User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 29
- 1 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
- 2 Secret ballots
- 3 User:JBsupreme
- 4 Email
- 5 Courtesy
- 6 Possible Sock puppetry ?
- 7 NPOV boilerplate
- 8 WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
- 9 Bad faith content disputes
- 10 query from CC case
- 11 The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
- 12 row/col spans
- 13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Nadu_Newsprint_and_Papers
- 14 Image links
- 15 Any interest in peer reviewing the Rosetta Stone article?
- 16 Cambridge Meetup 8
- 17 Wierd Wiki
- 18 I thought you'd appreciate...
- 19 Blanking
- 20 David A. Johnston FA
- 21 Wittsun
- 22 Copyedit request
- 23 Interested in a reply
- 24 Cultural bias....So, how is this supposed to work?
- 25 WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carcharoth. Hope the break is going well. If you're logged in at any point soon and have a little time, I'd be interested in your thoughts on User talk:AGK#Secret ballot; your comments relating to general wiki-philosophy usually make for interesting reading. Regards, AGK 20:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you take a look at the talk page of this editor? The ArbCom request for amendment concerning him has been sitting around for a while, and he appears to be doing the same thing you warned him about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- A motion was proposed and passed, so I think this has been dealt with now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I replied to this earlier. Please ask here or reply by e-mail if you need more advice on this matter. Carcharoth (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Possible Sock puppetry ?
In my research on Wikipedia, I think I have found sock puppet accounts.Take a look at these articles.:
They are all written today, in same way, in same formatting style, all about musical instruments written like advertisement.Though they all are created by different users.I think those are all sock puppet accounts.You should take action quickly.Those users are:
- You would be best off asking at WP:SSP. Please ask if you need more help. Carcharoth (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe the current arbcom NPOV boilerplate is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Neutral_point_of_view, responding to your statement on the workshop page. Hipocrite (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were Ian Rose (submissions) (A), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (B, and the round's overall leader), ThinkBlue (submissions) (C) Casliber (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.
If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and Wikipedia:WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to Stone (submissions) for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17
Bad faith content disputes
query from CC case
As I noted numerous times, the overlap on regular article pages is meaningless for determining the existence of a group - too many areas have many hundreds of pages, and hence areas with large numbers of article pages might show (will show) a higher number of pages in common for any two editors interested in a topic. Mathematically, the universe of articles on a topic should roughly be commensurate with the likely overlaps. The universe of user talk pages is, however, pretty much fixed. I therefore examined several hunderd examles of active editors taken 8 at a time (initial run was for those making 30K edits or more, I also now have run thoe for 200K edits or more, which should be a sufficiently high number of edits to show overlaps on user talk pages if such were to be a random event). The only example I found similar to a subset of active CC editors was that of ArbCom where there is no doubt that it is a "group." Motives are clearly not ascertainable by using statistics, all that statistics can do is affirm the likely existence of a "group."
In short, the use of "user talk page overlap" was deliberately chosen to produce a statistically valid result, and no post of mine at any point ascribes motives to any group so identified. By the way, I was not the person who introduced "Wikistalk" into the RFC/U on Lar - I was simply the one who, presented with an example, decided to see if there was any statistical basis to to it. I would, moreover, think that the committee, sua sponte, should examine whether groups it has identified in the past show any substantial ovelap on user talk pages. I post here because this would a) not be proper in the "remarks by administrators" secton, and b) is rather more detailed than would really fit in on the CC pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't a query. This is you forum-shopping. The case will degnerate into chaos if all the parties push their view of the evidence with individual arbs William M. Connolley (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Um -- Carcharoth asked a question. This was my response to his query. And your accusation is hardly something I think a wise person would have done, as it appears an attempt to intimidate a person whose only connection with the whole affair is from the Lar RFC/U -- do you really simply wish to antagonize everyone you run across? Collect (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mind single posts to my talk page following up a comment I've made (that is reasonable in most circumstances, but a shorter version should be put on the case pages as well). What I try and avoid is the back-and-forth that is developing here. So if you two (or anyone) want to discuss this, then please take it back to the case pages. Carcharoth (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
The June 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
|Remember that this is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved!||Remember that this is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved!|
|Remember that this is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved!||Remember that this is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved!|
|Remember that this is only a preview; your changes have not yet been saved!|
I gave this as an example, a while ago. The idea is to create a version of this structure that appears to go the other way 'round; a mirror image. The use of rowspan and colspan was huge in the 90s for doing web page layout; endless complex tables nested six deep, or so; I've done it, but I don't anymore. WP:TABLE says little about these cell-attributes beyond that they are incompatible with sortability. They should be discourages as impediments to editing. Wikis are supposed to be easy to editing, but too many introduce excess complexity into things. The management of complexity is a key goal in any serious software development effort.
nb: teh solution is on my talk page ;) Jack Merridew 11:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Request to our Wikipedians,
I'm very happy that my First Article has achieved B-Class on the very first day. After our fellow wikipedians comments, i have worked a lot to Improve my article. I have added a Lot to the article - Images,logos,Geographical Co-ordinates,Charts, Block Diagrams, Tables, National Stock Exchange Details, Criticism for Neutrality of the Article, Many Government web sources for proven references, etc. I have put all my effort to make it achieve Good Article Status. Now, I kindly request you to review My Article & provide your valuable feedback.
Raj6644 (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
AWB does not normally apply any changes to image file names - I don't know why this was an exception. I doubt if any other images would have been affected, but I'll compare your list of redlinked images with my contributions list to see if there's any overlap. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Any interest in peer reviewing the Rosetta Stone article?
I saw you listed as a peer reviewer who *might* be interested in the the subject of the Rosetta Stone. It has undergone extensive revisions in the past month I am looking for potential reviewers who can ensure that it will be able to pass Feature Article review.
Cambridge Meetup 8
I saw your note. I initially started out by simply linking to the page to avoid copying, however, when it was archived, the page name would change, then as the archive updated the page changed again, so I found it a bit easier to simply copy the incident over (code and all ) into a spot I'd created for it. I realize names are used, I didn't censor any of the details, and as I said on the title page, it's not there to humilitate, it's there to show some of the more "interesting" moments of wiki. I guess an alternative title could have been "Admins behaving badly " (take off of "Men behaving badly " :)
The BLP pages you cites was most likely incomplete when I copied it, therefore the comments made later on weren't there, I can re-copy the completed version if need be, but bear in mind, the whole point of that page was to show the even the admins have their bad days.
I thought you'd appreciate...
I was working up Betelgeuse for FAC and found....this - fantastic read, a professor of astronomy debates whether Borgil is Betelgeuse or Aldebaran in a peer-reviewed Secondary Source (strike one for pop. culture). I remembered reading about Borgil as a kid (chuckle). Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I had seen that and read it, but thanks for pointing it out. If you see anything else like that, do drop me a note! Carcharoth (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
An editor has been persistently blanking sourced edits from List of wars between democracies - not because he has countervailing sources, but because he doesn't agree. (If he could dig up countervailing sources, I'd gladly include them.) I had him more or less checked, but now there is another one. Is there a standard recourse for this? If not, should I ask ArbCom for an injunction? (The article is now protected, but that is only a holding measure.)
I am not sure sweet reason will make much difference with the new one, who insists that the Greeks didn't have democracys.
- Turn off the TV, pour a brew, pop some corn, put feet up, and watch the unfolding drama. HWV258. 02:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
David A. Johnston FA
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, thanks
Added to Editing Restrictions page - that was just an oversight. As for the actual discussion, I did think there were neutral observers there as well as those involved in the issues. However to be honest even though there was only one dissenting voice apart from the editor themselves, it was very clear that Wittsun (a) does not believe s/he is doing anything wrong, and (b) believes anyone who disagrees with them somehow has a COI. This is clearly not someone cut out for collegial editing. As for the slighly absurd RFAR, I am unsure how my name appeared on it, although perhaps Wittsun suspects my username has something to do with my race (though the bloody great image on my talkpage should give a clue about that...) Black Kite (t) (c) 06:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- I added you because you locked the discussion after only 3.5 days. It is perfectly normal to evalute possible COIs when dealing with ethnically motivated blocks. Or to put in another way, although you don't make the impression as being rabidly bigoted -- in contrast to the editors you defend -- you don't seem overly interested in fair hearings. If you like to pounce on rodents, Mr. Black Kite, do so by the light of day.--Wittsun (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Interested in a reply
Hey Carc. I posted a reply to you last night regarding a thought I honestly hadn't considered before. If you could reply as time permits (absolutely no rush), I'd appreciate it. I think it's interesting facet of the current situation and I'm not sure it's really been discussed elsewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- I saw Risker's reply to that. I'll try and add my own thoughts at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Ran out of time this morning. Will try and look later on today. 07:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Cultural bias....So, how is this supposed to work?
There is nothing left to do, which was predictable. We are left with articles that say it's a fact Jesus was real, and cite only theologians. The editors exclude dissent, saying dissent is a pseudoscience. The community used to determine whether it is considered pseudoscience is the community of Christian theologians.
Dispute resolution will not work, because of cultural bias. Mediation failed . Noticeboards for fringe theories and reliable sourcing went nowhere. There was a 2nd attempt to ban me, however!  The whole point of recognizing cultural bias as a problem is to acknowledge the flaws in the consensus process. It is absurd to think that the consensus process will include Christians open-mindedly considering the possibility that Jesus didn't exist. Christianity is as dominant as any cultural bias that can be imagined. Regardless of whether a particular criticism of a Christian article is right, there is no way it will get a fair hearing.
The policy on cultural bias is a sham: "(editors) should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them." A major problem with cultural bias is that you can't make such edits: they are against consensus.
So, how is the system supposed to work? I requested arbitration, knowing the case was 70% a content dispute, because the content dispute related to fringe theories. When reading about our fringe theory policy, I saw that ArbCom considers such cases. But not this one. Where are the guidelines.
- The system that works is one where sources are found and calmly discussed. If you think you are being stonewalled, you need to calmly discuss that as well. The one thing that doesn't work is getting upset, or ignoring what others are saying in response to what you are saying. I've read through a small part of what you and others have said, and there is some good advice in there, as well as a fair amount of support for examining the issue, but not with the attitude or approach you are taking. The one thing I noticed that you didn't seem to be taking on board is that your argument applies to religions other than Christianity, and that the term "Christian scholar" has two meanings: it can refer to a scholar who is a Christian, and it can apply to someone who writes in a scholarly manner on Christianity (that can be Christian theology, Christian history, or both). It is easily possible to be a scholar on the history of a religion without being an adherent of that religion. But ultimately, trying to filter sources in this way is not a good idea. What matters is how reliable a source is and that is best judged by what others say about the source, rather than classifying by the religious views of the authors. Trying to impose your own opinion of a source is a bad idea. Hope this helps somewhat.
- On a more general point, the cliche on Wikipedia is to discuss content, not contributors, but there is a further level to that, to discuss sources, rather than arguing over the 'truth' of content. But the right way to discuss sources, the authors of sources, and what the article should say, is a difficult matter. It various from article to article, and depend on the editors you are discussing things with. One thing that never works is to get upset with the editors who are working in the same area. The only way to get anywhere on Wikipedia is to work with others, and, if you disagree, to refine your argument while not being tendentious about it. Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply, I appreciate it. The problem is cultural/systemic bias. Christians are the majority on these articles (and broader society), and Christians are biased on this particular topic. The approach you outline above assumes that the majority will be open-minded, even if an article-specific group is not. You've essentially given an in-depth analysis of the consensus process. My concern is that there are some controversies where the consensus process can't be expected to work. Noloop (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by Sasata (submissions) has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants ( Sasata (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions)) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by Casliber (submissions), who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.
Earlier this round, we said goodbye to Hunter Kahn (submissions), who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions). We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)