User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 20

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

Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21

Admin Ethics and Standards[edit]

Hi Carcharoth,

Would love your thoughts on this deletion review [1] because I admire your straight forwardness and experience as an admin and how you understand the adminship on Wiki better than most. The original article in question was "speedy deleted" after being listed here on Wikipedia for over two years and having endured an AfD before. The admin in question deleted links from the original article then used his "speedy delete" powers to delete it. When questioned, the article went before a 2nd AfD, at which time the admin in question allowed the article to be judged, sans his link deletion of credible sources from the original state of the article. When the sources were added during the 2nd AfD, the admin would delete them and eventually block them, including a link to a page here [2] on Wikipedia (Wikipedia approved pages should be a credible source) where the notability of the person (article in question) was clearly established by the University of Texas, San Antonio. You appear very knowledgeable in these matters and do not appear to be the type described in this article, [3] and because of this, we request your help in overturning an improper deletion. Thank you for your time. -- (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Rolando Gomez? It's at DRV. I'll go and look there, but will probably do little more than say you left me a note. Best to let the DRV process sort this out without bringing in random people like me. Carcharoth (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Users changing my talk on Talk:Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome[edit]

Hi, I am trying to resolve some current disputes on Talk:Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome, but WLU and now also Orangemarlin keep changing and removing my contributions to the talk page. Please advise. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply - been recovering from a busy weekend. It seems things have moved on a bit since then. I've just read the exchange here (after you were blocked for 3RR), and from what I can tell you were blocked for this. Seems like a perfectly valid 3RR block to me. At some point you have to accept when you have done something wrong and put your hands up and apologise for it. My advice would be, if you want to continue to work on that table, do so in your userspace and only bring it to the article talk page when you have your arguments ready. But don't edit war, don't repeat old arguments (that is being tendentious) and try and work with the other editors on those pages - there was a period a while back when the discussions seemed to be OK. Try and find areas where you can agree on things, instead of arguing the same things over and over again. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Since it is apparently alright for other users to modify my talk contributions, it is no longer possible for me to participate on talk pages. Sad to see that you have no clue what is going on. This will be my last message on your talkpage. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome[edit]

Hi, since you have previously shown an interest in the topic of CFS, this is to inform you that I have started an attempt to resolve a long list of existing disputes on Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome. You are welcome to participate. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the same as above. Answered there. Will try and take a look at the article when I have time, but can't promise anything. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries by RetroS1mone[edit]

Is this [4] an acceptabe edit summary? Just one example. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth i am sorry responding here it must be annoying you i am sorry. Guido I am very frustrated how you remove good solid sourced stuff and insult every one. Do you have COI, yes you are founder of a activist organization, do you have fringe POV yes you have fringe medical view, are you tendentious editing yes i am not only one says it, and you have been blocked again for edit warring. Why do you keep running at Carcharoth and forum shopping like that do you see me doing it with all your abuse, no. RetroS1mone talk 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi RetroS1mone. Thanks for coming here to reply to Guido - it's no problem at all, especially when I'm not around. I replied to Guido above about the 3RR block. If Guido does take my advice to work on that table in his userspace, would you give him the time to marshall his arguments and listen to what he has to say? I know he does have COI with the activist organisation, but while strongly discouraged it is not forbidden to edit if you have a COI. See WP:COI and also Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance. Me personally, I would prefer Guido edited chess articles and only participated on the talk pages of CFS/ME pages (or worked on the article about CFS activism that has been suggested). Oh, and you are quite right about the forum-shopping. Guido, if you have a complaint about conduct on those articles, you will need to find another admin and not come to my talk page. I've commented on the talk pages of some of these articles with suggestions about the content, and (for me) that makes me too involved as an editor to use my admin tools in relation to those articles. RetroS1mone, speaking as an editor and not an admin, I would advise you not to say things in edit summaries like "tendentious editor with strong COI POV". The reason being that edit summaries are permanent records, and if you say something incorrect, you can't retract it. It is best to keep edit summaries focused on describing the content (not the editors) and then to say "see talk" if you want to go into more detail. That way, if you are wrong, you can retract and apologise later. For the record, I think you are mostly right here (though I would have phrased it more diplomatically), but I hope you see my point about the difference between saying something in an edit summary and saying something on a talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for advice i will try more being diplomatic, i let go on that one i was very upset should not of hit Save page so quick. RetroS1mone talk 03:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom boxes[edit]

Did anything happen with those arbcom boxes? I know I said I wasn't going to use them, but I'm very happy for others to use the one you did for me, if they want to. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I've been away.
And yes, anyone is welcome to use them : ) - jc37 21:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For outstanding integrity as demonstrated in this post.[5] Thank you for dedication to transparency and fair process by posting your concerns about a possible canvassing campaign against a fellow ArbCom candidate, while you both were running neck and neck for the final place in this year's election. That is the epitome honest dealing. Regardless of the outcome it earns my deepest respect. DurovaCharge! 01:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Aw, shucks. <looks embarassed> :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Makes me want to vote for you twice. Except... :) Best regards, DurovaCharge! 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up on "merging encyclopedias"[edit]

User:Charles Matthews/WikiProject DNBMerge. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a brief note to say thanks for the link. I remember discussing this before and will definitely drop by and get involved sometime next week. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


I believe we have one official election officer Ultraexactzz - I've been doing unofficial election clerking ad hoc, mostly because I (arrogantly perhaps) think I can be trusted to be fair and not argue when called up on mistakes. Page edit protection will be removed as soon as my net connection pipes the request through. Could you clarify what kind of notice you mean? --Tznkai (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice would only be required if you felt protection was needed again. I can put the notice up, but I was asking you in case you re-established protection when I was away from the computer. Just ask any non-autoconfirmed accounts to post to my talk page and I'll deal with it from there. Ideally, there would be no need for protection, but I'm aware of what's been going on and I'm not getting involved in that. If anyone feels the questions in questions need asking, they can ask the questions themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vote page comment[edit]

Hi. I just looked at some other vote pages; a few replies to opposes seem to have stayed there. I think moving comments to talk page is only needed if there is a long discussion following the votes. Don't think that'll be the case here. (And please don't annoy me with your "bureaucracy". :P) Just meant that as a relevant comment, no intention to start a discussion right there at all! :) Anyway, if somehow the talk gets longer than expected I'll definitely move it to a new section on talk page myself. But I think it looks fine for now. Don't worry. :) Best wishes for the election, Carcharoth. --PeaceNT (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Hadn't realised this could be seen as bureaucracy! :-) I thought it was common sense, but as you say, a single reply is OK, but more than that might need moving. See here (and in particular this section) for a proposal to formalise such stuff that doesn't seem to have been taken forward. Carcharoth (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Non-free content questions[edit]

Hi Carcharoth, I apologize for the belated response. I don't recall being asked about these images before, so apologies again if that was the case and I neglected to respond. I did, for what it's worth, watch that discussion while it was ongoing. I generally agree that these are good examples for NFCC#8 (although, in their current state, I'm not sure I agree with the Birmingham campaign and Person of the Century examples; Image:All The Culture Novels.jpg, additionally, would probably irreparably fail NFCC#3A as a Wikipedian-created derivative). I actually think Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. is one of the best examples of NFCC#8 compliance on Wikipedia. That said, before these are represented as benchmarks, I would just caution that these examples do not necessarily pass other NFC criteria (all of which, obviously, are mandatory); for example, Image:Naked gun three.jpg does not have a rationale for Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (!!!), it is not low resolution, does not properly attribute the copyright holder and, for the Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult article anyway, has an entirely insufficient purpose/rationale. (That may be more analysis than you'd wanted.) In any case, let me know if you ever want assistance - either actively or passively (e.g. as a sounding board) - with a guide; I'd be happy to help as needed in spite of retirement. Эlcobbola talk 20:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Can't promise to do much right now, but I wanted to get the ball rolling again. Carcharoth (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Your candidacy[edit]

Please note I've posted further questions - if you could answer them within the next couple of days, that'd be great. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll be looking at them tonight. Apologies for the delay. Carcharoth (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Questions answered. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This update, and your prompt answers are appreciated. 24 hours from now, I will be reviewing each candidate and preparing final votes. Thank you for your time, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Middle-earth Canon[edit]

Have rewritten parts of this article Middle-earth canon again and recast focus between fictional canon and actual canon. Take a look when you get a chance.Tttom1 (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and get to this early next week. Sorry I can't do it sooner, need to balance several things on Wikipedia and off-wiki at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, take time you need. Davemon is already disputing all and reverting. I added sources to establish the idea of actual v. fan canon:
  • Times of India Hurin Therapy book review 29 Apr 2007: "The story is not new. There's a condensed version in The Silmarillion, the epic tale of elves and men published in 1977. This shows that the story of Hurin and the curse that blights his family was central to the conception of the Elder Days, Tolkien's Ancient Age when the elves returned to Middle-earth to battle Morgoth, the first Dark Lord. The version we get in Hurin is both alike and different from other works in the canon. Seasoned readers will flag familiar Tolkien markers —an awe-inspiring landscape, courage in the face of hardship, heriosm and its fall."
  • J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century by Tom Shippey Publisher's comments: "Other chapters examine The Hobbit, explaining the hobbits' anachronistic relationship to the heroic world of Middle-earth; the fundamental importance of The Silmarillion to Tolkien's canon;
  • Tolkien Calendar 2009 By Illustrated by Ted Nasmith: J R R Tolkien’s SILMARILLION is the core work of the Middle-earth canon.
  • Harper Collins Australia: The Silmarillion: Illustrated Edition "J R R Tolkien′s SILMARILLION is the core work of the Middle−earth canon."
  • The Lord of the Rings By Jane Chance p.17: "The publication of the Silmarillion (1977) had disclosed Tolkien's role as a philosopher of language and demanded that the reader attend to the Middle-earth chronology of his canon - The Silmarillion first, The Hobbit second and then LotR ... " The University Press of Kentucky, 2001, ISBN 0-8131-9017-7
  • Chicago Sun-Times Book review, April 22, 2007, Dan Miller, The Children of Hurin,: "A superb addition to the Tolkien canon. . . "
all different kinds from writers, reviewers and publishers.Tttom1 (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI draft[edit]

Though the whole entry may be far beyond your own scope or opinion on the subject, you may still be interested in this. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point[edit]

A really excellent point: Wikipedia talk:Agenda account#Balance both ways

An example of editors stifling dissent can be found in my comments on the archived [6] Inclusionist (talk) 02:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on a great run in ACE2008[edit]

Congratulations on achieving the 6th highest number of supports, and the 7th highest number of net supports. Hopefully this is enough to offset finishing in the 8th spot in the support% column by 0.9%, but if not, congratulations anyway. SDJ 00:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was an interesting experience. I'm going to archive my talk page and leave a note thanking those who voted on my candidacy. I'll leave this section here, though. Carcharoth (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, and congrats on putting in a great effort climbing up and staying in the pack to finish at 8th spot. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I am very hopeful you are chosen. I have immense faith in your judgment. You do not know me but I have been the recipient of your thoughtful actions. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. You would be an asset to the Arbcom. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It's no problem; you definitely deserved my support, I waited a while since I didn't want to somehow be the deciding vote one way or another, being a candidate and all. Maybe Jimbo will expand arbcom a bit and you'll get on, there's always hope :) Wizardman 01:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Notes to self[edit]

Archived stuff to follow up on: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Carcharoth (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Thanks![edit]

No problem! I have the Sylvester Medal up for FL candidacy as well; I'm hoping to have all the medals and all the lectures at that standard. After that I can work on the Royal Society page itself (it is fairly dismal) and hopefully the list of presidents. It is pointless having an example of high wiki-quality if all the related articles are atrocious (some of the lectures don't even have pages, for example). Ironholds (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't checked; I've replied to all (or most) of your concerns. Ironholds (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was out last night. Will look now. Carcharoth (talk) 08:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Tis alright. Just as a point; would you mind adding your support in to make it clear you support the list? A lot of the suggestions are excellent, but it is rather late in the proceedings and I'd rather the closing promoter didn't see GAH UNRESOLVED ISSUES extraneous to the FL criteria. That being said I will be making an effort to include a lot of these things outside the FL candidacy; it also impacts on plans for other FL's I have (as mentioned, I'd like to see all lectures and medals at that level). Ironholds (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, not sure how I got the "270" figure considering it should be at least 360 given the number of years it has been running; damn you, windows calculator! Ironholds (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The great thing about being British is you can get away with faux-swearwords like that because half the people simply consider it "some cute regional thing". As for the redirects; I agree completely, my lack of response was more "nothing else to add" than anything else. Something to be looked at after, methinks (in the spirit of 'this has been reviewed as one of Wikipedia's best lists but can still be improved'). Ironholds (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


Congrats. Based upon my earlier interactions with you, I fully trust arbcomm will be enhanced by your participation. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same. You are the person I wanted to see on arbcom the most. I have a belief that you will right things there as, as far as I can tell, you do not fall firmly into any of the cliques, cabals, and in groups. Also, I believe you are a grownup. Hopefully, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I on the other hand, firmly feel you should not be involved in arbcom activities. It'll cut into your time working on the Royal Medal! Seriously though, congrats. Word of advice from one of the outgoing arbitrators (saw him last sunday); arbitration work will cut massively into your on-wiki time and you will end up hated by some section of the wiki-population whatever decisions you make. Fairly obvious, but I thought I'd bring it up. Congrats again :). Ironholds (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. SDJ 06:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
And not by me. I feel joyous, that the time is right for you, and that you know it. You have reached a stage in your participation here where this is the next logical step. I cannot imagine that you cannot handle whatever fallout occurs from your well considered opinion. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I, by contrast, think the community must be completely nutters. Putting a savage wolf bred by Morgoth himself on the Arbitration Committee? What next, replacing Jimbo with Ar-Pharazôn?! I just hope he doesn't swallow any silmarils, or we're really screwed.
I'm glad to see things worked out for you. I thought you were going to end up be the highest-ranked also-ran instead. I think your way of thinking will be helpful to the committee and I hope you will be able to allay the concerns of your opposers. Have as good a time as is reasonably possible on the committee. ;-) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on getting elected. Good luck. Mathsci (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations Carcharoth, you were my preferred candidate - it was looking a bit touch and go there for a while, so I'm glad you got the appointment. nice one. Regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Congratulations on your election to the committee! ColdmachineTalk 13:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm picking you and Cool Hand Luke for special congratulations, I'm very pleased and hopeful as a result of your appointments, but I didn't notice any appointments that struck me as Bad. I've been really busy with kids and stuff, life has a way of intruding on wiki, so I didn't follow the polling or vote. Now, steady on, one step, one case, one consideration at a time.... If I can be of service, let me know.--Abd (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day Of Winter![edit]

Congrats on your appointment to the Arbcom and Best of Luck :)! --Mifter (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

I was going to congratulate you on avoiding election to the arbcom, but now it seems I must commiserate. Anyway (clears throat), well done, sir. qp10qp (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
If you need any advice on being an arb, I'd say ask Paul August, though he's probably too modest to give you any. Also check out the Tao Te Ching (there's a line in it that goes something like: "The best way to cook a fish is as little as possible"). Anyway, my main reason for calling back was to wish you a happy Christmas and a JOLLY OLD MERRY NEW YEAR. qp10qp (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll tag along here with my congratulations and best wishes. Also, I've found a very useful guide with some suggested wordings for writing up case remedies. Hope it helps! :) Franamax (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays[edit]

Just to tell you..[edit]

...Royal Medal made Featured status :). Feel free to add a star to yer page; you did much of the basic work and post-nom work. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Promethean[edit]

O'Hai there Carcharoth, Merry Christmas!

I wish you and your family all the best this Christmas and that you also have a Happy and safe new year.
Thankyou for all your contributions to Wikipedia this year and I look forward to seeing many more from you in the future.
Your work around Wikipedia has not gone un-noticed, this notice is testimony to that
Please feel free to drop by my talkpage any time to say Hi, as I will probably say Hi back :)

All the Best.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk)

Happy Carcharoth/Archive 20's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

User:Carcharoth/Archive 20 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Carcharoth/Archive 20's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Carcharoth/Archive 20!


A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 00:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back[edit]

And congratulations. --John (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations too. Notwithstanding my initial views, I thought your Final election statement well stated, and with the committee expanded in size you'll make a useful level-headed contribution. David Ruben Talk 03:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! And to everyone else as well. Apologies for not having time to reply individually. Carcharoth (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice job, good luck and all! MBisanz talk 04:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations with no sugar coating added[edit]

Out of all the people running for ArbCom, you are the one that I have watched most closely and with the most abject horror. For a long time I have seen you as a thoroughly useless member of the community who has this unusual and puzzling kind of zeal when it comes to shoveling pointless bureaucracy into the system. Basically, the fact that the community at large gave you their support makes me even more pessimistic than usual toward the long term survival of Wikipedia.


The community DID give you their support and your final election statement gave me some glimmer of hope. It says that you recognize both your faults and your limitations and just being aware of those things might mean the difference between a net-positive Arbcom member or just two more years of the same old. I'm hoping that you will choose to pay more attention to the comments of, and earn the trust of those that opposed you rather than those that supported you. It is easy to find sycophants to go along with what you have to say, it is far more difficult to gain the respect of someone who thinks you were a poor choice for the job. Personally, I am hoping that you prove me wrong and give me a reason to think my oppose was unjustified. Good luck over the next couple years. Trusilver 02:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've framed this and put it on the wall (I'm not joking!). Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees[edit]

Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Didn't get time to get to this. From what I saw, there was some feedback there already. I'll try to add something myself, but can't promise anything. Carcharoth (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Middle-earth needs a push[edit]

If you don't mind, I'll update the talk page ASAP, including the signup. There are still some of us around, just not working on Tolkien stuff much. I'm thinking of streamlining the signup process and page layout, sorting out inactive Wikipedian member from active ones, that sort of thing. Is there anything like an announcement bot we can use to round up yet-active members? Uthanc (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do. Don't know of any bots, but I can help if the number is a bit more than can be done manually by one person. Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


A somewhat belated congratulations on your electon to ArbComm; I was pleased to see it! Lini (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year[edit]

Ring out the old,
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!

From FloNight

Diff confusion[edit]

Sorry about that, the actual clerk removal diff just leaves a lot of tiny green wikitext, so I stepped back a diff and anchor link. It might be useful if the clerks did a 2-diff close. Maybe one to put an archive template around the rejected case and a second to remove it. Then future links would show a clerk-diff with an edit summary like "achiving rejected case" instead of a random party's comment. Anyway, thanks for figuring it out. MBisanz talk 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Dear Carcharoth,

Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Appeal comment[edit]

I'm not sure if you noticed, but shortly before your recent comment I posted a response that addressed my views on the restriction in question and my stance in favor of a mutual restriction as the optimal solution. Everyking (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have seen that and am reviewing it. Thanks for the note. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Please understand that making the one-sided restriction permanent will effectively make me a permanent pariah, with no hope of ever becoming a user in good standing again. I respectfully ask that you reconsider that. It would extremely disappointing if this appeal left me under even more severe restrictions than I was previously. Everyking (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Waiting to see what others have to say. Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice[edit]

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Seen it. No time to comment, sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 3[edit]

Hi, I'd like to hear your views on the matter. Feel free to email. -- Cat chi? 15:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be discussed on-wiki at one of the policy pages. Which one? Carcharoth (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


Hello. Would you be so kind and take a quick look at this small controversy: Talk:Skyscraper#Are Pyramids Skycrapers?? In my view, the point of contention is clearly absurd, since the article gives a clear, unambigous definition as inhabitabed structures and User:Astronaut also agrees that pyramids are not skyscrapers. The passage on the pyramids should be removed, otherwise we could just as well add all kinds of high rising tombs, lighthouses and the like. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Won't have time to help with this. Try WP:3O? Carcharoth (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Bonnet[edit]

Carcharoth, this article on major, major gay pornstar Sebastian Bonnett has been deleted for the third time:

I am requesting a deletion review, and there is a case to be made here:

1. This article existed since 2006.

2. There are over 79,000 hits on Google search.

3. No one was informed of the deletion debate.

There are some on Wikipedia that see it as their personal crusade to delete articles on porn stars, and gay porn stars are particularly vulnerable. Sebastian Bonnet is so famous, I wouldn't have even considered this article in danger of deletion. True, there were two prior deletions in 2006, but the article was re-created both times, and fairly quickly. So that leaves

4. Why was the current debate not reflective of the prior debates? Should not the article's continual recreation call into question its deletion?

Sincerely, Ryoung122 11:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As others have said, take it to deletion review, or ask for a version that you can work on in your userspace. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because you asked, and because I was also curious[edit]

Here ya go!. (You'll know what it's about when you click, and no worries, nothing graphic or anything. Although, that link will turn your whole world upside down :-) Keeper | 76 06:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue V - January 2009[edit]

It's here at long last! The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. 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 (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for Icos[edit]

I saw your name on the peer review volunteers page under science and copyediting. Can you take a look at Icos? I've improved the page and hope to get it through FAC after the peer review. Any comments would be helpful! Thanks, Shubinator (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Standing Offer/Request[edit]

Given our past interactions on various topics I thought I would make the following offer.

If you ever have something you want me to offer an opinion on or that you feel I might personally be interested in anywhere on wikipedia, its talk pages, or within any of the official forums such as noticeboards, RfCs, RfAs, and the like, please contact me directly on my talk page and feel free to reference this standing request. I trust your judgment in deciding which topics might be of interest to me, and please keep me informed of any topics in general as well as items specifically involving you personally. --GoRight (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Pier Review[edit]

Hello Carcharoth, I have been working on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and hopefully ‘Featured Article’ status. The article is currently in Pier Review, so I though I would invite you to take a look and maybe give an opinion. Any help to improve the article would be very much appreciated. Kind Regards Marek.69 talk 14:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

ping the busy wolf[edit]

this may well be on your watchlist, but I figured you'd like a 'ping' regardless - comments from one and all most welcome :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied to this earlier. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And I see you have left. Sorry to see you go. Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)