess that you are likely better at being "neutral" than you think. (But then, I also had faith in your ability to be an admin : )
That aside, what is the "bigger picture" that you would like seen? - jc37 23:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the support, and apologies to you and any CfD regulars reading this for having "a pop" at CfD. I thought my views on the bigger picture were clear in the "missing the point" post I made. Biographical metadata (and that is all someone's age at death is, really, another element of the biographical metadata) has needed a big overhaul for sometime. The biographical pages on Wikipedia have real potential as a set, but keep running up against the sheer numbers, thus it is difficult to do anything to them as a whole without either running out of people to do stuff, or bots that can cope with wholesale changes. Anyway, the DRV comments should make some things clearer. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Then start a discussion at some talk page or noticeboard, and spam every other related noticeboard/Wikiproject talk page about the discussion.
If you keep the topic clear, concise, and focused, you have a better chance of finding consensus.
CfD isn't your best choice for it. It has the problem of being on a "deadline" (roughly 5 days). And for this sort of broad discussion, as you note, you really want more time to develop the idea and the consensus for the idea.
To use something I am currently working on as an example, the whole tree of Category:Fiction is a WP:OR POV mess. Some are great, and some are terrible, and some just need better names/inclusion criteria/scope/etc.
We've had, and are having, some lengthy discussions concerning it. And based on that I've made some nominations to see what the greater community feels. HOwever, we run into a problem with XfD. Policy (WP:OR) should trump opinion, but often, unfortunately, it does not. While an opinion about notability or how a name should be structured are typically fine in such a discussion, opinions whether WP:OR should be allowed are definitely not fine, and should be discounted. However, those immersed in "in-universe" content, often miss that. (I've done it myself in the past. The whole concept of "major" or "minor" super powers sidetracked me for a bit before I realised what we were doing, and that we obviously needed sources, and not our own opinions of what was "major" or "minor".).
And I know you understand, simply because the first interactions with you that I recall, involved a complete makeover of Middle-earth, for quite a few of these reasons : )
And by the way, I have seen closes where the closer said "no action" to give such-n-such related discussion time for resolution.
Also, this close in no way prevents you from actually starting such a discussion. If consensus develops based on some "broader theme" or "bigger picture", then that's new consensus, and may potentially over-ride previous discussions (including a cfd closure). Happens all the time : )
Or is there something here I'm missing in your concerns? - jc37 23:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, not quite sure what you or I are missing. Maybe read my new comments at the DRV and see what you think. Maybe starting that wider discussion will help. I've started Wikipedia:Biographical metadata. Oh, and sorry to change subject, but I've also been reading Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise over the past few days, and that is a really fascinating discussion. Have you been following that? Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Wikipedia:Biographical metadata is now on my watchlist.
Oh maybe : ) - search the page and the talk page (and archives) for my username : )
Also as an aside, one of the things that makes me laugh and yet frustrates me at the same time, is how, depending on the venue, I'm called an irrational deletionist, or an irrational inclusionist. My main thought is that, honestly, everything in an encyclopedia is "trivia". So I suppose I have issues with anyone arbitrarily making a subjective demarcation line. On the other hand, categories (and other such tools) are designed to support the encyclopedia (through helping foster navigation), not to substitute for its content. At any time, the entire category system should be able to be removed, and we should still have a viable encyclopedia remaining. So the category structure should be (by its nature of merely being a navigational tool), focused and limited. Both things seem simple to me, but apparently not?
Anyway, I read your comments at the DRV, and I have a question. Though the "broader discussion" notices have a value for giving some of the CfD and DRV comments some context, I don't think you've actually stated whether you feel that there was anything structurally incorrect with the closure. (As opposed with whether you agree with the outcome - a common misconception of DRV.) I'm curious as to what your thoughts are regarding that. - jc37 00:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Oh, I sometimes sit on the fence until late on in a discussion. Often it closes before I say anything. I also feel that commenting should be enough. A good closer will take note of the comments as much as the !votes, right? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 : p - right.
(Though if you don't express that opinion in your comments...) - jc37 00:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, in this discussion, it was more that I think the discussion was missing the point. If you pressed me for an answer I'd say NI. And point you to User:Carcharoth/People who died aged XX. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
And here I didn't even know you were a knight : )
And I left you a note suggesting that perhaps you should make it a subpage of the proposal. (And as a thought, since most who come to a discussion unfortunately don't click on links, perhaps you should "blockquote" your comment from the DRV?) Though I suppose it doesn't really matter. - jc37 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

link intersection[edit]

Yep, it's prone to the same distortions as "What links here" in the first place. Fortunately, the page seems to be dying. Tony (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Agnes Potten and Joan Trunchfield[edit]

We normally do our best to name articles in such a way as to make them easy to find. Presumably your argument for grouping them together would be that neither of them is notable without the other - is this correct? Certainly it is easier to search on Agnes Potten or Joan Trunchfield than to enter a longer search term that is more susceptible to typing error. Deb (talk) 16:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Search for both separately and see what happens. This is why we have redirects. Carcharoth (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Search for Agnes Potten & Joan Trunchfield or Agnes Potten and Joan Truncfield and see what happens! Deb (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

One redirect created. The other is a typo. I'm ambivalent on exactly when to create redirects for typos. We should have Joan Trunchfield and Agnes Potten and Joan Trunchfield & Agnes Potten as well. Will create those. My point is that having the article at Agnes Potten is just not really any sort of solution. Have a look at Saints Cyril and Methodius for an example, and see the number of redirects it has. Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is that typos are easier to make with a long title like this one. Deb (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Not sure what we can do about that, though. If a typo is a plausible one, by all means create a redirect. Just remember to tag it as "unprintworthy". Carcharoth (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What we can do about it is to treat the two subjects as individuals with separate articles. Deb (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to do that, I'd suggest asking around first. The saints articles shouldn't be separated, for example, and there will be many articles that shouldn't be separated into stubs when the contents are better covered in one article. Have a look at Category:Multiple people and weigh the pros and cons of separation. Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Also created Trunchfield (redirect for now, couldn't find any other Trunchfields) and Potten. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


You wrote, "This is because I think it is, in practice, perfectly possible to carry out legal action and carry on editing Wikipedia, as long as you don't bring the legal action on to Wikipedia."

It's kind of moot... because if we're discussing it, it's been brought to Wikipedia. If it's never mentioned on Wikipedia, or to a Wikipedian, then NLT obviously could never apply, because no one would know until it is concluded. If we're dicussing whether or not ongoing legal action is a violation of NLT, then by definition, yes it is, because it's been brought to Wikipedia. Because we could not know about it unless it has. ... I'm going in circles, but I hope you see my logical point. :)

It is desirable for the subject of a BLP to keep channels open, but not if they're going to state that legal proceedings have begun; at that point, NLT is the higher policy, and they're welcome to start contact with Legal, but the well must not be poisoned. BLPs are not exceptions to the NLT rule.

To respond to "That was a bit long, so the short version is that I disagree with "if there exists any legal motions by you over Wikipedia, you cannot edit"" - You're right, I should have said, "If you have told us about any legal motions by you over Wikipedia, you cannot edit." The point behind NLT is not to stifle legal options, but protect discourse from being poisoned by them. But the fact is, he already has (or at least has threatened to? Language barrier), so it's kind of moot. But in a general statement to everyone, yes, I was overbroad, but in this specific circumstance, since the legal threat has already been stated on Wikipedia, I think I was in bounds.

What do you think? --Golbez (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we both agree. :-) Thanks for replying, and glad to have got that off my chest. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:DATED merge concensus[edit]

Since you pointed the proposal out to me, I thought you may want to leave some feedback about where you think the article should be merged to. I had to create a new discussion here as the old one was automatically archived. My suggestion would be WP:As of, but so far there has been no feedback either supporting or opposing this suggestion. Thanks – Ikara talk → 22:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

People Who died Aged XX[edit]


Do you want these to become categories? How do we link the person to the age? For example, if Jeanne Calment died at 122, why is she not linked to the "122" age?

Just wondering.Ryoung122 02:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Mini-Bios?[edit]


Could you chime in on this re-ignition of a Nov 2007 debate?

I disagree with deleting these mini-bios carte blanche, many of which could be expanded into legitimate articles (i.e., Florence Knapp).Ryoung122 02:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fictional CfDs[edit]

Was closing some CfDs, and took one look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 4 and ran away screaming. :-) Seriously, closing one of those would have required closing them all, and that was too many to read. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. That may not have been jc37's first laugh-out-loud moment of the day, but it definitely was the most - I dunno the word - "something".
So anyway, now that I'm no longer hyperventilating... : )
I'm glad to hear that you're helping out with closes. (We always need more who understand/know how to read for content as opposed to just "counting votes".)
And to address your thought a bit more directly, one way that you could look at it is that by closing the ones you do, you "free up" other admins to close the ones you aren't as eager to close : )
Anyway, Thanks for the note (and the laugh). And I hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 11:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Day's going OK. I ended up at CfD because I saw this. That was also why I avoided the October 4 page... Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
(My worst Halloween voice...)
Do as ye will, but be aware that there be a sign on the door which say:
  • Enter at yer own risk.
(There be drama afoot.)
Oh, and glad your day's going ok : ) - jc37 13:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to latest response from CBDunkerson[edit]

CPP/FPP/AAPA/APA/etc. AfD's[edit]

Good job sorting things out on those five. You rendered what I believe was a fair and policy-driven decision. Jclemens (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, only if someone actually does the mergers and improves the three remaining articles. I might do the merges tomorrow if no-one else does, but on principle I like to give others a chance first. Should be an editorial thing, not a tidying up thing that the closing admin does. Thanks for the feedback anyway, it's appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Me at ANI[edit]

I have commented on the ANI discussion. I screwed up in the block summary, but if you check the user's talk page, where I notified him of the block, I have the right difs. I have also provided the correct difs in the ANI discussion. Please look carefully at the situation, and note that 1) I have never once edited the article in question 2) Treasuryrain has never edited the article in question, nor has had any contact with either blocked user, and yet has intimate knowledge of the history of the situation. Methinks strange happenings are afoot... 23:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping others would have noticed by now. I've never filed a request for checkuser, and I'd feel bad if it came back inconclusive, but it might be needed here. I'll see how dense the instructions are. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I've never been one to rush into these situations. If we give it time, and the blocked user bares his ass again, it will make it easier to prove a connection. Just keep an eye on the articles in question, and look for a return of the same pattern of edits. If the person who is causing this conflict becomes a model user, and never shows up again at that article, so much so that we can't identify them anymore because they have become a proper user, then we have nothing to worry about. 00:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, um, I got distracted anyway! :-) I'm sure I would have still been reading the filing instructions for a few more hours... Glad I don't have to now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories discussion[edit]

I think you said I should do something like this. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea.
However, I won't be commenting there until the DRV has concluded, as I feel it would be inappropriate. - jc37 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom elections[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if you were going to be running in the elections this year. I notice you make an awful lot of Arbcom related posts, and you seem quite suited to the role. Can you please confirm if you are/aren't here please? Thanks, and best wishes, -- how do you turn this on 23:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I have been considering running in the ArbCom elections, and I was aware of that page, but for various reasons I don't really want to confirm one way or the other yet. I think that should wait until nominations open. If someone wants to put me under "considering running" or confirm me under "likely to run", then I don't mind them quoting what I've said here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Undoing redirects[edit]

I saw your comment at TTN vs. the inclusionists, Chapter 57. Something I can't seem to get anyone to seriously discuss is the problem of people undoing redirects for no valid reason, which I think is as much of a problem as original creation of bad articles, pecause it prevents problems with existing articles from ever getting fixed. As it stands, the only way to get a redirect to stay a redirect is to run the article through AFD. Timewasting, and not really what AFD is about. What I would like to try is to figure out a streamlined process for protecting a redirect. If someone redirects a non-notable character to a list, I'd like him to be able to post a request to have the redirect protected at some noticeboard. If a reviewing admin agrees that the redirect makes sense, the redirect gets protected. An unprotect mechanism would be necessary as well, with the requester pointing to an improved version in his userspace or being able to argue that the original protection was invalid. Basically, it would parallel RFPP, or maybe just be an extension of RFPP.

Do you think there's any chance of getting a process like that in place?—Kww(talk) 23:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It does sound good. One thing I realised recently was that vandalism of redirects is actually rather a big concern. Unless people watchlist redirects, there is no way to tell from looking at a page that links to redirects, whether the redirect is correct or not. But then I suppose that applies to all links on a page. You don't know where it will take you until you actually click it. Getting back to your specific point, yes, requests for protection and unprotection of redirects might well work. Though if Chapter 58 is "TTN is requesting protection of thousands of redirects"... Anyway, a good start, I think, is to see if people like the idea, then get a discussion to approve it, and then see if the regulars at WP:RFPP think they can cope with the requests. It won't be easy, but it is probably worth a try. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to edit User:Kww/redirects.—Kww(talk) 20:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


Yes I'm interested, and I did a lot of work on birthdate/deathdate. I also put defaultsort in all biog articles about a year ago. And I owe Andy Mabbet a couple of bot runs on founded dates and the like. AWB has some reasonably sensible rules on default sort and is lifetime aware I think .

I see benefits from merging persondata, infobox, article, lifetime and and other codings of the same data.

Rich Farmbrough, 23:33 13 October 2008 (UTC).

You put defaultsort in all biog articles? Hmph! Wish I'd known that. I've been moaning that lots of articles lacked defaultsort! :-) The merging is a no-brainer. How to do it and get people to adapt to a new system is harder. One thing I think is that editors should always have the option to just type in plain text. It can be a big barrier to editing if people hit "edit" and are faced with a mass of templates. Maybe someone will think of something. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

BarnStar ! :)[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
For displaying multi-tasking excellence, tact, open thinking and dilligence in the closing of a very Messy sorta-bundled AFD Exit2DOS2000TC 03:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure[edit]

what I can add to that discussion. It seems to me that the normal approach to notability is quite sufficient; if there are sources to write interesting analysis of significant journal articles and it seems worthwhile to create a separate article from the concept the journal article deals with, we do it. If not, maybe we fold it in to other articles where appropriate. For almost any article that really is notable in its own right, there will be sources that discuss it. The supposedly non-notable example Masem brings up, How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimension, has a third-party source as the second Google hit, and I'm sure there are others. As for Phil Sandifer's idea of greatly expanding the inclusion criteria for academics and their published work, I think that would be good but it's well out of the range of what the community would tolerate right now.--ragesoss (talk) 15:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the discussion. One of these days, I'll have the energy to try and do something again. Right now I'm pretty busy with real-world issues. I'll have more time after election Day on November 4th. -- SamuelWantman 20:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting redirects[edit]

Sorry about that, I guess I wasn't thinking about those kinds of links. I'll certainly be more careful to check for those links in the future. I'm not sure if there is a way to avoid these types of errors, but your suggestions sound good. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry[edit]

I'm going to try and fix the image issues tomorrow. I don't have the time to hunt down sources, so I'm just going to remove any outdated ones. Just so I'm clear, I should remove any that match the first three examples you gave on the FLC page, right? -- Scorpion0422 02:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. Though I see someone restored them. Lots of them should actually be OK, but it's the paperwork that is missing. I'll try and comment there again if I get time. One possible option, instead of pictures for every one that has one, is a selection of photos of selected laureates, as seen at List of Wranglers of the University of Cambridge. Carcharoth (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try and get some more opinions then. Do you oppose the article becoming a FL? -- Scorpion0422 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I left a question here. As for my support, if you can address (to some extent) what I said in points 2 and 9, that would be good. But this discussion should really be over there. Carcharoth (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
In reganrds to #2, I realize it's a tad repetive, but it's just the page titles and generally we should use the exact title. For #9, I can remove all of the unmentioned terms and just link specific mentioned words and concepts. -- Scorpion0422 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. #2 is not really a major thing. #9 though, I do want to see what can be done about that, if anything. I have a few ideas myself, but will wait and see what you do first. Carcharoth (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
You can go ahead and try whatever you like. I'm actually not sure what to do yet. -- Scorpion0422 20:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few ideas:

  • (1) A column next to the citation column called "glossary" or "See article" or "further reading". Whether this is within editorial discretion or not, I don't know. But I prefer it to seeing some of the terms linked and others not.
  • (2) I'd also like to see the year of discoveries mentioned, but that could, again, be controversial.

Some examples of this:

    • 1904
    • Sir William Ramsay
    • "for his discovery of the inert gaseous elements in air, and his determination of their place in the periodic system"
      • See: noble gases; periodic table
      • Details: Ramsay isolates four of the noble gases between 1894 and 1898: argon (1894), helium (1895), and neon, krypton and xenon (1898). The German term Edelgas (noble gas) is first used in 1898. In 1902, Dmitri Mendeleev includes argon and helium as group 0 in his arrangement of the elements, which would later become the periodic table. Ramsay isolates the final noble gas, radon in 1910, six years after being awarded the Nobel Prize.
    • 1905
    • 1906
      • Henri Moissan
      • "in recognition of the great services rendered by him in his investigation and isolation of the element fluorine, and for the adoption in the service of science of the electric furnace called after him"
      • See: fluorine; electric arc furnace Unfortunately, our article doesn't mention his development of a early type of electric arc furnace in 1892 - see, for example, this source.
      • Details: (again, the details section would expand beyond just a glossary-like list of articles, and would include dates and things like that, plus the publication details - eg. this)

And so on...

I realise the "details" section may be a step too far (and would start to overlap quite a lot with other articles), but I'd like to see someone attempt that. In my view, annotated lists should try to go beyond what the main source tells us, while still obviously supporting things at every stage with sources. I'd like at the least to see a "see also" or "further reading" column, with a list of articles related directly to the citation. This would allow the direct quotes to be delinked, but would still allow people to read up on things further, either by reading the article on the person, or reading about the history of the discoveries by another route (the chemistry articles). Maybe this is something for a separate article, or for the main Chemistry Nobel article, but at the least I'd like to see the linking reduced, or massively improved. At the moment, the linking from the citations column is a mix of good links and rather weak, irrelevant linking. Again, I could have a go at listing some relevant articles related to each citation, but wouldn't be comfortable linking them from the quote - it would have to be as an aside in a new column. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am actually really against that because this is just meant to be a list that has a brief summary of why they are given the award. Anyone who wants more detail can see that person's individual page. As well, I prefer just a quote because listing a bunch of reasons leaves it open for other users to add whatever they like. -- Scorpion0422 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a good point, that people can add what they like to a "further reading" column and end up arguing over it. The same applies, though, to the links. If someone disagrees with the way a quote has been linked, they could come in and change that, and arguments would start again. On the other hand, if you leave things unlinked, people will come in and try linking them anyway. Hmm. Difficult one. What I'll do is double-check all the quotes, do one more sweep through the award citations to improve the linking, and then summarise my view at the FLC. I'm probably going to support, but I'll wait and see what things look like after I've done all that. Carcharoth (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. I found someone at Commons to help with the images. See commons:User talk:Nard the Bard#Image check request. Not sure if he will come here or we go there. Do you have a Commons account activated? Carcharoth (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Living people[edit]

Have you noticed this category is being discussed for deletion? Dsp13 (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Very late reply. Commented there, as I'm sure you've seen by now. Carcharoth (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Lord Roberthall (1901-1988)[edit]

Hi. In the random way of wiki, I saw your remarks on Charles' talk page. I dug this out if it's of any help:

"This biography of Robert Hall, the highly respected and influential Economic Adviser to the government between 1947 and 1961, puts a new slant on the events of these years as well as assessing Hall's role in them."

  • An Economist Among Mandarins: A Biography of Robert Hall By Kit Jones Published by Cambridge University Press, 1994 ISBN 0521471559
  • An Appreciation of Robert Hall, 1901–1988m H. M. ARNDT, D. M. BENSUSAN BUTT, T. W. SWAN, Australian National University [1]

According to this [2] (page 38) he was given a peerage (baronetcy) in the birthday honours list of June 1969. He became Lord Roberthall, having been knighted earlier (KCMG). [3] He was created Baron Roberthall, of Silverspear in Queensland and of Trenance in the County of Cornwall on 28 October 1969. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing! Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Harry Middleton[edit]

I did some cleanup and added birth and death categories on his article; also added a WP:BIO tag on the talk page. Hope this is an improvement.--FeanorStar7 (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Great improvement, thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Norman Moore[edit]

I'd be grateful if you could comment at Talk:Norman Frederick Moore#Move Query. Thanks Moondyne 06:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Did so. Though I see there have been subsequent developments... Carcharoth (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional monsters[edit]


(Though I must admit it took quite a bit longer than I had anticipated.) - jc37 08:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I had thought it would take longer, and I'm glad someone did actually do the work. Thanks for that. Carcharoth (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional monsters[edit]

The category is empty and ready for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Jc37 left a note above as well. He also improved the categorisation of some of the previous members of the category. I'll delete it now, but it is the sort of category that gets recreated, so someone will need to watch out for that. I'll try and keep an eye out, but might miss it if it gets recreated. If it does get recreated, a salting or soft redirect might work better, unless, of course, if it recreated in a less, sprawling, manner. Carcharoth (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Er, anyone know what to do with the interwikis? The autodeletion edit summary, which I tossed over here, said: "content was: 'Category:Fictional life forms Category:Legendary creatures in works of fiction Category:Opponents of the hero (stock character) sv:Kategori:Fiktiva monster fr:Catégorie:Monstre de fiction'". Carcharoth (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Checking Rede Lecturers[edit]

Here's a list of [Rede lecturers whose association with Cambridge (typically matriculating, i.e. entering as students) began after 1750], from Venn's Alumni Cantabrigienses Part II. For some reason searching Venn Part I (pre-1750) in this way doesn't yield any results. I'm slightly involved with this effort to put Venn & additional material online, & will ask others why this is.Dsp13 (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, I say thanks, but is it just me or are there no results from that search? Could you also ask others whether the identifications I made at the Rede Lecture page are likely correct or not? Actually cinforming that two people of the same name from hundreds of years ago aren't being mixed up is actually rather tricky. Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hmm this morning you're right there are no results... which is sort of odd as there were last night! You're absolutely right about the trickiness. Dsp13 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
OK here's the list: my typo... Dsp13 (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Peer review invitation[edit]

Hi, your name was on the list of peer review volunteers as someone interested in the history of science. You might be interested in the article Gerard K. O'Neill, currently up for review. Gerard K. O'Neill invented the particle storage ring, and he managed to get a paper about space colonization published in a peer reviewed journal. If you have time, could you give it a read and let me know if you see any areas that need improvement? Thank you. Wronkiew (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No time yet. Maybe in the next few days? I'd like to do this one properly, or leave it for others to review. Sorry about that. If it helps, it already looks very good. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Take your time... Cesar Tort 01:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I hope to see your review, but I understand if you don't have time. Wronkiew (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Chemistry[edit]

Downy Woodpecker.JPG Scorpion0422's Not-so-Golden Woodpecker Award
For spending hours adding wikilinks to the List of Nobel Laureates in Chemistry in order to make it as good as possible. Somebody may revert you, but it certainly won't be me. Thanks a lot! -- Scorpion0422 20:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


I had some of the same issues when I was trying to piece together history of chromatography. The trickiest part is what makes "partition chromatography" different from earlier chromatography, since the use of different solvents that varied in their ability to extract adsorbed substances was central to Tsvet's work. Partition chromatography is essentially different because instead of dissolving stuff adsorbed directly to a solid matrix, it relies on the solid matrix to hold a stationary liquid phase. So it's an equilibrium process where the partition coefficient between the stationary liquid and the mobile liquid is the key to the separation. You're right that this has become the basis of much of modern chromatography; the distinction between partition chromatography methods (of which there are many) and adsorption chromatography methods is no longer part of the language of chromatography, making it hard to create a specific article about either one except in a historical context. I thought about redirect partition chromatography to partition coefficient, which I think might be slightly more helpful than chromatography and could more easily accomodate a short explanation of partition chromatography than the chromatography article.

For Tiselius and "adsorption chromatography", I don't think a link to thin-layer chromatography is the right one, since adsorption was recognized as the basis for column chromatography methods before TLC caught in the late 1940s. Tiselius worked on adsorption chromatography of proteins around the time Martin and Synge were using filter paper for chromatographic protein separation, but Tiselius's work was not with TLC, so far as I know. I have a citation for Tiselius's adsorption chromatography work ( from: Gordon, Arthur Hugh (1979). “Electrophoresis and Chromatography of Amino Acids and Proteins.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 325, pp. 95-105, which has a helpful if not entirely definitive chart of chromatography and electrophoresis innovations), but it's from Arkiv för Kemi, Mineralogi, och Geologi 26: 1 (1946) , which as far as I can tell is not online and which I don't have at hand (and it's probably in Swedish). Citations to that might give a lead to what Tiselius's adsorption work was, though. Browsing through the Nobel lecture, I'd say his adsorption work was actually much more similar to his moving boundary electrophoresis than anything else. I don't think we have any coverage related to the types of adsorption analysis he was doing. I would say a link to adsorption maybe be the best bet.

As I'm sure you're well aware, Nobel lectures are tricky sources, since they are usually given long enough after the work for which they are awarded that the laureates often make newer work the subject of the lecture (even if it's dressed up like it's about the prize-winning work).

Sorry for the rambling response.--ragesoss (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Lister Medal[edit]

It definitely looks like a worthwhile project. I'd say include links (and maybe titles) to all the orations/lectures you can in the table format.

Somehow, someday, I'd like to take The Politics of Excellence and start reworking some of the Nobel Prize articles to be more historical and less uncritically celebratory, but probably not any time soon.

As for a newsletter... I've been meaning to, but I'm at a crunch stage right now with my disseration, so I don't anticipate making a newsletter until after mid-November. Sorry to disappoint.--ragesoss (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Guido den Broeder[edit]

Carcharoth, could you please take a look at the editing of this talk page? People are removing comments, closing sections, making accusations, ... I am not the right person to take any action at this stage. All of this is not productive (and partially not block related), and I'ld rather have someone step in and shut things down now (by protecting at whatever version you want, or by asking all sides to step back or so) than having more warnings and blocks soon, if things would escalate any further. Guido should only edit wrt his block, not any other discussion, and should refrain from unfounded accusations. Everyone else (probably me included, but especially WLU) should stop a) discussing things not related to the block, and b) pushing Guido's buttons.

Guido does not accept any advice or warning from me[4][5], and you have been more sympathetic to him in the past, so a comment or action by you has probably more chance of being listened to. If you agree with my analysis, I would appreciate it if you stepped in and took some action. Fram (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw that edit warring today. I was unimpressed both by Guido's approach (which is misleading if people don't step through the page history - I do, but I presume many people don't), and by WLU's efforts to 'improve' the situation (it was obvious it would only inflame the situation). I'll have a look and see where things are now. See also my longer comment below. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've (mostly) stopped posting consciously though it irks me to see unfounded claims. However much you can say Guido is provoked, civility is a constant concern for nearly everyone who has to work with him. Dismissal of counter-arguments with sarcastic rejoinders (a near-constant phenomenon) does not help the page; I had included a comment about civility patrol too - I'd like it to be discussed. If Guido could concern himself with the factual aspects of the topic rather than dismissing others reasoning as ranting, more editors would be open to including his point of view. Guido's blocks are for edit warring and 3RR, yes, but also mentioned is disruption and gross incivility. DavidRuben is hardly an unreasonable and trigger-happy admin working against consensus (particularly galling to call him an involved party blocking over a content dispute when David was only one of several advocating for the position) and I'm inclined to see Guido's reactions as unreasonable. However, that's just my opinion.
Anyway, civility is a problem in my mind, perhaps others will disagree and that's fine. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

<reset> Had thought your proposal potentially could resolve matters (understated in his offer was a more robust & prolonged absence from article space than the current block's duration - to 1st December vs I think 23rd November). However he lost patience and posted a further unblock request that got rejected again, and upon some further negative comments has blanked whole block thread (including block notice & unblock-requests) with "blanking - not going to waste my time on morons anymore" - sigh. David Ruben Talk 20:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about that edit summary too. Again, a civility patrol (parole?) would be nice. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 22:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Guido - not just edit warring "once or twice a year"[edit]

I just want to point out that, contrary to what you said on Guido's talk page, he has not been edit-warring "once or twice a year". It is closer to once every 2 weeks - he just hasn't been blocked each time. Have a look at the 3RR page and the admin incidents page and you'll see the details (and also look through his edit log). I made this comment on Guido's talk page, but he deleted it for being a "rant". So even now, after being blocked, it appears he is engaging in uncivil behaviour and edit-warring. When someone has been blocked multiple times and is still causing trouble almost every week, it is naive to believe the person will change. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What I see is more someone not responding well to the "other side" trying to run him off pages he has a strong opinion on. I agree absolutely that the approach Guido sometimes takes does not help, but equally I don't think the approach others take to Guido helps either. If I had the time to look at everything in detail, I would probably try and come up with something that addresses the concerns of all sides, including the concerns that Guido has raised. Ultimately, what I see is a group of people saying that Guido's contributions are, when everything is weighed in the balance, not helpful (and that he should be blocked and topic banned or whatever, for this), and my view (shared by a view others, I think) that Guido does have something useful to contribute. My view for this comes mainly from the fact that he can work OK on articles (eg. chess articles), that he sometimes works OK on CFS/ME topics. My wider point is that a slow, relentless push for increasing blocks and ultimate topic ban of indefinite block can be very hard to work against if you are trying to improve someone into being a better editor. At some point, people give up with their patience "exhausted". My exhaustion point comes a lot later than others, and I'm usually left saying "but I'm still prepared to work with this editor", while most everyone else is insisting that they should get their way and be allowed to enforce a block and move on and forget about it. My view is that this would not actually improve the pages in question. I've read through the pages at Template:Chronic fatigue syndrome, and there is a bewildering mass of information there, including Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome and Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome. My point is that these controversies exist, and merely getting Guido blocked or topic banned will almost certainly not help. If there is a wider controversy "out there", it is next to impossible to keep that off Wikipedia. The best solution is for people to work together and lay down some general strategy to manage the situation. Generally, that relies on deferring to the most recent and reliable sources, and not waving contradictory primary sources at each other (something I've seen both sides doing). Interpreting WHO definitions and guidelines is not really the job of a Wikipedia editor. Sometimes the only thing that can be done is to say "there is a controversy" and try and report that. My view may be biased by me being in the UK, as what I've read here over the years (not in detail, just in newspapers) has been the "doctors don't recognise it" viewpoint, which seems to be different (or have been different in the past) to the way US doctors approached this. And I know next to nothing about how the condition is treated in Europe. So, in summary, when doctors and patients in different countries have varying opinions on varying controversies, it is not surprising to find these controversies reflected on Wikipedia. I don't have a magic solution to this, but I do feel that all those who have strong opinions on the matter should be included in discussions on how to handle the articles, and not excluded. Carcharoth (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have my own opinions about CFS, and these differ significantly from Guido's opinions. However that is not an issue here. I am quite happy to work with Guido in editing the articles, and if you look at some of the recent CFS talk pages you'll see we have worked together very well. The problem is that sometimes Guido simply refuses to discuss an issue on the talk page, or else he puts in snide comments without actually resolving the dispute. When this happens it makes it impossible to work with him. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a very valid concern, and should be raised in the right places. If that is the root cause of the 3RR over tagging, then we might be getting somewhere (as opposed to laundry lists of policies cited in a block log). I've made a proposal on Guido's talk page. If you and others could comment there, that would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The last 2 (civil) comments I posted on Guido's page were deleted by him, so I'll just post my comments here. My concern is that Guido has been warned/blocked before. Each time he has made an effort to work with other editors, but after a while the same problems arise. It's up to you whether or not you unblock him with a voluntary editing restriction. My concern is that the same issues will happen again after the month is up, or soon after. However I'll certainly do my best (as I have been doing recently, I think), not to provoke Guido and to try to work with him. I would also appreciate it if you make yourself available to resolve problems if they come up, rather than us having to go to one of the admin boards each time (which achieves nothing most of the time). As you seem to be the only admin who wants to give Guido another chance, I think you should also take the responsibility to make sure he doesn't just keep doing the same things again. My own impression (which may be wrong) is that you haven't gone through the last 6 months of Guido's edits, so you aren't aware of all the issues. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth you said "What I see is more someone not responding well to the "other side" trying to run him off pages he has a strong opinion on." It is wierd to me using Guido's words to defend him when I reported 3rr or 8rr I did not try to run him off. I saw him edit war before, I saw him disrupt before why is it running some one off, using Wikipedia mechanics to make things better. Is reporting edit warring bad, then there should not be a restriciton or a notice board. OK and also, "pages he has a strong opinion on", that is more like, pages he has a strong COI on. Guido is an activist on ME, he is a patient of ME, he started an organization about ME, he is an officer in it, he writes a newsletter about ME I mean I know its still allowed to edit an article with COI but my god. The behavior and the COI, I hope Guido does better but all the times he said he was leaving Wikipedia, didn't want to edit the article again, was just doing his own Wikipedia and every time he is back in days doing the same thing. I say, let him come back like proposed but there should be a civility patrol like WLU says, and they can check on all of us not just Guido. RetroS1mone talk 03:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth will you respond please I think you owe me a response. You are defending the editor with a long history of edit warring and incivility and a self documented COI and also accusing me and other editors of being the "other side" and accusing me "trying to run him off pages." That is not good faith, I am sorry, your fairness is all on one hand here. Please show your evidence I tried run Guido off, I just reported his behavior every one agrees is violation under 3RR, or strike out your accusations. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 23:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was dealing with something else. Let me have a look. Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, from what I can recall when I wrote that bit about "trying to run him off pages", it was a general observation about those who had been editing the CFS pages before Guido arrived - it wasn't aimed at you specifically. Guido may not be the easiest person to work with, but I made some suggestions about how to handle this without focusing on edit warring. i.e. Improving the content and including the perspective Guido brings to this. My view invariably is that if you block people, you end up with a reduced number of people editing an article, and that eventually leads to a rather limited article. In my view, the best articles are those written with a wide range of inputs from all perspectives. In other words, it is better to engage with what Guido is saying, rather than give up and block him, or support a block merely to make things more peaceful. If Guido's views are completely wrong, but still part of the disagreements "out there", then this should be recorded here, in a talk page FAQ, if not in the actual article. Focusing on edit warring and 3RR is one thing, but ultimately what reduces edit warring is a better-written article. Do you think the article is the best it can be? If so, then it should be able to pass Wikipedia:Featured articles standards. if not, then more work is needed. I guess what I am trying to say is that if it is a content dispute, sort out the content. If it is a behaviour dispute, then sort out the behaviour. Citing someone's behaviour problems doesn't resolve a content dispute. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
It does. FWIW, I'd be willing to be under the same editing restrictions as Guido for the CFS page, and I've no problem with you supervising or overseeing. And I'm reeeeeeaaaaallly tempted to put in a hatnote at the top of your page. Damned edit button, tempting me with its bedroom eyes. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Er, bedroom eyes? Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Undent. As in, I'd like to put in a hatnote and find it hard to resist because it is the wiki that anyone can edit and like most wikiholics I find that about as good a reason as any to click click click. Edit buttons are seductive is what I'm trying to say. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Carcharoth for explaining. I also want a better article. Just, my experience on Lyme Disease and Alan Steere and CFS and Simon Wessely says a better written article does not always stop edit warring for everyone. Example, people that say Lyme Disease was government made are not going to be happy with an article that doesn't take their side. Thing is, they don't have sources for it but they will keep edit warring and not using good sources till they give up and go away or people that stop them give up and go away, or they get banned, use socks, get banned again blah blah. I am saying, Guido's idea is, ME is it's own separate disease, CFS is not a disease, CFS is not a real diagnosis, CFS is a bad way to describe symptoms, and the sources do not say that!! People at the articles ask and ask and look and look but there are not sources for it, just Guido and other activists. May be I am to new and I have a screwed up idea about Wikipedia so pls tell me, is it better, trying to make people feel good or try making an accurate article with good sources, BC if I am wrong and it is supposed to be putting in Guido's perspective without good sources, I back off. It it is supposed to be, the article is accurate, then I will go ahead saying, there needs to be good sources before ME a seperate disease and CFS not a real diagnosis goes in. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 03:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems clear to me, from Chronic fatigue syndrome, Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome, and Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. As I said to Guido on his talk page, I've been trying to avoid getting drawn into the content dispute while mediating this, but you've put me on the spot. Have a look at this. I'm going to post on the CFS talk page and start a new discussion on this. It might be the same sort of thing that Guido might say, but if the reaction is different because I'm posting it, then that might say something about how people are reacting to Guido's behaviour, not what he is saying. I'm also going to try and demonstrate how a content dispute can be resolved by improving the way an article is written, rather than endless arguing over sources and due weight and multiple references that ultimately do no more than tell the reader "this is all hotly disputed in the real world". Carcharoth (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Further discussion should be at Talk:Chronic fatigue syndrome. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Review requested...[edit]

in Wikipedia:Peer review/Satanic ritual abuse/archive1.

Thank you very much!

Cesar Tort 01:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


I've unblocked this user and apologised. See User talk:GammaRayBurst. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And commented at AN/I diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi - didn't want to clutter up WP:AN/I any further, but I saw you asked some interesting questions there. In this case, no, I didn't connect Grburster (talk · contribs) with Iantresman or any other specific account. My personal experience has been that "new" accounts and IP's which immediately spring to attack ScienceApologist in projectspace are nearly invariably socks of a small handful of banned users (Iantresman and Davkal (talk · contribs) in particular). However, there wasn't enough to go on for me to connect Grburster with any specific account on the basis of his contribs.

That experience leads me to have a low threshold for recommending that such accounts be either blocked presumptively or checkusered. I think the harm of checkusering these accounts is minimal, assuming we trust our checkusers' discretion and commitment to privacy, and the benefit in terms of preventing disruption is quite real. This may be "fishing" if one considers any checkuser performed without a clear "target sockmaster" to be fishing. My view, however, is that such accounts have proven to be abusive socks so often that it's not a random fishing expedition to checkuser them, but rather a reasonable cost/benefit decision with a high likelikhood of detecting and preventing abuse and disruption.

I'm sorry to see you were pilloried a bit for questioning the checkuser request - unfortunately, the tone on the noticeboards these days doesn't admit a lot of nuance. They were valid and thoughtful questions - just thought I'd give you my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 18:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the noticeboards had always been like that. Regarding the wider checkuser question - what I would like to see is a more transparent way to record the "misses" - the times when a checkuser runs a 'speculative' checkuser to flush out a suspected area of disruption, and gets it wrong. That would be a way to assess how good the "instincts" of the checkusers are. If there are problems with that happening in public, some assurance that the checkusers, as a team, regularly discuss the speculative "misses" and how to learn from that, would be reassuring. From what I've heard, though, some checkusers work more alone than in teams. But maybe things have changed since I last followed what was going on (and of course, not being a checkuser, I don't really know the full story anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You mean a page like User:Jehochman/RFCU? Anybody can look at my requests and see that about 50% of the time technical evidence of socking is found. This is about right, I think. If we could predict socking 100%, there would be no need for CU. You can look through the CU archives to see how each CU is doing. Jehochman Talk 22:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, the CU archives are a good way to research the record of those involved (both CUs and non-CUs). It's good that you have a personal record of your (non-CU) work there as well. I was talking, though, more about the speculative checkusers for which there is no public record. Doing a "hits vs misses" analysis of that is, obviously, harder. BTW, do you think 50% is a good rate. Do you have any idea at all what the overall average rate is? Carcharoth (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully no hard feelings over this, I respect your opinions a great deal and I was a bit surprised that you were criticised so strongly for asking what I personally saw as entirely justified questions. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
No hard feelings at all - I can take (and have given) much worse than that! :-) Thanks to you and MastCell for the thoughts and support though. Forgot to mention one final thing - the reason I got as involved as I did was because these edits seemed (and probably are) fine: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. My point is that my impression from this is that Ian Tresman is perfectly capable of making constructive edits outside of the area of interest that got him in trouble. Whether he has burned his bridges forever with Wikipedia or not, I don't know, but at least while he uses sockpuppets to try and engage with ScienceApologist, it seems there is nothing more that can be done. Carcharoth (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


(Note:I left a notice regarding this at WT:M-E.)

Would you please look this over? - jc37 02:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Had a look. It does sound good but not enough time to devote to that now, even if BW has asked for two other projects to support it. Not being sure if I personally would use the feature, I can't in honesty support your request now. Maybe later. Sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
No problem. (And looks like WP:OHIO is a second, as far as that goes.) Thank you for checking it out as much as you did. - jc37 06:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hidden categories discussion[edit]

Sorry I took so very long to get back to you... I'm glad to hear that my little index is still used. As you can tell, I've not been very active recently. I joined a startup company in January and since then I've had virtually no free time to work on Wikipedia. My project is to allow Wikipedia-like editing for online videos. Please feel free to try it out ... it is called Wikicafe. I still use Wikipedia every day, and we're hosting a Meetup next week. Sam usually comes to them also, if you live nearby please come! And some day, when I get more time, I hope to return and become more active once again. -- Prove It (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

a minority of one?[edit]

Hi Carch - I guess being in one is a pretty good barometer for bonkers-ness, and apart from anything else it's no fun!! If you get the chance, and feel like reviewing what seems to me to be a fairly simple issue in some ways (with a bit of conflation, and a dollop of hasty thrown in), then your advice would be appreciated. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

My advice? To be frank, I would drop it. You are effectively trying to advocate for someone else. In this case that someone else is quite capable of speaking for themself, and you don't seem to be getting anywhere. I do a fair amount of mediation-type stuff and advocating for people (off my own bat, never on request) when I think they aren't putting their case across well, or the issues are being misunderstood, but you have to recognise when you are making progress and when it is better to move on to something else. One other thing. Your style of writing includes a lot of friendly asides and exclamation marks and smileys. That can help make online interactions easier up to a point, but beyond a certain point it can annoy people. I'm sure the way I write annoys some people (I do lots of asides in brackets as well!) and it is good to develop your own style, but substance is needed as well as style. In other words, don't let the frivolity of the way you say things distract from the serious points you are trying to make. Hope that helps, and sorry you caught me in a frank mood! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Goodness, you've got me all emoticon-ing now!
I vastly prefer frank to some other modes, Carch :-) - It's interesting that it's coming across that I'm advocating, when what I'd really like is for a bit better systemic communication / clarity. I feel we're short of best practice here, and I don't really like the 'Steve can email arbcom if he likes' solution - I don't see arbcom email communication as a systemic strength either really. I have a developing self-awareness of both how much, and why I seem to litter my posts with ! and :-) which at some point I may bore someone with somewhere, but you're right to call me on its annoyance factor. My eyebrow remains raised a bit at the whole 'arb sanction without arb case' thing, and I am concerned that we (the community) currently have no idea who or how many arb.s supported such a ban. I can see that my concerns haven't been understood clearly at all times, and I feel like my muddy communication is a likely root cause.. I remain pretty chilled about this one, and will try to avoid escalation anywhere regardless.... cheers Privatemusings (talk) 04:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest making a general case about 'arb sanction without arb case' and try and find more than one example to illustrate your point. Say that the Crossin example is one that you mentioned in the past, but that you want a general principle to be clarified. There is an archive somewhere of motions and sanctions that haven't had a full case. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll go try and dig it out (I find myself getting better at sniffing out these things) - conversation on my talk continues, and I'm sure this will all come out in the wash regardless in due course... best, Privatemusings (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


He has restarted his edit war at Fringe Theories: [11]. Essentially he has reverted back to the version he had edit warred over on Oct. 30. He marked this mass reversion misleadingly as a "minor" edit and frankly, I think it was a misuse of Twinkle. His edit summary says to "See talk" but his terse "discussion" says little more than "my version is better so I'm reverting to it". This neglects all of the discussion others had last week which pointed out the flaws in his version (where we had consensus to do away with most of his edits). Can you please take a look and advise us how to proceed in the face of such disruption. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP prod[edit]

I thought you'd be interested in and might like to comment on the above. RMHED (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Privatemusings[edit]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Privatemusings (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Privatemusings. -- MBisanz talk 01:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

FAR saves[edit]

Taken in sum, your three posts have frankly confused me. What exactly are you creating and what will be done with it?

To address one specific question, procedural/frivilous closures are relatively common although having it happen multiple times on one article is rare. Obama is one, as you'd expect. Marskell (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Listing relevant BLP pages[edit]

Hi Carcharoth. I saw your post at the BLP talk page. Another search tool that works well is grep.php on See, for example, this project search and this template search. -- Suntag 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Do you know where that toolserver search function is documented on Wikipedia? If it isn't documented well, where do you think would be a good place to mention it? WP:SEARCHING? Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if the toolserver search function is documented anywhere. In regards to the searching tools that you used, perhaps you can get Metawiki to revise its page to include more information on search parameters. -- Suntag 00:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I just saw Wikipedia:Tools at the help desk. I think that might be a place for such things. -- Suntag 21:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Speed limit?[edit]

Gather the evidence and say Betacommand has done X stuff in Y amount of time So is this how we're going to defend him now? In order for him to be blocked it just can't be cumulative, he's got to go over the limit in a certain time frame? he backs off and no one will do anything? Brilliant.--Crossmr (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Both cumulative and speed. Evidence of a lot of stuff counts, and evidence of a high rate of offending would count as well. But you have to present the evidence, not just vaguely refer to past stuff. Otherwise it comes down to people's memories of how bad things were a year ago (or whenever). If you think Betacommand is gaming the system by deliberately pushing the boundaries, you could try and present evidence to that effect as well. I'm not defending Betacommand specifically here, just saying how I think things should be done in general in all cases. It is all too easy for the community as a whole to bear a grudge and not let things go. It's not just individuals. Sometimes the community has a collective memory (I think some people call this 'myth') and legends spring up about how terrible certain people are. That happened with Giano to a certain extent. It is happening now to Betacommand. I don't think it is a sign of a healthy community. The way to cut through the rhetoric and feelings is to expect evidence to be presented, not just an exasperated sigh of "not again! Let's ban him this time." Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Yet I would paint Giano and Betacommand with the same brush, as well as Kurt. People seem to trip all over themselves to try and excuse their behaviour and find another reason why we should just ignore it a little longer. I'm just trying to figure out exactly what magical rules it is they play by that others haven't tapped in to yet. Whether its a point system where they can trade off good edits for abuse, perhaps they're held to a speed limit, or if its simply a case of "if one editor can with a straight face say they'd unblock you, you can get away with anything you want". The community generally wouldn't create such a "myth" unless it was born of truth. Otherwise any random editor would end up the focus of it... and honestly evidence means nothing because if you provide evidence then we get a new rule where suddenly people turn around and say "oh that's all old stuff, he's been good for a bit", hence where we get back to the speed limit rule. It seems you can get away with losing your mind here every few months and its no big deal for certain people. Some users seem to be developing an "ends justifies the means" mentality that frankly is rather disgusting. The typical cycle I see is one of these users does something wrong yet again, everyone calls for their head, evidence is given, some people even switch sides to wanting them gone (like the last big betacommand thing I believe or was it kurts...) but there are a few hold outs who beat the horse long enough that most people move on to other things (several days) and after they've managed to drive off most of the people calling for their heads they form a "new consensus" on what should be done with the user, until the next time they screw up. Heck, last time around we thought it was a good idea to let Betacommand veto his own set of restrictions, because apparently what the community wanted wasn't good enough. We only wanted to restrict him to what he was comfortable with. That's honestly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen.--Crossmr (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it helps to think of people and their behaviour on a spectrum? Rather than drawing a line and trying to place people either side of it. You will always get people who hover around the grey area, where people aren't quite sure what to do. The trouble with cracking down hard on people in this grey area is that this is a slippery slope. Gradually, as more people in the grey area get banned, people look around for other 'troublemakers' and the grey area is redefined around another 'problem' area, and the cycle repeats. That might not have been clear, so what I'm saying is that making borderline stuff unacceptable means that eventually some people will want to make the previously acceptable stuff borderline stuff and 'actionable'. As for the myth stuff, there can be a grain of truth, but it is often far removed from the built up impression given by some people who may repeat or hear something so many times that they start to believe it regardless of what really happened. Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see users who think civility is for losers and insult established and new users alike which could potentially (and probably has) drive away numerous editors as much of a gray area. Anyone who doesn't respect the community doesn't belong here, and continually insulting people for disagreeing with you, or just because you want to, isn't respect. That's the core of the problem. These users have been long told to play nice with their fellow community members and there is no excuse for continued reports about them.--Crossmr (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy PROD[edit]

Heh, yes I agree, but in this case it was pretty clear that pretty much everything the editor had created was a hoax, so it didn't seem worthwhile stringing it out. I see that even the version of the town article he created to give his plant somewhere to grow turned out to be fictional too... Black Kite 10:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)



And here I was just about to ask you if you were considering running. :D

Good luck, Carcharoth. I can't think of anyone better suited for ArbCom than you. Master&Expert (Talk) 06:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

John R. Smith/anachronism etc.[edit]

In this particular case, I was probably too quick on the trigger in endorsing the speedy deletion (although the situation with cited sources which fail to support the content is definitely an eye-opener). In principle however, I am OK with quick closings if the evidence presented at AFD irrefutably proves that an article is a hoax, but I'll certainly need to be more careful about such proof being direct evidence, rather than an attempt at logical conjecture. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Remembrance Day - 11 November 2008[edit]

Ode of Remembrance - Shrine of Remembrance - Remembrance Day

Image:Lest We Forget.png

Recorded debates and discussions[edit]

Candidates and the community,

Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact either myself at my talk page or by email

There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks.

01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


Seddσn talk Editor Review

Replied on Seddon's talk page here, thanking him for the offer, but declining the invitation. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


Yes, I limited myself to the facts, and although I alluded to my suspicions, I felt that they were too thinly-supported to be put on record. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I still think it would have made more sense for you to be more open about what your suspicions were. Asking for a checkuser between a suspect account and a banned account shouldn't be that controversial. Carcharoth (talk)


  1. Okay, I think we should discuss this fully. I have to admit that I've noticed you take what appears to be a more and more dim view of me and my contributions/activities/techniques over the last few months especially. Am I imagining this, or is this really the case?
  2. Did I think that GRBurster was Iantresman? The real issue, as I see it, was that you were willing to step up for this user even with a contribution history that showed mostly disruption vis-a-vis my account. When this is your ninth edit, I think that something smells fishy. And yet, you seem to have been unphased by this... as if someone cobbling together references from fairly-well buried arbitration cases, a peculiar obsession with my edit history (which, in case you haven't noticed, is very difficult to follow), and a knack for knowing just precisely how to phrase a complaint to get maximum attention was somehow not suspicious. You say you were distracted by Tim Vicker's red herring. Okay, I can see that. But even so, couldn't you come up with a justification on your own? You said yourself you looked at the contribution history, but apparently, you didn't see anything untoward. Why the tolerance for an account that immediately starts going after me with a level of sophistication that screams sockpuppet?
  3. I like your idea of performing rolling checkusers on all indef-blocked/banned users, but I believe that this might not be practical. How many blocked/banned users are there? How many hours in a week? What would be a good schedule on which to do this?

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. The most recent direct comment that I recall making on your editing (or rather on your edit summaries) was at the ANI thread archived here. If I have the time, I will try and locate the other times in the last few months where I have commented in threads or discussions involving or concerning you. That could take some time though, so if you have examples, that would help. From memory, I do recall mentally agreeing with some of your actions and comments, and mentally disagreeing with others (as I do with most people). Only when I strongly disagree, or am already involved in a discussion, would I have tended to comment in writing. As an example, I noticed the slew of AfDs that you started recently when you came across someone's list (in their userspace) of articles they had started, but I didn't comment on that (before now), though I do have opinions in general on high rates of nominations for AfD (I think the rate of nomination should be tied in someway to the rates of article creation and article clean-up - thus keeping a balance in the system).
  2. I was indeed distracted by Tim's red herring, and that accounts for a large part of what I said at the actual checkuser request. Once it was revealed by Thatcher that this was a sockpuppet account, obviously I took another look, and that's what led to what I said in point 5 at the ANI thread: "was it because he (Thatcher) saw a new account (self-admitted as an experienced editor), editing physics articles, who had made an ANI post criticising User:ScienceApologist, and alarm bells began to ring?" I think part of the reason I'm slower than others to see this sort of thing is that I have a strong instinct to presume innocence, and I also have a strong instinct to look at the contributions, not the contributor. I do feel very strongly that bad arguments and poor criticisms can be refuted regardless of who says them, so I usually take a pragmatic approach of responding to a post rather than looking first to see how old an account is, or what the history of the account is. Quite frankly, if I assumed all new accounts were sockpuppets, I'd go crazy. You are quite right, though, that I should have been more alert to this with Grburster, and for that I apologise.
  3. I was under the impression that the checkusers already did do routine checks on banned accounts. If they don't, or only do so sporadically, there might be an argument for doing so in some automated fashion. I suggest you take up the idea at Wikipedia talk:Checkuser.
I hope discussing things further has helped. I do have other questions to answer and other things to do, so I hope you'll understand that I can't spend too much more time on this. If you have time, though, I'd like to ask you a few questions. I did notice that you have asked another candidate whether they would recuse in cases involving you, and I have noticed in some ANI threads that you claim that some administrators are too 'involved' to take action. Could I ask whether you have a clear definition of what you consider 'involved' with regards to you and your editing? Carcharoth (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Involved usually means that the administrator has taken a position vis-a-vis the general situation in which I am constantly involved. The user to which you are referring has stated on more than one occasion that he thinks that civility trumps content contributions, and, as such, has asked for harsh judgments be made in a particular direction in such cases. I am all for people taking sides, but I think once administrators do that they must necessarily get their actions reviewed by other administrators. In that particular case, the user also left Wikipedia for a time in part because of interactions with me. I find it hard to believe that this makes this administrator impartial. There are roughly six administrators whom I feel are too compromised to use their administrator tools responsibly when I'm involved. I can list them for you privately. You are not one of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I agree that in some situations, administrators getting their actions reviewed by other administrators is absolutely needed. I would hope that if I was ever in such a situation that I would recognise it, or at least listen to people telling me that I was involved. Carcharoth (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidate Template[edit]

Hello, fellow candidate! Just so you know, in an effort to announce our candidacies and raise further awareness of the election, I have created the template {{ACE2008Candidate}}, which I would invite you to place on your user and user talk pages. The template is designed to direct users to your Questions and Discussion pages, as well as to further information about the election. Best of luck in the election! Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm probably not going to use the template, though, as I don't want those pass by my talk page and who are not interested in the election (and who are busy writing the encyclopedia) to be distracted. Anyone who is interested in the election should be aware by now of who is running (WP:ACE2008 and the sitenotice). Though having said that, as I'm letting jc37 to do a 'campaign' template, that might sound a bit strange. Really, the issue is that I don't want templates advertising the election on my user pages. On other people's pages is fine, but I'd prefer to keep this little corner sane for the next month! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom election[edit]

Per the above three (which were created through discussion with those under discussion), I'd like to select three candidates to do the same with this year, and you're one of the three. (Though I may decide to pick 4 or 5 this year, it's quite a selection.)

So if you don't strongly oppose the idea, would you help by suggesting/selecting a few appropriate images? - jc37 11:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I don't object, but I'd want to choose the image. I was thinking something suitably lupine or canine. A few ideas I've found so far:
If you (or anyone reading this) can find any similar or better or different pictures, please suggest them. I don't want to spend too long on this, though, as there are 101 other things to do during these elections. Absolute madness and mayhem! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Among quite a few other ones for dogs and wolves : ) - jc37 03:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Or this or this one, properly cropped. This one looks mean, while this one is more pensive. Risker (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
While it may be "more" than you may want, I have to agree that Image:Canis lupus portrait.jpg would seem to have the closest "look" so far of the M-E creature, at least : ) - jc37 04:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've been considering the above, and what I've decided is to go with Image:Tibetian Bandog.JPG, mainly because I like the picture and because it's a Bandog (Ban-dog - geddit?). Suitable quotes from the Bandog article include: "Bandogge which is a huge dog, stubborn, uglier, eager, burthenouse of bodie, terrible and fearful to behold and often more fierce and fell than any Archadian or Corsican cur" and "[Modern strains are] celebrated for their stable temperaments and outstanding working qualities". Hope that's enough to work with. As I said, the image may need cropping to focus on the dog. If that's a problem (license doesn't allow it, or you need someone to crop it), let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
My main concerns were no fair use (since it's a userbox for userspace) and that you're fine with it : )
I noticed the campaign idea, and thought it was a great one! - I've copied a privately musing version into my userspace pending the development of a killer slogan - but thought I should swing by here and mention that your current version points to last years election.. don't you have a 100% success rate, btw? - I hope the selected few know what they're letting themselves in for! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the link error. Hopefuly Jc37 will check back here and notice this. I should probably make one thing clear at this stage. Apart from talk page threads like this, I'm not having any notices or banners in my userspace about these elections. Suggesting an image for this campaignbox, created by Jc37, and approving of its use by others, is as far as I'm going in that direction. Otherwise things start to get silly. Carcharoth (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, oops. I'll fix the date/link post-haste : ) - jc37 17:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Good luck on your arbcom candidacy. I'd be shocked if you weren't voted in, you're definitely great at dispute resolution. Wizardman 16:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Good luck to you as well. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion page for your candidacy[edit]

Yes check.svg Done. My apologies - too much copying and pasting for one morning, there. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I have posted the list of General Questions to your questions page. I think one or two may have been added since you printed the list off, as an FYI - and I preserved your notation of intent to answer questions and so forth. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll update my printout tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review request[edit]

I'm wondering if you'd mind reviewing Sozin's Comet: The Final Battle here. I'm trying to bring it up to Featured Article standards, so if you'd review based on those standards, it'd be wonderful.

Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply, but I don't have time to do this right now. Possibly tomorrow or later in the week. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Essay now in Wikipedia space[edit]

Hi Carcharoth, thanks again for commenting on the essay I was drafting. I've incorporated several of your suggestions, and have now moved it to Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion, if you'd like to take a look. Good luck in your campaign. Risker (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Obscure image question[edit]

If I remember correctly, you always know the answers to arcane copyright/fair-use/free-use questions – appreciate you're rather busy at the moment, but are you able to wade in on this thread, before my talkpage starts to resemble ANI? (Short version, to avoid wading through flames; is it acceptable to include a picture of a grave inscription including a still-in-copyright poem in an article on the person in said grave? She's most notable for her grave, so it's de facto the subject of the article, at least in part. If so, would it be under fair or free use? Just to muddy the water further, said grave is in Buenos Aires and nobody seems to know if Argentina is covered by freedom of panorama.) The question has provoked some – er – unusually heated exchanges. Any intervention by you (or anyone else watching this page who knows the answer) would be most welcome. – iridescent 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, I completely forgot about this. Sorry. If you still need some advice, please ask. Carcharoth (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Electras[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated The Electras, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Electras. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Dweller (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been resolved now. FWIW, I didn't create the article content, but I did recreate that title as a redirect following a PROD deletion, and someone else later turned it into an article. Uncle G later restored the history showing the original creation of the article before the PROD deletion. Maybe TWINKLE needs tweaking to help people see this sort of thing? Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's a strange one, isn't it? --Dweller (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions[edit]

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

  1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
  2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
  3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
  4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
  5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
  6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Queried what time zone the deadline is in. Carcharoth (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Tuesday whenever I get done :) Sorry, I meant to add "(UTC)" there as well. It'll probably be sometime late Tuesday UTC, looking at my schedule as of right now. Ral315 (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes[edit]

I do not believe there is a standard archiving of those notes, no.--Tznkai (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


All the best Carcharoth. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia / CFS[edit]

Hi Carcharoth, I'd like to hear your opinion on this. Yesterday, I made a good number of constructive edits at Fibromyalgia and various CFS articles. Without exception, they were all reverted by Orangemarlin (on Fibromyalgia) and RetroS1mone. Orangemarlin alone reverted over a dozen edits including some by other editors, without any explanation.

I did not re-revert a single time, but reported them for their editwarring on the noticeboard. Now I am faced with numerous users asking for sanctions against me for 'frivolous reports'.

I'm at a loss here, any advice is appreciated. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather busy at the moment. Can it wait until after the weekend? If not, I'd suggest asking someone else. Sorry about that. Carcharoth (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I did, and got attacked even more. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 01:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
User:Orangemarlin has again reverted all other people's edits at Fibromyalgia, thereby a.o. reintroducing an erroneous pmid number for the umptieth time, reintroducing copyvio, and reintroducing a fact-tag, replacing the provided source.[13] Please advise. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
User:RetroS1mone keeps reverting on sight as well, for days on end now. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I really don't have the time to get involved now. I'm prepared to give advice on those pages when I have time, but when I am busy with other things I really don't have time. Look at my contribs and you will see what is taking all my time at the moment. My advice would be to keep trying to discuss things on the talk pages, and to keep track of the edits you think are "reverting on sight", but to be aware of whether you are also "reverting on sight" (I don't know if you are or not, I'm just saying that you may need to look at your editing as well). That is really all I have time for. Carcharoth (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll make a list for RetroS1mone as well (already did so for Orangemarlin, he does not respond). I am careful not to copy their behaviour, although the nature of their reverts (reintroducing OR and factual errors) makes it tempting. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. But please don't put the list here on my talk page, and be careful how you describe the edits, and make clear on whatever page you do this on that you are gathering evidence for a more detailed post eventually (e.g. a draft request for comments). Also, keep issues of content and behaviour separate. If anyone challenges you, stop and discuss it with them. This sort of thing is allowed to a certain extent, but it does have to be done with care. I believe there was a recent arbitration motion about this, and such pages have been challenged and deleted in the past. See here and here. In other words, if you are going to create such a list, only do so for a short time, and then use it in a stage of dispute resolution (don't leave it hanging around for ages). Finally, I should warn you that it is likely that if you do this, that someone will start a similar page on your behaviour (as several people do clearly have ongoing concerns about your behaviour, such as the reports you made about edit warring - I haven't had time to look in detail at that yet). Oh, and for anyone else reading this, I would offer this advice to anyone who asked. The fact that it was Guido who asked is not a factor. Carcharoth (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, for now I was intending to put it in on the article talk page(s) and then ask for an explanation of the individual edits and edit summaries. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
That should be fine, though be careful to describe the edits accurately. Carcharoth (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
And there we go again .... [14] Can something be done about this user's continuous hostile attitude? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Guido I am not hostile to you, i do not mind you are conspiring with Carcharoth, i encourage you, pls make a list of my edits. I am trying to follow policy like I understand, use reliable sources, avoid OR et cetera and not edit war. Your disruptive behavior for months and months makes difficult the goals. RetroS1mone talk 23:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, guys, can you take this to another page? RetroS1mone, I'm not consipring with Guido. I said above that the advice I gave him I would give to anyone. In fact, I am going to give you the same advice - go and make a list of edits that Guido has made that you have a problem with, and then you should both talk to each other and work out what needs to happen next. But please don't do it here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OK sorry. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 11:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)