User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 12

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

Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13


Automatic signing[edit]

I am not really sure what you're trying to do. Are you trying to make it so the template fills in the parameters itself? All you have to do is use the code:


and the code is generated. Good luck, Psychless 17:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's that simple? Doh! I was putting four tildes. I think it is better to have an additional "dated signature" parameter:
Because most people are more used to that. Carcharoth 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


That was an exaggeration, but I'm not too fond of relisting things unless the answer really is unclear, hence this was due for a close rather than a rehash of previous discussion. I'll userfy the list to you if you want. >Radiant< 09:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting me on the spot, eh? :-) No, I don't think it's worth userfying to my space, as I won't do anything about it, other than copy it somewhere. Better for someone to do this sort of thing from scratch if they are serious about it. Thanks for the offer, though. Carcharoth 09:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg[edit]

(thread refactored from split talk page discussion)

I've responded to your blanket statement regarding G12 on the Non-free content talk page. I really would appreciate a specific response to the question about Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, which most definitely is on the Corbis website. This demonstrates that mere presence on a image library's website is not enough for G12. You have to know who owns the picture. Carcharoth 10:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Has there been any serious question that a photograph that we have an entire article devoted to does not meet our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria for that article? If there is, I'd be happy to have a conversation about that with whoever is concerned. Jkelly 16:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with this image, but people are inconsistently applying the standards. Please review and contribute to the continuing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#The Corbis/Getty argument. In that thread, you said "images owned by companies" - it is the definition of "owned" here that is disputed. Carcharoth 16:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Oftentimes, as useful as blanket rules are, there are going to be exceptions to them, which is why we have a tradition of using discussion as a means towards informed consensus. While it is true that Wikimedians are not necessarily going to always arrive at the right conclusion, and we're not really set up to evaluate claims of copyright ownership with perfect confidence, a conservative stance coupled with taking the time to discuss things remains the best approach we have to working things out on the project level. I'll note that Wikipedia:Deletion review appears to be a terrible forum for working this sort of thing out, however, due to the tradition of mindless vote-counting there. Jkelly 17:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As well as the deletion review (which seems to be going OK since only image specialists are commenting so far), I have made a proposal to revise G12, see here. As you mentioned G12 initially, I thought I should let you know so you can contribute to that discussion as well. Carcharoth 21:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I really, really don't think that it is a good idea to mess around with the copyright infringement speedy delete criteria. If someone does something dumb like deleting the Iwo Jima photograph, we can undelete it. If someone goes to the effort of conclusively proving that a certain work is in the public domain worldwide and that an agency's claim of copyright (or claim of sole ability to license) is wrong, that's great. But the burden is on the person wanting to publish something that it falls within our copyright and licensing guidelines, and, while freeing content is definitely part of our goals, we need to avoid doing anything that encourages users to upload infringing media here. Jkelly 22:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my general view is that any fair-use image without a rationale should be deleted right now. Anyone who seriously thinks an image is needed should be more than happy to find a new source, reupload, and add a rationale (or provide a rationale and ask for undeletion). That way we could concentrate on checking that images with rationales are being used properly. Regarding G12, I have no problem with a criteria for speedy deletion of copyrighted images - but the current wording is too simplistic. It implies that any photograph on a commercial website is copyrighted to that website, when that is not always the case. It is the same problem with copyvio articles. You need to actually be prepared to investigate the ins and outs of whether it is copyvio or not. Despite the wording, blatant copyright violation is often a misnomer. Copyvios can be very subtle, and apparantly blatant copyvios can turn out to be nothing of the sort. Anyway, I hope you will express your views at WT:CSD. Carcharoth 23:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fictional conflict infobox[edit]

I see you've deleted Template:Infobox fictional conflict from the Battle of the Pelennor Fields article. It was specially created for such pages (contrast with Template:Infobox Military Conflict), and half of the details that were conveniently placed in it you incorporated instead into the (overlong) leading section. Why? Súrendil 18:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you found that a bit abrupt. Given the AfD, I was looking at the article with a ruthless eye and with a thought for how the article might look without the infobox - I never presume any article needs an infobox, as I find infoboxes can distort things better presented as prose. My problem with this infobox was the way that it puts an emphasis on commanders, numbers and other things, an emphasis that is not found in the book. Using infoboxes initially designed for real battles has never made much sense for me as far as fictional battles go. It turns a literary article into a Top Trumps card game. Also, infoboxes should, in my view, only summarise information found in the article - they are an alternative way to access the information, and all the information in the infobox should be presented as prose as well. About the lead section: it is not overlong. A lead section should summarise the article and can be several paragraphs long if need be. We should probably discuss this further on the article talk page. I'll copy this there. Carcharoth 19:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot, again[edit]

Greetings. I (finally) reran those 150 with the new changes. Results are here. By the way, in regards to our previous discussion here, that's very interesting about the WPBio changes. So far as I'm concerned, Polbot function #3 is your baby. Just let me know what you want me to do from here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there[edit]

The thing you're looking for is WP:LAP. It's mostly inactive lately but I may want to revisit it some time. But in general, writing down common sense is a relatively painless method :) >Radiant< 08:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi Carcharoth - I'm here to ask a question and congratulate your edits to Chicago Board of Trade - I am curious why you added all the dates when the photo's were taken - If we had an old black and white photo - I could understand it, otherwise isn't the readers assumption that it will be a recent photo? If the reader really wanted to know - it's there for all to see on the image page. Perhaps there's some policy I'm unaware of? <sensitivity disclaim>the preceding comments are meant as a genuine wide eyed enquiry and in no way impune the integrity or general excellence of the recipient. PS. I'm sure there should be some library of congress/HABS images of this building, but for the life of me I can't get along with their search engine. Kind regards --Joopercoopers 09:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I only wanted to add the dates to the first two pictures. The main ones (2006) and the night one. Since the night one had no date, I was happy just to have the main one say "2006". I agree that the dates added to the other pics are excessive (by no means am I suggesting all pictures should have dates), but I didn't add those. I think TonyTheTiger added them. You or Tony should feel free to remove them if you think they are excessive. Carcharoth 10:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I share your concerns regarding the images - I suggest, the images of the statues of the original building would be better used in an article about that building (also interesting and notable I think). In the meantime, we could hopefully get some images of the statues on the existing building perhaps and substitute them? --Joopercoopers 21:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the pictures are fine in the article at the moment. They are part of the history of both buildings. They were originally on the 1885 building, but they are now part of the 1930 building - well, in the building plaza, but you get the point. They were re-dedicated and whatnot, so they are fine in the CBOT article, but just need to be put in the right section. And the current structures on the 1930 building are not statues. They are relief sculptures (sounds like a bas-relief type thing). Might be difficult to take a picture of, but I'm going to try and find hi-res pics to zoom in on. Carcharoth 23:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I found Image:Cbot-close-night.gif, which has two reliefs just below the roof on either side. These might, however, be the 'similar figures' referred to here: "On each side of the 13 ft (4 m) diameter clock facing LaSalle Street are hooded figures, an Egyptian holding grain and a Native American holding corn.[20][21][22] Similar figures are repeated at the uppermost corners of the central tower, just below the sloping roof.". Would be nice to have some pictures of all these architectural features. Carcharoth 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They're clearly visible here along with the aluminium 'ceres' statue on the apex. - There's another two on the other side. We need to see if we can source an image like this one. Actually there's a good account of some of the interior decor here which would be good to incorporate.:-

"The details of the building highlight the board’s particular technique of capital accumulation. Abstract images of plants and flowers swirl with a machine-precision finish. These decorations are geometric and angular, accentuatingtheir stylized, man-made quality. The images express a distance from the organic world even as nature is exploited, as do futures contracts themselves. The details bring this denaturalization to life, showing off the transportation technologies that grain to market and people across oceans to engage in commerce. The buildings lower floors are adorned with granite inlays of stylized zeppelins and ocean liners. The paneled gates that guard the entrance to the 1930s trading floor show intricate scenes ofthe planting, harvesting, threshing, and milling of grain, and at the of the cycle are depictions of the transportation technologies that bring the wheat, corn, and other grains to market. These images reveal the importance of machines to agriculture. In the two men and a woman field while smoke curls out of two tall smoke stacks behind them. In second panel, a threshing machine out wheat as the two human seem to be retreating from its presence. The ship’s panel contains no of either grain or presence; rather, a silo’s contents are unloaded into

the cargo hold of a shipvia a chute without the intervention hands."

Regards --Joopercoopers 12:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


This one was quite a team effort. I thank you for your help. You may want to post this on your user page:

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


I oppose your edits. Please feel free to respond, SqueakBox 00:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have. Please see User_talk:ElinorD#Talk:Daniel_Brandt. Thanks. Carcharoth 00:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your note[edit]

I don't see why we need a 'demonstration'; after all, this isn't rocket science. Unless there is a very broad consensus for this change, we should refrain from doing it. Thanks, Crum375 00:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind saying that at User talk:ElinorD#Talk:Daniel Brandt? Also, I'm not quite clear why you are opposing this change? Are you sure you understand the change I am proposing? If you do, then you could actually comment on the specifics, rather than a vague "needs broad consensus". I get the impression that some people are swarming to "prevent" something. Again, I ask, why should the changes I've made attract such attention? I participated in the deletion review. My motives are entirely transparent. I'm suggesting something different that doesn't seem to have been tried before, and I am disappointed that the first instinct of two editors has been to jump on my edits as if some long-dead corpse is rising out of the ground. I'd characterise it more as putting the finishing touches in place to satisfy those who think a redirect to one of the companies is a bit random. Carcharoth 01:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool, dude, SqueakBox 05:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


Congratulations, the forces of silliness have been overcome.  ;) (BTW, my last comments re POINT were sarcasm, but in any case you are correct: #8 needs to be rewritten). Cheers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

PS, you should see my talk page. When the image was restored two huge pix of Planck-und-Einstein graced my page. LOL. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Einstein images[edit]

RE: In the recent debate, I didn't bring up this issue, but I'd be interested in your opinion on it. Carcharoth 09:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, this is quite understandable, and does not by any stretch of imagination mean that all public-domain photographs of Einstein cannot be freely used by the public. I am still in the process of looking into it further, though. Einstein left his estate to Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Einstein had actively supported the university during his life and this support continues with the royalties received from licensing activities. It appears that Hebrew University of Jerusalem entered into a contract with the Roger Richman Agency to license the commercial use of the name "Albert Einstein" and associated imagery and likenesses of Einstein (celebrity rights essentially), as agent for the Hebrew University. As head licensee the agency can control commercial usage of Einstein's name (e.g., when Albert Einstein's name is used in a trademark or commercial advertisement). In May, 2005, the Roger Richman Agency was acquired by Corbis. ... Kenosis 14:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC) ... See also, e.g., Personality_rights#United_States, which gives a reasonable summary of recent case law in the US. As to case law (common law) in other countries related to this, I couldn't speculate whether the article's treatment gives a reasonable "picture" of the situation. ... Kenosis 14:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"featured status" of article[edit]

I went there to see whether that featured article had the popular culture stuff in there at the point when it was promoted, and as far as I can tell, it didn't.

You're mistaken. It was the version of 27 September 2004, and it DID contain the "Literature and popular culture" section. You must not have looked very hard. Michael Hardy 23:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Will reply at the DRV. Carcharoth 01:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching[edit]

However, I'd like you to see this page, DES and DGG are both helping, as is Chrislk02, and Adrian A. H. I'm inviting your comments because you were active in the discussion, and I'd like you to see the direction we're moving towards. However, please note that this is an early draft and is not up "officially" in any way. I've invited only a few people to look at it, until we work out the problems that it may create. However, we're moving in very good direction, and at this point I'd really love your input! ArielGold 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Typed up a whole thing on my talk page, lol. Then I decided to put it on the other one, so I've added it, and then I read your name suggestions, so I added to it, lmao. Go refresh and you can see it all. :) ArielGold 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


Howdy, I have taken some time away from editing and just now saw your message. Basically I find articles without DEFAULTSORT by finding errors in categories. There are several common errors that I find that I "fix" by adding DEFAULTSORT and then cleaning up the cats. That would be great if someone could come up with a better method. I can also tell by looking at a broad stub category. If I find a a name out of order, then I can be sure there is no DEFAULTSORT. If I look at non-stub categories, then it is possible that there was just a syntax error in the cat directive, so I fix those errors. Hope this helps! Schmiteye 03:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I see people adding DEFAULTSORT and then doing odd things to the cats like: [Category:1953 births|1953 births] and I do not understand why they would do so a thing. Schmiteye 03:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Archives08#Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg[edit]

You may want to review the discussion we had a while back on Commons Re:Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg. btw: I did get an e-mail back from the President of the DPG, many months later, saying that the DPG didn't own the copyright of this picture either. He did express his concerns about using this picture. If you think it may still be relevant I could try to find it and post it on Image talk:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg. The folks of the Landesmuseum für Technik und Arbeit in Mannheim never responded to my email though.
I took the liberty to re-upload it on en:wiki, because the rules for fair use are more liberal than the PD rules that apply in Commons. JdH 14:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Please do copy your links and information to Image talk:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg. I think we are OK under fair-use, but someone else changed the tag to Public Domain. My view about unknown (not anonymous, but not known) authorship from that long ago, is that we should use under fair-use as it is not likely to be a problem. Carcharoth 14:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Template talk:Thread retitled/doc[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template talk:Thread retitled/doc, by SXT40 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template talk:Thread retitled/doc is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template talk:Thread retitled/doc, 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 08:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing that utterly stupid brain freeze error on my page. ~*Smacks Head*~ ArielGold 13:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


I can't find the poem on that link, for some reason. But I like the idea of a literary British monarch (however half-baked), because since James they've all been so deadly thick). I find his lines on Anne's death quite moving, though they also give an insight into how distant from her he'd become.

As for the article, it goes downhill fast. I've decided not to try and keep up with it on the hoof but to give it a spring clean every so often. The best way to fight the "James was outrageously gay" brigade and the DBD one-man royalty project (does any other single editor have as much POV influence on so many articles as him?) is in their absence. It is just no fun trying to argue with people who are not interested having articles reflect the weight and styles found in the best books, which is my own principle.

On the Gunpowder Plot, I have a wonderful book by Mark Nicholls which charts the actual investigation from start to finish. he makes it quite plain that Cecil was as much in the dark as anyone else to begin with. I'd like to have a go at the Gunpowder Plot article one day. I love Jacobean crime stories: and they are so bizarre that there really isn't any need to make extra things up.

I'm just about finishing up with William Shakespeare at the moment (it's at FA), and I can't wait to get stuck into Catherine de' Medici again (crime galore there).

And what have you been up to, sir? I see you chatting away with Geogre from time to time, but most of that intellectual stuff goes above my head, I must say. I like to think of you sitting at your keyboard with your deerstalker on, solving the whereabouts of Norwegian cathedrals or tracking down the meanings of incomprehensible words. Which reminds me, you never did fall for the bait I set you at Anne of Denmark (note 68). I remember thinking: "Get out of that one, then, Sir Carch!" qp10qp 00:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Perkin Jr.[edit]

I came across him by the Baeyer page, where somebody changed the link from Perkin to Perkin Jr. I am interested in chemists and I updated some of the noble prize chemists and german chemists. I downloaded the two refs and will also upgrade the article soon! The ref is really nice discribing the time in munich with baeyer and that Perkin suffered from the lack of interest of Baeyer in musk and the opera. But e also learned a lot and started a life log friendship with Baeyer. His upgrade of the laboratory in Manchester similar to those builtby Baeyer in Munich boosted the chemistry department to first league. It says also that his work on small ring systems added proof to the ring strain concept of Baeyer. Also that long after his death the british chemists said that he was one of the chemists good enough to get the Noble Prize but never got it!--Stone 14:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sounds great. If you can source the "didn't get it but was considered good enough for Nobel", and expand it more than I have done, then it might be possible to put it forward for Wikipedia:Did you know?. Carcharoth 22:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:EastEnders characters[edit]

Appears that even all of the redirected characters of that soap are in that cat. If you can comment at this section in order for use to solve this problem that'd be great. Lord Sesshomaru 15:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Replied there. Thanks for the note. Carcharoth 16:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
On another note, I saw that you added a new section in the guideline. You may want to include Category:Banksia taxa by common name as another prime example, though I'm not sure if it counts. As of now, are we able to categorize articles that are redirected to a section or list? For example, can I load some cats. at the Dragon Ball characters that don't own a page? How is this exactly? Lord Sesshomaru 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Category:Banksia taxa by common name is already mentioned under Categorization of multiple taxonomies. The categorizing of redirects to lists should always be possible, as long as they are all pointing to the sections, not just the list. And take care not to overwhelm a category with redirects if people want the category restricted to articles. If people want the main category restricted to articles, you would create a separate category for the redirects. So I'd say go ahead, but maybe discuss with some of the other editors first to avoid problems and decide which category structure is best for you. Carcharoth 09:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


No problem, I haven't seen any pattern of your doing that. If I see a high-powered editor going in the wrong direction all the time, I let them know about it. There are a zillion of these that I'm fixing, and you are way far from being the greatest cause of them. Happy editing! Chris the speller 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Spence is a good case of where the cart has gotten in front of the horse. The natural article titles for the suburb and ghost town could be "Spence", so they should go to the top of the page, and the general limit for people with the surname is about 5 to 10 before splitting them to Spence (surname) and putting the link towards the bottom, just above See also. My limit for these is closer to 5, or lower if they are accompanied by onomastics. The school also deserves a place on the page, as it may often be referred to as just "Spence". Pocket money is a synonym, so it should be there, too. The function belongs in See also, as it is probably never referred to as just "Spence". I will have to look at the other examples. I'm not fully behind a link to the German Wikipedia for the film article, but tell me what you think. Chris the speller 15:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I got involved in the discussion about deleting one-link dab pages, and felt that the people trying to delete them could find another article to link with less effort, and while annoying fewer editors, than going through the trouble of deleting them, at least 95% of the time. Looks like the good guys got the upper hand, at least so far. Chris the speller 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fan art for Tolkien articles?[edit]

Nazgûl currently has movie-based fan art released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Perhaps we should scout for nice exclusively book-based amateur fan art, along the same lines, to use in character, battle and location articles... fidelity to the text would be an issue (i.e. no plate armor). If we actually commission some, I'd even advise the artist(s) to stray from the film visuals as much as possible while still being faithful to the text (i.e. a black or dark brown-haired Legolas, which is certainly possible). (Wrote this first on the project talk) Uthanc 04:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Saw that, haven't replied yet, sorry. Will reply over there. Carcharoth 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Westphal query[edit]

Hi I was just wondering why you were interested in Alexander Westphal's dates. I'm trying to patch together some family history and wondering if you have any information... Thanks.

No more than what is in the article. One thing to be careful about is that the father and grandfather have the same names. So it goes: Alexander Karl Otto Westphal (1863-1941), Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal (1833-1890, the father) and Karl Friedrich Otto Westphal (1800-1879, the grandfather). At least according to You may want to find a more reliable source to quote. Carcharoth 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Other categories for redirects[edit]

Glancing over WP:CAT-R I noticed the nice-looking new section you added. The fact that whether other trivial and fiction-related categories can be placed or not (ie, aside from the ones like at Category:EastEnders characters, the Categorization of multiple taxonomies, etc.) remain unclear in my eyes. Was hoping if you could update that guideline to something in the likes of: Redirects "should only" include categories that [pertain?] to the list/group of characters in the story/series category. I think I'm saying it wrong; to clarify, make it that categories to redirects should just be the topic's characters cat., and these ones if obviously necessary, but not any others to avoid the "italic" bloating. Cacharoth, is this understandable in any way, shape, or form? I can provide a sample if you'd prefer. Lord Sesshomaru 00:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I get what you are saying, and I agree. Please feel free to edit the guideline to make it clearer. If anyone objects, we can discuss on the talk page. Carcharoth 00:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I had a hard time putting it in words here, I'll have an even harder one putting it in Layman's terms there. Would it be too much to ask if you could do it for me? I'm wrapped up in several things now. Lord Sesshomaru 03:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll try and do it tomorrow. Remind me if I forget. Carcharoth 03:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
  • REMINDER: are you available to perform the edit? Lord Sesshomaru 19:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw the update on WP:CAT-R, thanks for listening to me. Lord Sesshomaru 00:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW, is this revert claimed correctly? I think that user is wrong, though better you check on it than me. Lord Sesshomaru 00:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Comet comment[edit]

I don't think he is saying here that he doesn't mind what religion people are as long as they conceal it, though he certainly believed something like that. I suspect he is only saying that it's best to keep your flights of fancy to yourself, in case some people believe them. Overall, he is telling people not to read all sorts of nonsense into the appearance of this comet, because human beings can't read God's mind anyway. The bit about Paul is tricky. My interpretation is that in this part of the poem he is illustrating a conceit of reality-turned-inside-out in dreams—so if Paul met the devil instead of God on the road to Damascus, that would be an example. The blazing comet obviously reminded him of the light that appeared to Paul from the sky.

I must say, I warm to this sensible side of James. Once he got over his obsession with witches, he was wise about such things. This poem is highly orthodox, because the bible warns against false prophets. If you interpret James's actions throughout his life as informed by a strong orthodoxy, they begin to make sense, I believe. That's one reason I'm convinced that, though he may have dreamed or fantasized about it, James would never have practised physical homosexuality. That would have gone against everything the bible told him. His faith would have helped him hold his nerve, I'm sure, when the comet was flashing across the sky.qp10qp 16:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You're funny when you get one of your Sherlockian buzzes on! I think it's a great idea to do an article on this comet, though none of my books mention it.:
It's definitely best to put the poem on wikisource and point to it; the wikipedia articles that put whole poems up are slightly wrong to do so, I think. Then you could quote bits as you go through. The poem is out of copyright and so, as long as you make sure that the edition does not contain differences from the original, you can quote as much as you like.qp10qp 17:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Would you please make up your mind wether you wan that link included or not? Personally, I think it doesn't need to be there, as it is already there just below. Plus, I have to synchronize each change with the template on Meta. EdokterTalk 17:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The link isn't needed, but the changed wording is, Previously, it said that the only way to edit the top section was to either use the template, or edit the whole page. That is just wrong. Click edit on any section, and change the section number in the URL to zero. That is one of the other ways to edit. Carcharoth 17:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
That is a rather ugly hack requiring more then mere clicking a link. So in that respect, it is the only way to edit the top section, but I'll reword it. EdokterTalk 17:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"Trivia" and "relevance"[edit]

Hi. I noticed your comments at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Replaced Radiant.27s one sentence trivia point with draft five above regarding trivia and relevance, and I agree with them fully. Wikipedia:Relevance of content is an attempt to better define those issues, and I would be very appreciative if you could take a look at it and offer your thoughts. A couple of users are trying to bollix the proposal on a procedural basis at the moment, so I apologize for the mess on the talk page. Thanks for your time.--Father Goose 19:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For your work on Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Awarded for your hard work improving the article Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture, and hopefully keeping it permanently from deletion, if not qualified for more worthy recognition. (And hopefully I selected the most appropriate Barnstar -- this is the first one I've awarded in my years of volunteering to Wikipedia.) llywrch 04:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject M-E[edit]

I just want to say thanks for posting about AfDs and other important stuff at the wikiproject talk page. It really helps me stay up-to-date quickly and put my voice in while there is still time. Thanks again. --Fang Aili talk 13:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Middle-Earth AfDs[edit]

Thank you for your comment, I will withdraw my nominations on the two article for deletion pages. I still think that they violate several policies, WP:NN, WP:FICT, WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT#INFO, etc. but maybe at this stage an AfD isn't the best way to sort out the problems. I do think that at least a notbaility tag should be added to most of the articles and then hopefully all the issues can be resolved. [[Guest9999 14:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]

Re: FLRC[edit]

Finally I am back at Wikipedia.... You should probably create a new nomination page (by moving the old one to ...Archive1 or the like, and adjusting the old nomination archive) just as if resubmitting any other redone FLC. Since there were comments about my actions I will probably participate in that discussion. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Will do if I ever get back to that. Carcharoth 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Middle Earth Notability Tags[edit]

I origonally placed the prods as I thought that the articles did not meet notability guidelines and thought maybe the issue could be resolved in that way. People removed the prods as they had every right to do. I listed pages on AfD as I felt that they did not meet Wikipedia guidelines (WP:NN and WP:FICT). When you said that the Wikipriject was in the process of merging the articles I withdrew my nominations without predujice. I did not add notability tags indiscriminately, I added them to artciles with the Middle Earth locations catagory which I thought did not show evidenmce of notability as described by the notability guidelines - no evidence of coverage by independent sources or real world content. I do not see the problem with adding notability tags as when someone can show notability - they can be removed and the article can be improved. I did not distinguish between locations "major" and "minor" locations as the notability criteria does not. I am sorry if you feel I acted inappropriately, I felt that adding the tags would be a good way to motivate people to route out sources for artciles that are indeed notable - improving the quality and reliability and would also show up articles which do not meet WP:NN and should be nominated for deletion in the future. Going back I would not have done the prods - I realsie now that it was always pretty unlikely that people were going to leave them - and I withdrew what were - in my opinion - valid AfD nominations. I think notability tags are just a good way to try and make sure an article is improved and I support having them on artciles which do not show evidence of meeting WP:NN (and in this case WP:FICT). Once again I am sorry for any angst I may have caused. [[Guest9999 23:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)]]

OK, fair enough. I don't actually think the notability tags will help very much, as the average reader will not know how to establish notability. You are far more likely to get results if you work with editors who know the subject area. Would you consider removing the tags and providing a list at the WikiProject talk page? I'm still raising this at WP:AN, because I would like an answer to the general question of how article tagging should be handled. Carcharoth 23:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Polbot[edit]

I have quite a big task just getting my two current runs through. I will try and look again at the Polbot stuff in a week or so. Rich Farmbrough, 20:04 19 August 2007 (GMT).

Again, thanks. Nothing urgent, just wanted to sure it hadn't slipped past you. Carcharoth 20:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

More on historic and historical images[edit]

I'm still not happy about the way you are handling historical and historic images. I'm sorry to bring this up so publically, but I've posted my thoughts on the matter at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Deletion of historic and historical images, and I'm inviting you to comment there. I do respect a lot of the image work you do, but I really do feel that you need to take things slower with the historic and historical images. I hope you understand why I felt I had to raise the matter in this way. Carcharoth 03:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'll take a look. --Abu badali (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Do you consider yourself a FA regular?

I may deliver a rant about Tony1, Epbr, and (to a lesser extent) Carabinieri, and I do not wish to suggest that I am including you. I am most grateful for your help, and even for your criticisms, which have been from points of view I have not considered. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an FA regular at all. By all means rant on! :-) Carcharoth 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


I have noticed your calls for improving timeline articles, but I think that sort of article is very problematic for WP. Making a good timeline requires being very selective about which things are included and which are not included, i.e., using editorial discretion. The way WP is written makes it very hard to prevent lists and timelines from becoming filled with trivia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the response. I'll try and find a good example. In my opinion, they are no more problematic to keep under control than other types of lists, and in many ways are easier, mainly in that the verification of the date often provides a good source for the entry. Carcharoth 19:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I may check out a history of math book and try to add some refs to the math timeline. I like the way Timeline of chemistry is formatted better, though. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Immanuel Velikovsky[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I've suggested a rename of Category:Immanuel Velikovsky that builds on your very sensible proposal at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_20#Category:Immanuel_Velikovsky, and I'd like to know what you think of it. (Just reply there, no need to bother with my talk page.) Cgingold 12:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hobbit graphic novel[edit]

I'm pretty sure we can use its panels to illustrate what we can! (Got from a site dedicated to illustrations of The Hobbit) Uthanc 10:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely those are all copyright by the artist/publisher? Anyway, it's a good find. What I was thinking was more having an article on the illustrated book, with a fair use image of the cover, and one or two of the inside. And our article on The Hobbit should definitely link to sites that cover the variety of covers used for different editions of that book. Carcharoth 10:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
More articles are fine, but if Batman and other comics articles can use panels, so can we, I assume. Uthanc 12:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
But Batman started as a comic. The Hobbit didn't. By all means put them in the adaptations sections. I think that's what you meant anyway. And just a representative sample. As with anything, don't overdo it. I'd definitely like to see an article on the graphic novel! Carcharoth 12:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
":But Batman started as a comic. The Hobbit didn't." Oh, right... Yes, panels in adaptations sections would be safer than in infoboxes, which is what I dreamed of. Skimming the scans, two differences I noticed were a non-curly haired Bilbo and Elven swords glowing red insted of blue. The above site contains not only covers but all illustrations in each edition it has, but if we can link to individual illustrations, I assume that's fine. Also, I've updated the project talk a little. Uthanc 12:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool. We really need to get the most active people on the WikiProject together and co-ordinate a bit more. Sort out the regular tasks and checks and updates. Get more organised! User:YLSS seems to be doing the most work at the moment, but there are others as well, and several long-time contributors to Tolkien articles. You said you were quite busy a while ago. How much time do you have over the next month or so? Carcharoth 12:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
...Unsure (school), but I'll try to help out when I can. By "update" I meant "added a subsection". Uthanc 12:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
OK. Everyone doing what they can when they have time seems to be working so far. Carcharoth 12:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded a panel with Gollum, but I did so twice. Could you delete Image:Gollcomic.JPG? The other is Image:Gollum1989graphicnovel.jpg, whose filename is better though more unwieldy. I put a {{db-redundantimage}} tag on it already. Uthanc 17:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Now how about archiving that discussion on AN/I to discourage any further comments? I don't know how to do it, and messing it up will just gain me more insults, which I'm a bit tired of. I apologize for not doing what you did--simply merging. But I get pretty ticked off when people bait me and insult me repeatedly, while ignoring everything I ever did as if it doesn't matter--in order to offer a break to obvious spammers and sock puppets. In fact, I get real tired of the idea that occassional spammers and vandals are far more important to Wikipedia than long time editors. I took a break for a week. I needed a lot longer one. KP Botany 03:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. Learning how to deal with stress on Wikipedia is difficult. Don't worry about it. Carcharoth 03:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Hypnosadist[edit]

Have you had a glance at the motto on his user page? That statement makes it hard for me to assume good faith. But maybe you're more tolerant than me. -- llywrch 04:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I should look at people's user pages more often. Thanks. Carcharoth 04:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

journal cats[edit]

Perfect sense.--ragesoss 06:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been meaning to write another Newsletter, but I'm trying desperately to finish my dissertation prospectus so I keep putting it off. I'll do it in early mid September, I promise.--ragesoss 16:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Footnote in Galileo Galilei Article[edit]

Thank you for the feedback on this in the featured article review of the Galileo Galilei article. I have now replied to your comment. David Wilson 07:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Main page image follow up discussion[edit]

Hi David. I see you were tangentially involved in the brief episode about the main page TFA image a few days ago. In case you are interested, I've done a follow-up at User talk:Deskana#Main page image. Could I ask you where you think the best place is to draw attention to this sort of thing? The image talk pages don't get much traffic, but maybe that might have been a better option. Carcharoth 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello! To me, Talk:Main Page seems like the most appropriate discussion forum, so I would say that you handled this matter correctly. I'm sorry that it didn't receive the proper attention. —David Levy 20:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)\


I apologize for not helping. I try to catch speedies such as these, but I missed them, and didnt happen to see the follow up. You'll see on my talk page the sort of things i can help with here. I wish I'd had the chance to be involved in the discussion. 00:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs)

Sorry I wasted your time in various ways yesterday. Perhaps because I link less rather than more, it hadn't occurred to me that a journal on X really must have X linked in some way: I cut what I thought looked like an insult to the reader's intelligence, a cut that seems to have made you think you had to, um, insult it in a different and more subtle way. Oh well, it's a slight improvement after all that.
The article on Elsevier itself is a rum affair, but revising it is a job for somebody with more spare time than I have. -- Hoary 05:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, mightn't Category:Academic journals by publisher be better, or should it be a superset? What should one do about the social sciences, or linguistics, viewed by many of its practitioners as scientific but not social-scientific? -- Hoary 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about the names either. I'm more concerned about establishing the basic structure. If renaming will make things clearer, please suggest it at CfD. For the smaller categories where I'm the only author, it is only a short time since I created them, so feel free to move the occupants to a better-named category and I'll happy db-author the original category. The larger ones will have to go via CfD. Carcharoth 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobel/AIP archives[edit]

Thank you for the research on those Nobel laureate photos. I think someone should note what you did about the Emilio Serge archive notes on the image talk pages, for posterity's sake. Since your wrote it, you may be able to copy and paste your notes more readily than I can-- especially Heisenberg, Perrin, and Chadwick -- before the conversations get archived and it becomes more difficult. Thanks! ... Kenosis 15:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Will do so. Bare bone notes, as the exact history is difficult to ascertain and we mustn't insert our guesses. Carcharoth 15:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I just made a preliminary note on the image pages of Chadwick, Perrin, Heisenberg and Schrodinger. Edit as you deem necessary, of course, as I presume others will too in the future. I think it's time to start keeping progeny of these important historical photographs in a place that has at least some half-way realistic chance to be preserved. Maybe, if there are objections to usernames on the image pages, the credits should be moved to the talk pages. Once you do that, please feel free to drop my username from the mix, or not, as anyone may care-- so long as reasonable evidence of inquiries remain verifiable in the future, IMO. Thanks again for the actual research (quite unlike the many dirve-by "unreferenced" and "citation-needed" shootings these days by kids and others that want somebody else to do their research work for them. This, by contrast was a breath of fresh air to me, however brief, and I genuinely appreciated it. So thatnks again. ... Kenosis 05:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes. Sorry, I forgot! Will have a look later. Carcharoth 08:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel like another proofreading job?[edit]

Augustus is on FAC, and it's not English; a reasonably good approximation, but it is begging for a copy-edit. Care to join in? Many of the quibbles I put at Talk:Augustus#intro are over Roman history; but there are a half-dozen sheer blunders in three paragraphs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Forgot about this. I would love to, but don't have time at the moment, unfortunately. Carcharoth 22:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

NFCC#8 question[edit]

Replied on my talk page :) Neil  10:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


I propose to publish a review of your recent action in the journal Trends in reverting SEO. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume you approve? Please send me a copy of the journal issue when it is published! :-) Carcharoth 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
And for the record, I only redirected the Trends in Plants one, which actually seems to be more notable than the others, and maybe deserves its own article. Pascal Tesson did the other Trends redirects. I did the Current Opinion redirects. Having looked at the many, many journal stubs we have, I now think they might all be better off as their own articles. But completely rewritten, of course. Whether the correct process is delete SEO stuff and then recreate, or just rewrite, I'm not too fussed about. As long as a better article comes out at the end of the process. Carcharoth 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Carcharoth, do you happen to recall where the foundation's lawyer commented on the issue of fair-use, recommending that if it's not actively contested (I presume he meant by the copyright holder) he doesn't recommend agressive deletion practice? ... Kenosis 20:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it this one? Carcharoth 22:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. That's the post I was thinking of. And I now see what the specific issue was that he was responding to. ... Kenosis 13:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

journals project[edit]

I have moved the proposal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals and notified the others that have expressed interest. I'll be heading off to sleep in an hour or so, but I can spend most of this w/e working on the project if anything needs to be done. John Vandenberg 15:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Careful with Journal Categories[edit]

Please do not change journal category names without proposing and discussing the change. see WP:CATEGORY. The work is sufficient that they must be discussed and get consensus first. These changes are not trivial, because every contained item must be charged. The question of whether to say academic and scholarly for example has been discussed at length, along with the distinction from scientific. It's necessary to be consistent with other parallel parts of Wikipedia. This is the type of potentially far reaching change that can not be done BOLDly. DGG (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I will be careful. I'm not going to try and make or propose any major changes without discussion first. As you say, making such changes is difficult because of the sheer number of edits needed. I find it best to discuss renaming at a WikiProject, get consensus, then propose at CfD so the bot that deals with that can do the boring stuff. I'm trying to get discussion going at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals, and trying to lay out a plan at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Categories. I've been thinking about this distinction between academic, scientific and literary, and it would be good to come up with some examples and definitions to help categorization be more consistent. Such guidelines can then be put on the category pages. It would also be helpful to link to previous discussions. Do you have links to these previous discussions? Carcharoth 10:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: That Flickr image[edit]

Yeah, that sounds typical to me. The process only formally checks transcription of the license, copyvios are detected as a bonus but if they slip through the net it does not mean the process is broken. Flickr license-rot is the problem it is designed to combat and it does that well; an image licensed as cc-by on Flickr could be re-licensed as cc-by-nc and we would have no way of knowing if the license was correct if it was not for the review. Ultimately, the priority with the review process is to protect against that. As there are so many that need checking, that mandates a rapid review which discourages more in-depth checking that could detect a copyvio like that one. Personally, when I've done things I've done little more than check the image is correct, the license and read the description (looking for alarm words like "source"). The best people to detect copyvios are people familiar with the subject matter in any case. I wouldn't have gone looking for relevant stories on the news services, simply to see if I could find an image I'm suspicious of...--Nilfanion (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


It very clearly says Keep. Johnbod 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Botany journals[edit]

I did alert you that category changes can be contentious, even when they are as obvious as this would have seemed to be.  :) DGG (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Science fiction conferences[edit]

But what about something like Wiscon, which combines both a conference and an SF con into the same event? And where do you put WorldFantasy? --Orange Mike 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If an event is both a conference and a convention, why not put it in both categories. It looks like World Fantasy is already in Category:Science fiction conventions, so maybe expand the definition to include fantasy events? Though I see categories already exist for Anime, Comic book, Furry, and Gaming conventions. Difficult one. The conferences in that category definitely look like they are academic to me, but by all means expand the category. Carcharoth 19:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Due weight[edit]

Incidentally to our exchange at WT:NPOV, I adjusted WP:WAF to mention images as well as all elements of the article page in its section on Notability and due weight. Thanks for the idea. This is something I have sort of almost been thinking about for quite a while. —AldeBaer 00:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit to oversategorization policy[edit]

You recently made a wonderful amendment to the policy on eponymous categories. We have recently had a catgegory run afowl of some editors. Category:Ludwig Wittgenstein has been proposed for deletion. The WP:PHILO for the most part I believe has the opposite view. Our field is mostly studied philosopher by philosopher. That is how the subject is organized. We often find special terminology, or works associated with them, etc. We hope to expand many articles on philosophers into categories. Could you take a look at my proposal to further amend it insofar as philosophers are concerned? Be well, Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Rewrite_of_eponymous_category_bit Gregbard 06:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Glad to see you back, even if you are retiring[edit]

Thanks. :) Thanks for keeping things going — when I do retire officially, I'll know they'll be in perfectly good, fine hands. In any case, I'll still help out now and then. I'm not exactly ready to do so yet. I also wanted to talk to you about the dates concerning YT and VY. I fixed the dates in the House of Finwë article, but some dates contradict the other YT dates on other articles (i.e. Fëanor). I've fixed the dates on Fëanor's article to keep consistency, but I was wondering if there was ever a concensus decided on whether we were going with VY with YT (continuing on from VY 3500 to 3501) or with regular years (ending with VY 3500 and starting with YT 1). —Mirlen 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dunno about the VY-YT thing. Probably best to ask CBD. Carcharoth 23:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Tee hee. Have you thought of creating Category:Paintings of people carrying religious figures? Bishonen | talk 21:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC).

CfD and DRV[edit]


You did great work in repopulating "Esperantists"! Sadly, the existing de facto procedure (since before my time) was not to repopulate before relisting (in the days before Cydebot, repopulating was a less clear task.) The idea was, I guess, that commenters could imagine what might fit in a category, or might redefine its terms during the discussion; therefore, repopulating prior to relisting could be a waste of time (as it also would be if the category was deleted again.) In general, I think this points to a deficit in WP's structure -- category depopulations ought to leave more a record than they do, and be more easily reversible.

The reason there is no specific written policy on this probably has to do with the mild tension that exists between DRV and CfD "regulars." More than other deletion fora, CfD really does require specialized knowledge, so contributors there sometimes resist oversight by the general editing population, something I can understand, given the circumstances. CfDs also are a very light part of the DRV load, and few of those nominated for review are overturned, so rarity plays a part.

One certainly shouldn't ignore those who commented in the CfD when the cat. was empty, though; they were following standard practice. Best wishes, Xoloz 16:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I didn't repopulate the category. I provided a list from Cydebot's contributions. I think Yekrats repopulated the category. Thanks for the note, anyway, it's good to know that this sort of thing is rare. Carcharoth 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue III - September 2007[edit]

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 01:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Adminship (again)[edit]

Hi, it's me again. I figured it's been a couple months since I asked you about adminship, so I figured I'd ask you again whether or not you wanted to give it a shot. I would certainly love to nominate you, as you're one of the better users here. Just let me know if you want to try or not. (I usually don't pester people more than once about this) Wizardman 23:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me about this again. The timing's not great, as I have a few other things going at the moment, but once I've got those out of the way (in a couple of weeks), I think I have been procrastinating long enough and would like to look into what areas of admin backlogs I could help out with, and then submit an RfA (or ask someone like you if they would like to nominate me). Once I've done that, I'll get back to you. Carcharoth 09:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
As I've said numerous times in the past, I would also be happy to nominate you as well : )
Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 10:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Day is going fine. Hope you are well as well. Carcharoth 10:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Though I'm thinking sleep is near : )
A small request, though, before I head off. You seem to typically be involved with the various ongoing discussions. If it isn't too much trouble, would you drop me a list of those you would consider at least semi-relevant/important "of the moment"? Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 11:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Um. WT:NFCC? That's what I've been involved with. Non-free image stuff. Worth scanning the archives of WP:AN, WP:ANI and the various WP:VP sections. But that is all I can think of at the moment. I'm out of touch with quite a few areas as well. Also look at the wiki-en mailing list if you can (I haven't for a while), though I do read the Wikipedia:Signpost - look through those archives as well. Carcharoth 11:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I also periodically check out Template:Cent. I guess I was just recalling the past where it didn't matter which project page I would go to, you'd already been there, and just as the discussion was starting too : )
Anyway, thanks, and have a great day : ) - jc37 19:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see[edit]

Ahh this edit was so nice - those people that think talkheader is vital seem to rule this place. It's become almost like a "First post!" moment of pride for some! violet/riga (t) 08:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Mitosis of WP into smaller ones[edit]

FWIW I thought that's what Wikiprojects were all about - setting up smaller subunits of editors who work together on sections -also the zones of editors who cluster round FAC...and the zones who cluster round DYK etc. etc. ....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hadn't thought of that. I guess you are right. Maybe that is what needs to be done with AfD - splitting it even more than is done at the moment. The concern at AfD is often "we can't have these hardly notable stubs because no-one will work on them because we are all too busy at AfD" - if you get my drift. My view is that if there are people, or a group of people, willing to work on an area, don't restrict what they do (within limits). Obviously stuff has to be verifiable, but notability can be relaxed. Carcharoth 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe not so much about the size as teh clientele...about who likes playing where on WP - I like making things whereas there are those who love the pruning side of things...and I think things have gotten a little too prune-happy lately. I keep my head in once in a while but as I have limtied time it is not generally a priority. I think a rule that if an article has a project tag on the talk page then a note on the corresponding wikipedia project talk page should be mandatory may be a good proposal. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Hey there, just wanted your input on this. —Mirlen 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Might be to do with Wikipedia:Peer review/Elf (Middle-earth)/archive1. I think it is best to note this on the talk page at the WikiProject, both for the record, and to get more input. Carcharoth 21:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. —Mirlen 00:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know[edit]

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 22 September, 2007, a fact from the article Mzoli's, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 talk 12:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

pr0n deleted[edit]

I deleted the pr0n (no source, no license, no fair-use rationale) image you mentioned at AN. Can you strike the request? If you leave it, I suspect that people who read the message will be hunting for the image for the next week :-( Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments here [1] - I'm a little battle weary at the moment and not in the mood for more. Thanks Giano 13:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron[edit]

In view of your Mzoli's efforts, you may be interested in joining Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. -- Jreferee t/c 04:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)