User talk:Charles Matthews

• /About me */Plaudits
• /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive 4, /Archive5
• /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10
• /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive13, /Archive14, /Archive15
• /Archive16, /Archive17, /Archive18, /Archive19, /Archive20

Transnistria

Just to confirm, are you aware of the motions made by MariusM, and the request for a temporary injunction made by Dmcdevit? David Mestel^(Talk) 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I'm offline at present - this is from CB1. Charles Matthews 10:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh - found any good books? David Mestel^(Talk) 13:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen my place ...? All the books are good. But NTL is back on now. Charles Matthews 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Enid Blyton

Hi. You appear to be the main contributor, so I thought I'd tell you directly, I plan on merging all the "List of Enid Blyton books" pages into a single (or 2) articles. Mostly to make it easier to browse, but partly to make it easier to watchlist/protect-from-vandalism. If you have any objections, please let me know at Talk:Enid Blyton#Merge bibliography subpages. Thanks :) --Quiddity 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, why? It isn't easy to scroll a page with a huge number of titles. It isn't easier to maintain, either. Charles Matthews 10:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't really think you'd object!

I believe it's easier to scroll down a semi-long page, than it is to constantly scroll to the bottom and click a link to go to the next year's list. It also makes it easier to "Search within page" from a webbrowser.

For reference, I'll point you towards examples such as List of works by Kurt Vonnegut, List of books by G. K. Chesterton, and List of books by Martin Luther, and everything else in Category:Bibliographies by author; separate bibliography pages are also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Necessity of forking bibliography from main article currently. Lastly, it's the only way it could ever potentially become a Featured List (criteria).

Make sense? I'll make an example page, without redirecting the originals, and you can see what I mean. Thanks :) --Quiddity 18:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Example page at List of books by Enid Blyton. See first revision for alternate styling (all years as subheaders). This is all 28 (!) articles merged into one. The other benefit, is if the info were tabulated, the columns could be dynamically reordered to group by year/title/series/illustrator.

Enid Blyton's single novels should probably get merged to there and/or Enid Blyton#Most popular works too, as it appears to be redundant duplication.

All sound good? :) --Quiddity 20:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I compiled the Chesterton list (and the Belloc). At around 150 titles they are manageable. Blyton has more titles by a factor of around four; and is constantly being reprinted, so that a more complete bibliography would be huge. Charles Matthews 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So the page you have made is 40K, with minimal publication information about most titles. Also you are wrong to say it is in any sense complete. Charles Matthews 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The lack of publication info to be merged isn't my fault! I've removed the word "complete", and noted that it is incomplete and unreferenced (as are all the source pages...).

The size guideline points out that the 32k limit "apply somewhat less to lists or disambiguation pages". Having it all on one page also helps readers realize the extent of Blyton's work. See also List of books by Barbara Cartland.

(I'm guessing you're not a mergist, but, if I may quote that page briefly: "Mergists believe that while much information may warrant inclusion somewhere, very little of it probably warrants its own article.")

If you still object, I guess my next step would be to add merge tags to all 28 stub/sub-articles, and start a full discussion at either Talk:Enid Blyton or Talk:List of books by Enid Blyton. Suggestions welcome. Thanks again. --Quiddity 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be enough of a mergist not to expect any objections to a merge, and then to go ahead, dismissing such objections retrospectively. This is not exactly how business is usually transacted here. I'm not in the slightest interested in whether or not people realize the extent of Blyton's work. I created the articles because Blyton is incredibly popular (outside the USA), and it is good for the site to have articles about the lady's works. (I'm not a fan.) An article on what Blyton published in a given year 1940 to 1960 is warranted. Charles Matthews 20:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith. I was being overtly polite by even asking you in the first place, after asking at talk:Enid Blyton days ago, instead of being bold and just merging.

I don't understand what your assertion of 'lack of interest' in the readers being able to glean additional information, is meant to imply. You seem to be antagonistic towards my merging your (28 seperate stub) articles, but I don't understand why, so I keep pointing out potential benefits and trying to answer your objections, which is an attempt to reach consensus, which is "how business is usually transacted here". Now, do you have an actual reason for believing Enid Blyton requires twenty eight list articles for her bibliography, or did you just get out bed on the wrong side this morning? --Quiddity 23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you finally asked why I saw fit to split up the bibliography, which is what I was waiting for. I was not questioning your good faith, rather your style in assuming you had all the answers. As is commonly said, Blyton wrote over 600 titles. Therefore a single article is not the answer. I have just been consulting Children's Fiction 1900-1950 by John and Jonathan Cooper. The Blyton titles from the 1940s alone take up five closely-printed pages in two columns in that.

You are wrong about the etiquette, by the way. If you propose to merge a page, you should put a notice on that page, not somewhere else. 'Days ago' hardly covers it. I happen to have been involuntarily offline; but where's the big rush? Charles Matthews 09:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of being oblique, and "waiting for" me to come up with the right phrasing, why didn't you just answer my original request for objection/comment in the spirit it was intended? And, more to the point, why have you still not explained a rationale for requiring 28 separate stub articles?

The first 2 pages in that series ({{Blyton bibliography}}) already span multiple years, and 1934 includes more books than 1941, yet doesn't require its own page? You haven't suggested the obvious compromise of making just 2 lists, e.g. 1922-1952 and 1953-1975. As far as I can tell, 28 stubs is pointless article-count inflation, and they are never going to grow as individual articles beyond where they are now.

Barbara Cartland wrote 657 books, which are all listed happily on one page. The only lists split into more than one in Category:Bibliographies by author, are those concerning novels vs. short stories (for J. R. R. Tolkien, P. G. Wodehouse, and Isaac Asimov). Your stance seems to implicitly suggest that all those bibliographies in the category ought to be split into multiple stubs too? The recently Featured lists, List of birds of Belize and 2001 NFL Draft, are just as long page-wise.

I don't understand why you're being so unhelpful. If you just have a personal dislike for long pages, I'm sorry, but that's not a valid objection to a merge.

My intent in asking at Talk:Enid Blyton was to actually get some feedback, as I'd guessed that very few people watchlist the 28 separate articles, plus the merge tag that's already there has been undiscussed since it was added in mid-April. As we seem to be having communication problems (something about the style/voice of my writing irks you? I try to be as concise as possible, but I have no control over the intonation that readers ascribe to the words...), I will do the full official process, and add merge tags to all the articles. There is no rush, I'm just trying to improve/fix things as I find them. --Quiddity 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the film 2 days ago, having read the book a few years ago. I wish we were getting along better, that I might ask you irrelevant but socially-gluing questions (how was he at go?), or for any Erdős anecdotes. C'est la vie. --Quiddity 18:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

28 separate stub articles? You don't actually know the definition of stub then. It is not defined by length; it is defined by being essentially incomplete with respect to the topic. There is the old saying: Wikipedia is not paper. The number of articles on an area is not really the issue. I spent time today fleshing out the page for 1949. With the external links, around two dozen, it comes to a healthy page (for which stub would be a gross misdescription). Scaling up, there would be a Blyton bibliography page with some hundreds of inline links. You don't actually know that these pages aren't going to grow, either. I have started to put in something about the reprint information, but not yet the publishers. One of the external links is a page that claims to be a fairly complete list (lying, of course); it's a big, unwieldy page with not much more than titles, and I think we can do much better. Another major site does it year-by-year. I still prefer my original idea on this.

I'm quite happy to talk about Erdős as go player. He was around 2 kyu, and had probably played quite a bit. He didn't understand about shape or high strategy, but was reasonably sharp. Charles Matthews 18:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeking Admin. Oversight

I have recently come under rather harsh scrutiny by one of the Wikipedia administrators, Kafziel for what he calls uncivil behavior and making comments towards users. There is already a dialogue on his talk page that references this:

Interactions on your talk page

(Copied and pasted from User talk:Signaleer)

Please refrain from attacking other users as you did here. Editing Wikipedia can be frustrating, but it's important to keep a cool head. Labelling other editors trolls is counterproductive, and behavior like that can get you blocked if it keeps up. There's no need to get bent out of shape so quickly; if something seems unfair or improper to you, take the time to find out the other person's reasoning. They might know something you don't. Kafziel ^Talk 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, it's okay for other users to attack me on their "talk history page" but it's not okay for them to do the same [1][2], I strongly encourage you to look into problems before you start making accusations or threats. Furthermore, the user RJHall demonstrated to me Troll like behavior therefore I did accuse him of being a troll, I also highly encourage you to look at the discussion that was on my talk page and the bavhior he displayed on his. I have also observed that you have demonstrated to exercise your blocking power as an administrator quite frequently, sometimes without any warnings. Please collect all your G-2 before making such accusations in the future. -Signaleer 06:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Flying off the handle for no reason. I didn't make any threats; I gave you a warning. Behavior like that can get you blocked if it keeps up. See your little "sometimes without warnings" comment? Well, that was your warning.

I actually exercise my "blocking power" quite less frequently than most. People often get pissed at me for not blocking the editors they want me to, and I spend most of my time working on speedy deletions, not anti-vandalism. I just wanted to encourage you to try harder when interacting with others. Kafziel ^Talk 12:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

interactions on your talk page, part 2

This is exactly the sort of thing I warned you about. First of all, he's absolutely right - you're not allowed to change other people's comments in discussions for any reason. Secondly, if you don't like what someone writes on your talk page, you can remove their comments without calling them "absurd" and "asinine". Now, you can overreact to what I'm saying here and call it a threat (which will get you nowhere) or you can take it for what it's worth: one last friendly warning before things start to get unpleasant. I could leave you some stupid {{npa3}} template warning instead, but I prefer to talk things out like human beings whenever possible. You seem to have the potential to be a good editor, but I will not sit by and let you abuse others while I wait for that good editor to evolve. Kafziel ^Talk 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For your information, it is not uncivil to say that the words "absurd" and "asinine", on the contrary they are very civil and I would imagine that most would find it okay to say these words describing someones actions. 1.) I did not make any personal attacks, I was descring the nature of the behavior. 2.) I find it rather civil considering the other options that I have at my disposal. 3.) I particullarly find your "observations" of my page rather scrutinizingly rediculous and your manner in which you "talk" to me is by nature very cantankerous. If anything, I would contest that as an administrator, you are abusing the right for me to edit things on my own talk page without some Wikipedia administrator discussing the do's and don'ts on what I say on my edit line is crossing the line. -Signaleer 06:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is clear that you have not looked into the comments made by RJHall from observing his comments which me hade on his talk page in reference to me. This can be seen http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RJHall&action=history]. This proves that you as an administrator are harrassing me and looking for a conflict. If you think you are unbias and dealing fair treatment on Wikipedia, then you are terribly mistaken. -Signaleer 06:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would ask as a member of the Arbitration community, you please review this matter with your peers and please come to a speedy resolution. Thank you. -Signaleer 06:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility is not negotiable. You may delete comments of others on your own User talk page, but nowhere else. Anything more? Charles Matthews 19:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation in François-Etienne Caulet

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on François-Etienne Caulet, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because François-Etienne Caulet is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting François-Etienne Caulet, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

move request

Hi Charles, I have been working on expanding the article Bruhat-Tits building, but wanted to move it to building (mathematics), since the Bruhat-Tits building is only a special case. However, as that page was a redirect, I wasn't able to accomplish the move, even after removing the link. Can you, please, help? I think that the comments subpage for rating project has to be moved manually as well. If possible, please, do not create a redirect at Bruhat-Tits building, as we may to post a more specialized article there eventually, or at least a stub temporarily. Thank you, Arcfrk 05:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. There is no choice about the redirect, but you can edit it without problems. Charles Matthews 13:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Franz Wedekind

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Franz Wedekind, by Kolja21, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Franz Wedekind fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

I know "Franz Kafka" but I never heard of a "Franz Wedekind", see Frank Wedekind

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Franz Wedekind, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Franz Wedekind itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Marco Mortara

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Marco Mortara, by Cyberoidx, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Marco Mortara seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Marco Mortara, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Marco Mortara itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Handel (surname)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Handel (surname), by Shoeofdeath, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Handel (surname) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Housekeeping - cleanup per WP:SU

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Handel (surname), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Handel (surname) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Marco Mortara

Sorry for that, its just i was going through the New pages category, and thought it must have been some new user :) Its just that the source you have mentioned is having some trouble with its server, and maybe you could fix the external link 60.254.7.225 03:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC) My apologies for the CSD, and i forgot to sign in :) CyberoidX 03:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria ArbCom case

Charles Matthews, you have voted in the proposed decision page both versions of remedies, like voting both topical ban version and general ban version. Please clarify which one is the first choice and which is second. Thanks! Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 19:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a 'whatever'. I'll come back to it if it matters. Charles Matthews 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Math articles

I have begun going through your math contributions and tagging some for merging or deletion. No hard feelings, but several of the ones I've looked at are either completely contained in other pages or would do better to be such. Myrkkyhammas 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at several of these, and you were wrong in every case. In particular the speedy deletion tag on solvable Lie algebra is not at all justified. There is huge scope for expansion at real algebraic geometry. Charles Matthews 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I came here by accident and noticed this. The few suggestions I have seen for mergers or deletions are mostly ill-conceived in my view, and I have commented as appropriate on the given pages. Geometry guy 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Transnistria

Hello,

I've noticed 7 arbiters voted for User:MariusM and User:EvilAlex banning on the grounding:

"As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, MariusM (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned"(from the project or from making any contributions related to Transnistria.)

I don't think being a single-purpose account is wrong. If so, it means a variety of edits is required just to be in the project; and I think this opposes to the anyone can edit concept.

Regarding edit-warring, I think Mauco provoked them, either directly, or by his unfair edits, and I will add here only some of the examples in which I was involved:

1. my first edit on this subject was reverted by Mauco under the edit summary:rv rubbish
2. Mauco removed the disputes-templates I've added under the edit summary: rv POV hijack
3. Mauco and Pernambuco made changes depsite the oposal of the majority and asked us consensus before reverting them
4. "they" also reverted the edits they said they agree with, to force us introduce them gradually. [3]

I think it is relevat here to say Mauco refused mediation[4]

I wonder would Wikipedia have ever solved Mauco problem if MariusM and EvilAlex had been afraid to get involved in disputes? (there was a request for checkuser on Pernambuco and Mauco in November 2006, but it was rejected. The first step in unmasking Mauco was made in a war-edit, in which "Pernambuco" used User:Kertu3 to revert MariusM.)

Dl.goe 06:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As it says at WP:SPA, a single-purpose account is not necessarily bad. It depends on the user behaviour. Charles Matthews 06:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand being a single-purpose account is not bad on its own, but, if you are involved in a dispute, it is an aggravating circumstance. I just feel accusing somebody of being a single-purpose account is like accusing of having an extremely narrow area of interest.Dl.goe 08:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is where the problem lies. Editors should be here as encyclopedists, implying a broad view. We don't like 'obsessive editing', we don't like specialists if they have a one-sided POV, we don't like other signs indicating 'conflict of interest' in the broad sense (caring more about getting publicity for certain views than about the overall mission to be an informative reference site). The ArbCom uses these concepts to get a clearer formulation of editor behaviour. Anyone can become involved in edit wars; but those coming here and warring from a narrow base of edits are at risk in Arbitration of being found not to care too much about 99.99% of the site. Charles Matthews 08:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but, on this criterion, an editor who has suffered from certain authorities abuses, or who has seen suffering from abuses, or a human rights activist, or, whatever motivations he might have, if he wants to clean articles of propaganda for abusive authorities, than he is still a single purpose account, and could even be considered a one sided POV.
Second, not editing other articles doesn't mean not caring about them; I hope one can't be accused of not caring about any of the volunteer projects he didn't take part in.
Many editors do not want to get involved in disputes which tend to use much of their time, but, if no editor had gotten involved in the dispute with Mauco, Mauco would have never been caught, and we would still have a highly POV article, kept so by a now proven bad faith editor.Dl.goe 09:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of Arbitration is to take everything into account. Detailed explanations are given; that is because the community wishes to understand the reasoning. There are many principles used in Arbitration, and those are not always stated. One very obvious one, for those with experience of Wikipedia, is that the bad behaviour of other editors is not to be used as a reason to behave badly. The AC looks most closely at editor behaviour. Often people misjudge what it is they should do, in order to keep articles neutral. The only correct way is a very steady, reasonable, long term approach based on full discussion of the material, using reliable sources. Charles Matthews 10:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the main argument for banning MariusM and EvilAlex the creation of the page Heaven of Transnistria and image [5]? If no, please tell me examples of his bad behaviour.Dl.goe 13:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Spanish rabbi

Hi isn't the wording "is interesting intrinsically" POV? for the encyclopedia. LOL you have appear to have an incredible knowledge of rabbis!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe - reword if you like. I have no knowledge of rabbis as such: Google is my friend in this matter. Charles Matthews 10:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That Jewish encyclopedia looks good - its a shame it currently doesn't seem to be operating. The site on my computer came up as a dead link. Again keep up the good work on the medieval Jewish articles. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I get the Google cached versions; presumably they'll fix the server some time. The JE is good in the sense of coherence; it seems that it was written by a smaller group of scholars than the 1911 EB or the CE. I'm just fitting some of it together via wikilinks. The only skill is finding the name variants. Charles Matthews 10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. I just started the article John McGarvie -there are so many missing encyclopedia articles!!! I started articles such as Wildlife of Pakistan, History of Exploration in Tibet, Ernest Chinnery and Tiger hunting not long ago - these are major articles that were missing I was amazed they didn't exist!!!! I am currently trying to create a wildlife series by country in Africa. You'd expect an encyclopedia to have such articles anyway such as Wildlife of Kenya especially one of of this size!!! Can I just ask how you came about lecturing on wikipedia in Kampala? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was visiting Kampala YMCA, for the second time, to teach go; and managed to get an invitation out of an IT networking society; which laid on a room in a hotel for the talk. Quite well attended, in fact. Charles Matthews 11:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow great stuff! Hopefully more and more people can get Internet access in the poorer regions of the world and beat poverty. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC on editor conduct

I've just opened an RfC on myself for my conduct in a dispute that you were involved with concerning the Gary Weiss article. You took part in the AfD discussion on the article. The RfC is located here and I welcome your comments or questions. CLA 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI

Charles, your input would be appreciated regarding whether COI should be policy, rather than a guideline. Discussion here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

CR Avery

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on CR Avery, by Closenplay, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because CR Avery fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

redirect to article that's been deleted

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting CR Avery, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate CR Avery itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Clifford Orwin article

Considering the controversy surrounding Leo Strauss and the fact that the word "Straussian" is used pejoritively by critics of neoconservatism and the War in Iraq, I was surprised to see these edits [6] [7] [8] [9] that you added to the Clifford Orwin article. Unless I missed something, I do not see how these sources justify labeling Clifford Orwin a "Staussian" when he has not self identified as such. I am particular concerned about this rationale offered in one of the references: "Orwin is concerned to argue against identification of Strauss as a neoconservative, and other positions." What does this mean, exactly? That his concern that Strauss not be identified with neoconservatism is evidence that Orwin should be identified with Strauss? Just because someone studied under Bloom and Mansfield does not mean they are part of a Straussian secret society. To me, this kind of labeling should follow the same sort of guidelines as calling someone Jewish, for example. Having said that, I just reviewed the biographies of living persons guideline, and I can't find the part about "the subject of the article self identifying with the belief in question." I would have sworn it was there. Perhaps the guideline has changed, but I thought it was a good policy. I have removed the reference to Strauss from the article pending your explanation. Regards, MoodyGroove 20:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

You are in the wrong here, in fact, in removing relevant sources. When it said that he is often called a Straussian by others, is that not true? If some call him a Straussian and others deny that, then we have a controversy, and NPOV says we report both sides. I am reverting your cut of sources for all of this. Please feel free to improve the article, by adducing aother sources, or finding better ways to express the point. But you are not improving it by simply cutting out sources. Charles Matthews 06:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, CM, saying I am in the wrong does not make it so. You disagree with me, which is different. So allow me to make the case. I am questioning the relevance of your sources. The only one that indicts Clifford Orwin as a "Struassian" (and make no mistake, it is an indictment) is the last one, written by Paul Gottfried in reply to a critique by Grant Havers titled "Strauss versus the Straussians: A Reply to Professor Gottfried" which criticizes Gottfriend:

As if associating Strauss with neoconservatism is not enough, Gottfried blames his students (and thus Strauss) for subjecting "the morally impoverished American right" to the "warmed-over rhetoric of Saint-Juste and Trotsky," which then explains the Straussian objective to transform the world in a violent "neo-Jacobin" manner [...] In short, the Straussians are left-wing versions of a pseudo-Right. Yet it is simply mind-boggling that Strauss, whose life’s work systematically critiqued the foundations of the historicism which shaped the various schools of Marxism in the 20th century, could ever be associated with these historicist revolutionaries.

In his reply to this "courteous critic", Gottfried says:

Should we not generalize about a Straussian-neocon connection in view of such exemplary figures as Allan Bloom, the Kristol family, Paul Wolfowitz, Harvey Mansfield, Richard Perle, John Podhoretz, Thomas Pangle, David Frum, Clifford Orwin, etc., etc.? The one qualification that might be in order is that while Straussians are usually neocon intellectuals, not all neocons are Straussians."

So a critic of 'Straussians' and 'neoconservatism' thinks of Orwin as a 'Straussian' (and not in a nice way, which is typical). So the article labels Orwin as a 'Straussian' with whatever emotive content the reader brings with him to the article, whether it fairly represents Orwin's views or not.

The other sources you claim to be relevant do not support your contention at all. Orwin's essay "Reading Leo Strauss" proves only that Orwin wrote about Strauss. He says "Although Smith is too young to have known Strauss, he did study with Straussians (as Strauss's students tend to be called).." Hence Orwin is a Straussian? That's dubious.

And last we have Geoff Bakewell's book review of Orwin's The Humanity of Thucydides which contains a footnote that reads "O[rwin] acknowledges a profound debt to Leo Strauss' The City and Man." Hence Orwin is a Straussian? Original research. At worst, it is an attempt to stigmatize a living person by labeling him a Straussian. Make no mistake, the term "Straussian" is used pejoritively by critics of Strauss, neoconservatives, and those who would link together Strauss and the War in Iraq. If Gottfried's statements aren't enough, look at the G-hits for the search terms ["Leo Strauss" War Iraq].

Here is another difficulty to consider. From the Marxism article: "The term "Classical Marxism" is often used to distinguish between "Marxism" as it is broadly understood and "what Marx believed", which is not necessarily the same thing." So apparently Karl Marx may not have been, strictly speaking, a Marxist! Or maybe, Marxism (as generally understood) is not really Marxism (as understood by Marx). This is a good example of why I'm not crazy about the term "Straussian." Unless, of course, the subject of the article considers himself a Straussian.

Relevant Wikipedia editing guidelines:

Presumption of privacy – “Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.”

Biased or malicious content – “Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.”

Burden of evidence – “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed.”

Your last comment "Please feel free to improve the article, by adducing aother sources, or finding better ways to express the point. But you are not improving it by simply cutting out sources" seems to go against the burden of evidence. Citing sources is not the same as citing reliable sources. The burden is on me to make sure your edits conform to a neutral point of view? How did labeling Orwin a Straussian improve the article? In my opinion, when you remove biased and poorly sourced material from the Wikipedia, you improve both the quality of the article and protect the integrity of the Wikipedia. MoodyGroove 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Slow down, there. Where you say make no mistake, it is an indictment about being a Straussian, you are leaping ahead to the conclusion. Our article on Leo Strauss says simply enough that some followers of Strauss self-identify as that. Now, are you really saying that 'Straussian' is more than 'follower of Strauss'? If so, perhaps the Leo Strauss article is more worthy of your attention; so that Straussian becomes more than a redirect there, and whatever the point is can be made much more explicit.

I'm not also not contending much on my own behalf. I added some sources quickly while the article was subject to an AfD. There may well be better sources, and an improved way to express the point; I was being quite sincere there. Since it was at AfD, my point was to establish notability of Orwin. If you just cut the whole business of where he is in his interest as a political theorist/historian of political thought, whatever, you undermine the notability again. Charles Matthews 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean you, CM. I meant Gottfried. He was not using the term affectionately. Historically, many students of Strauss referred to themselves as Straussian, that's true. But since then, conspiracy theorists and critics of war (including the LaRouche movement) have decided that Leo Strauss was somehow responsible for some kind of illiberal teaching that corrupted a neoconservative cabal of "Straussians" to take control of American foreign policy and launch a war for American empire under false pretenses. The term "Straussian" has been hijacked by these critics and conspiracy theorists, applied to conservative members of academia, the media, or goverment who have any relation to Strauss (and having studied under a student of Strauss is more than enough evidence), and used as a means of identifying the guilty members of this alleged secret society. So yes, to be a Straussian in this day and age carries a lot of baggage, whether it is deserved or not, and whether it's true or not. To create a separate article for "Straussianism" (whatever that means) would only encourage more of these fringe theories to be promoted on the Wikipedia. I appreciate knowing that you were adding sources to help establish notability for the article, and that your edits did not intend to stigmatize or brand Clifford Orwin in any way. That's been happening a lot, but usually the edits are added by random IP addresses, single purpose accounts, sock puppets, far left critics of the Bush administration, or editors promoting the 9/11 Truth Movement. That's why I was shocked to see that such an established Wikipedia editor had added these edits to the Clifford Orwin article. I can see now that I was wrong to assume that you were engaging in labelism or POV pushing, and apologize for not assuming good faith on your part. I'll see if I can find some way to improve the article and maintain its notability while still being fair to the political thought of Clifford Orwin. Thanks for your time! MoodyGroove 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Please do work on the article. Charles Matthews 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

McCrea

Hey! I was just curious as to what User:Charles Matthews/McCrea is. I noticed the name "Kenneth Schellhase" in it. He is my uncle, so I am wondering what it is about. --Mschel 19:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a list of names taken from a book by Arianna McCrea. Your uncle is a historian? Charles Matthews 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

O! :-( My uncle is a somewhat famous doctor. Different guys. But I am a distant relative of the historian. I will check our genealogy. --Mschel

My mistake

My apologies for mistakenly marking Konstantin von Höfler for speedy deletion. It was an honest mistake with no malicious intent. I'm relatively new here and am still on the learning curve. --Sanfranman59 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding old encyclopedia topics by the hundred (literally), and I obviously don't want to be fighting just to keep them on the site. Charles Matthews 19:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria arbitration

I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration.

On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides.

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

your pro censorship ruling

Is it ok to have in the User:Tobias Conradi page the following

---

The orginal version of this page contained admin right abuse listing and was deleted. The deletion is not shown in the deletion log.

This user thinks Wikipedia should be more tranparent with respect to admin actions. All users should be allowed to have annotated listings of admin actions, e.g. listings of admin right abuses.

Unfortunatly the ArbCom ruled that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances." and referring here to a simple listing of annotated diffs. User_talk:Tobias Conradi/RfA

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi/Proposed_decision#Laundry_lists_of_grievances

So User:Tobias Conradi is denied the right to collect evidences of admin right abuses.

It reminds me on people committing crime and when the victim wants to change things by making the crime public he is additionally abused by being censored.

http://transparency.org

---

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. And can't you find a more sensible way to make your point, whatever it is? WP is quite entitled to ask people to use space here for the project, and not as personal web space. That's not censorship. Charles Matthews 12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How would this way look like? I once created a project for that, but this got out of policy deleted. I use the space for the project, it is to keep it clean and policy conform. I was very astonished that ArbCom made a ruling that would deny to one special user the right to collect policy violations. Shouldn't the ArbCom support the policies, support people that stand up for their proper enactment? If what the ArbCom ruled, namely deleting project related material is not censorship in your eyes, you should maybe help to rewrite the WP article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not censorship to say that the User namespace is for certain things and not for other things. You seem to have pressed the point, and now there is a judgement you don't like. That's how it happens: disputes are resolved at ArbCom level this way. Charles Matthews 14:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP: Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. That is what the ArbCom ruling supports. All my evidence collections of admin right abuses got deleted. As said above I also did it in the project space, but there it got out of policy deleted too. Where would you collect facts about admin right abuses? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not making sense. If we wanted you not to have the right to complain about admin abuse, we would have ruled that you couldn't bring an RfC. You can. That was not what this was about. You can use the mechanisms we have. Charles Matthews 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are not getting sense out of it.

• Please tell me a page where I could collect evidences of admin right abuses.
• Please tell me why colleting such is prohibited.

in the first place I do not want "comments" from others (request for comments), but I want to collect the facts of admin right abuses. Why is this denied? Why is collecting facts denied? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't want you to do that. Wikipedia is a working environment, not a political playground. Collecting up 'accusations', on this site, is harmful to the Wikipedia mission. This is what you are being told. If you are in dispute with an admin or anyone else, use dispute resolution; which has the basic feature that people can reply to you. No one can stop you collecting facts for your own use in your own space somewhere, but we have clearly ruled that this is a negative for Wikipedia, when you do it in your User space. If you have to do this, find some web space and do it there. WP:NOT#USER contains some basic remarks; your user page is not yours, and it exists to make collaboration easier. We are telling you that your user space is not yours, and your use of it is making collaboration harder. See also 'WP is not a battleground', 'WP is not a soapbox', and other fundamental comments on how Wikipedia is run. Charles Matthews 16:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does dispute resolution allow collecting facts? You say collecting facts on admin right abuses is harmful, do you think the abuses itself could be more harmful? WP:NOT#USER - interesting that this is enforced so much on a page that mentions admin right abuses, not so on pages where admins promote physical violence!! Why can admins maintain lists of false facts/defamation about people while I am not allowed to maintain lists of annotated diffs? Why do you think cesorship on abuse reporting helps WP? Why do you suggest that the abuse evidence collectors should work offsite which is really much harder to do, since it will probably miss wiki technology and will miss all the easy back and forth linking when the collecting work is done in the same wiki where the abuses take place? Why does the ArbCom not collect their evidences offsite? Why are the people that call me vandal are not forced to work offsite? If WP is a working environment - why are admin right abuses are allowed kind of "work" and the evidence collecting "work" not? Without the admins abusing their rights it would be a much better working environment. I would like to see certain things changed, but this needs collecting evidences. In how far are the ArbComs pages not political while a little listing of annotated diffs is? Why do you call this laundry list? Why don't you help getting the laundry washed insted of censoring reports of the mere existence of laundry? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to work, not be a policeman. How about you? You are not making any new point. You are simply expressing a view that you have some rights, and you have been told, completely clearly, that you do not have such rights. Charles Matthews 06:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's how to go about resolving any disputes you have with administrators or anyone else: Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. As listed on this page there are channels available where you can list alleged abuses with the aim of seeking a resolution. Kutabi 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

"against heresies" links

Your name recently popped up repeatedly on my watchlist. Thanks for your tireless efforts to improve the "Against Heresies" links, etc. Jonathan Tweet 13:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles E Hill

Hey I am editor LoveMonkey and I was hoping to create and article on Professor Charles E Hill and was hoping to ask you for help. LoveMonkey 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have details such as date of birth, middle name? Charles Matthews 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Karen Leigh King

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Karen Leigh King, by Javit, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Karen Leigh King seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Karen Leigh King, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Karen Leigh King itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Danishmend Gazi

Could you please check the text I drafted in Talk:Malik_Ghazi_Danishmend. I suggest we change the page title to just Danishmend Gazi (and not Ghazi, since it is the Arabic spelling), with links from all other variants of course, as I saw that you had done. If you go to Google Books to this link, and register for a view of Clifford Edmund Bosworth's book cited in the article, in page 215, you will see a well-arranged geneaology for the dynasty, since it could be confusing for anyone. Regards. Cretanforever 19:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page. I'm sure you know more about him than I do; I was quite surprised at the scrappy details in the sources I tried. Go ahead and paste in your draft. Charles Matthews 08:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Urantia Revelation

I added categories as requested. If there are no other issues, I'll remove the template you placed. Richiar 06:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not me. Charles Matthews 08:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories on German scholars

HI just seen your newest articles on the back log of the new pages. I added or corrected a few categories to your German articles. Note Category:German philologists and Category:German Roman Catholic bishops exist. Keep up the new articles, Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Charles Matthews 09:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Renaissance humanists

If you have a moment, please take a look at this, which I have just extricated from entanglement with the likes of Richard Dawkins and Björn Ulvaeus of ABBA. Plenty of articles need adding, I'm sure, and probably some need pruning. The same goes for the list at Renaissance Humanism - Donatello didn't make the cut. Many of the articles have links to humanist or humanism also. I have added a redirect for Renaissance humanist to the -ism. Pass it on if you know anyone else with an interest. Thanks, Johnbod 21:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Paranormal arbitration.

I wanted to know when you would start working on the Paranormal arbitration. I also wanted to request that when you do, you add [[10]] and [[11]] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area [[12]]. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for. Also please add [[13]] and [[14]]. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You can participate directly in the Workshop page for the case. Charles Matthews 11:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the "Proposed decisions" area found here [[15]]. This area is for arbitrators to enter proposed decisions, Specifically Proposed remedies. I wanted to make sure that specific remedies were not forgotten to be added concerning Martinphi and Davkal since they are the main reasons this arbitration got started in the first place and the most amount of evidence is weighted against them. You can just copy it from the workshop into the "Proposed remedies" area for the arbitrators to vote on.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. Your use of the word 'overlooked' suggested a lack of familiarity. A selection of proposals from the Workshop are brought forward by the Arbitrator who writes up the case. I or any other Arbitrator can indeed add proposals. I would need to know more about why you think the case now in Voting is deficient. It seems to be one of the more complex cases, indeed, with a number of editors named as involved. Charles Matthews 11:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration was initiated by Minderbinder due in most part to the bias and disruptive editing by Martinphi. Much more evidence exists implicating Davkal as well. For Minderbinder's evidence please see [[16]]. There is a lot of evidence that he gathered up concerning the actions of Martinphi and so far there is no vote for the arbitrators to take actions against either Martinphi or Davkal. The editors involved in the arbitration agree almost unanimously on banning Martinphi from articles related to the Paranormal (or from Wikipedia all together) as well as Davkal. See [[17]] and [[18]] to see what I mean. There is mountains of evidence (In the evidence area) implication both of them specially in disruptive and bias edits but as of yet there is nowhere for the arbitrators to vote in the "Proposed decision" area on proposed remedies.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll see this is discussed (offline). Charles Matthews 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Offline"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)