User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 5

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

Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6

Arsenic contamination of groundwater[edit]

Oops. I stuck the article in Category:Environmental disasters before reading this.

No problem - I think that's a good move. --Singkong2005 03:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wold Newton family category[edit]

I would like to see Wold Newton information added to those characters articles, however, I have met resistance the very first time that I discussed it with other editors of an article. Also, how many people do you think will click the "What links here" link?

About why I am fighting for this category, I think that it is relevant to show how far reaching these characters have become. The characters have grown beyond the original author's works and become more. Putting new sections in the article will be resisted, more than likely, but placing the characters in this category (with this category always being the one listed last) shouldn't be that big of a problem. There is a List of Wold Newton Universe characters. That list is far larger than the category which has been kept purposefully small. I am in no way affiliated with the author Philip Jose Farmer. I haven't even read the books on which this is based, just a few websites. It is the geneology that interests me, nothing more. Is there any way that I could change your mind? Even if there is not, please let me know on my talk page.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 08:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image deletions[edit]

You said: "Hi there. I've just noticed that Image:Arwen2Work.jpg and Image:Arwen sword-2.png have been deleted. I can't rememeber what these images looked like or which articles they were in. Can you help? Also, do you have a link to the WP:IfD page about these images? It would help if the entry in the deletion logs had a link to the WP:IfD archive (if there is one). Also, when I scanned the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images I initially thought that you had only removed them from the gallery, rather than putting them through IfD (I don't have these images on my watchlist). It would be easier for me to see that they have been deleted if you leave the dead link there, and then a blank box will show up. Thanks."

Hi. These images were blatant copyright violations with no provided fair-use rationale. They were noted as fairusedisputed and the original uploader was notified. No fair use rationale was provided and so I speedily deleted them as they were copyright violations. They were both movie screenshots. Sorry for causing you hassle. --Yamla 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
You said: "Not really a hassle. What would be a hassle is if you don't have a way of telling me what articles those images were used in. Can you do this?"
These images were used in the articles on Liv Tyler and Arwen. By the way, I will not be copying-and-pasting my responses back to this page if you leave anything more on my discussion page unless you want me to. I am thinking you are checking my discussion page from time to time so there's no reason for me to copy here as well. If you want me to leave responses here, though, just ask and I'm quite happy to do so. --Yamla 17:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Mort Leav[edit]

Thanks for the head's up! That was extremely nice of you to take the time and effort. Best regards, -- Tenebrae 13:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It was totally 2006. I'll go back see what needs clarified. -- Tenebrae 13:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Keratoconus peer review[edit]

You said you didn't know what a keratoconic eye looked like without the eyelids retracted. Well, this is one. How do I know that's a keratoconic eye? Because it's mine. Regards, --BillC 01:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

SF stuff[edit]

Hi -- yes, the ISFDB is a good resource, but it's not the most reliable tool out there. There's actually a wiki/edit project underway which should be released in the next month or two, we hope; it should allow user submissions of data. Till then it's a reasonable source but print sources are better if you can find them.

I've put the Hugo assessment article on my watchlist and might get to it. The Clarke -- well, there are a lot of sf writer and book articles in poor shape, I think. I'm trying to take them one at a time, with my very limited free time. I still have a lot to do to John W. Campbell and I think I'll be on that for a while.

I'll try to get to the LotR cites in the next day or so. Thanks. Mike Christie 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

LotR cites[edit]

I added about ten; there was one already there. I think if you can find decent sources for 80-90% of them I'll vote for the FA. One other thing: in the first para on Critical Response there are some press quotes that are asserted to be from the original publication. The cite given doesn't seem to indicate when those are from. Is there a better source? I seem to recall a volume called Tolkien and the Critics; perhaps that has the quotes in citable form. Anyway, I hope this is useful. If any of my requested cites are in your opinion going too far, please say so and I'll consider them again. Mike Christie 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Goal Times...[edit]

The correct FIFA way to record extra times goals is not 90+1, it is 91+, please stop changing them on the FIFA World Cup page, if you would like proof please see the match reports for those games in which a goal has been scored in extra time. Batman2005 14:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Image deletion[edit]

Hi there. I noticed an image got deleted, but when I read the reason for deletion (see here) I wasn't able to see the picture or the tag used to see what you meant by "unrelated to the content of the image". Can you help? Carcharoth 10:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the template was {{Standard test}}, which is a fair use tag used for Standard test images, a very specific type of image that is used in image processing normalization. The reason for deletion was CSD:I7, which states "Invalid fair-use claim. Any image with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) can be deleted at any time." If you have any questions let me know. - cohesion 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I suspect it may have been wrongly tagged. But part of the problem is that I cannot be sure because I cannot see the picture any more because it has been deleted. That is what I was really asking when I said "can you help" - what did the picture look like?? I have vague memories, but nothing certain. Carcharoth 21:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was tagged incorrectly. Unfortunately I don't remember exactly what the image looked like, it seems vaguely like it was a largish mostly red and black image of a fight? That could be completely wrong though. Hundreds of images are deleted every day, and in that batch I probably did 50ish. Sorry I couldn't be any more help. Mediawiki does not store images that have been deleted. If you would like to pursue getting the image back and tagging it correctly the user that uploaded it was User:Ted87. I also don't want you to think we are just deleting things punitively. While the tag was wrong, there was no obvious correct tag that would allow us to keep the image. - cohesion 17:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, bad timing, as of now we are able to restore and view deleted images [1]. This, unfortunately does not apply to images deleted before the change. Just to let you know for the future. - cohesion 05:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for talking about it and letting me know about the new undeletion option - though surely that will only work for a set period of time? - otherwise the space taken up by deleted images will be immense. As for what the picture was, from looking at this Google Images search and your description, and from my memory as well, I think it looks like the picture was the one being used at this wiki here. I'll contact Ted87 and see if he can upload it again and put the correct tag on it. Thanks. Carcharoth 08:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes that is definitely the picture, I remember it. - cohesion 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded the image from this site, and I thought I gave a good fair use claim including artist, work published in, and most likely current copyright owner. Maybe I just had the wrong tag. I think the {{Art}} tag seems more appropriate for such an image. What do you think? --Ted87 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of football matches[edit]

Hi there. I was reading the comments at Template_talk:In_the_news#This_is_Wikipedia., and I noticed that you said the following: "We should not expect big changes in national football team pages - remember that they have often played thousands of international matches, it would be recentism to completely change them based on one game!" This inspired me to go and find out how many international games England have played, on the presumption that they have played the most games. It seems that they have played 838 international fixtures since 1872, so "thousands" may be overstating it slightly. On the other hand, maybe another team has played more games? Is this in Wikipedia anywhere? Carcharoth 12:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, an interesting point! I would be surprised if many teams have played more than a thousand in that case. At any rate, they have certainly played a large number so I think my point probably stands :-) I wonder where in Wikipedia it might be (I suppose a list could be made ... the data is probably available somewhere). You have to bear in mind that I hate football, but I also hate the bizarre row that is developing over ITN! Now that the first eliminations and qualifications for the Round of 16 have taken place, is it likely that ITN will start registering them? TheGrappler 18:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Group positions in WC2006[edit]

There must be a more concise way of describing the possible outcomes in group B (and presumably in other groups to follow), than that which now takes up more than a screen and a half. I believe that my edit this morning included all possibilities in about 1/3 of the space, and that the only possible barrier to understanding would be unfamiliarity with the phrase "winning margin". You have not given any justification on the talk page or your edit summaries for the action you have taken. Although very comprehensive, I do not think that most readers will find your alterations clearer than what was there before, and that there is a lot of repetition. If you are on-line, I will await negotiation before radically simplifying and abbreviating what you have put.

Re:Intro to Lord of the Rings[edit]

Hi, SorryGuy asked me to add the {{fact}} notes, which, no offence, I think is neccessary. References aren't just there to back up further information you couldn't write in the article, they are a source of where you found the information. If you don't have sources, all you have is 50kb of original research, and what good is that? All you need to do is cite the books, it isn't that hard. Find the (unfinished) comments here, and in regards to the double information, it's more or less the same text twice. But cited once, double oops. ;) Highway Rainbow Sneakers 21:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. Highway Rainbow Sneakers 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings[edit]

Agreed on moving the discussion to the talk page. I will put further comments there. Thanks, SorryGuy 22:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiebreaking Criteria for round 1 World Cup[edit]

Sorry, someone edited the new information in without a citation and in an effort to verify the data I mistakenly "verified" it by looking at the wrong page of the rulebook. The tiebreaking rules are on pages 40-41 of the pdf file. Dav2008 03:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I was a bit confused at first as well. Thanks for fixing your changes so quickly. Carcharoth 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:In the News Item[edit]

Certainly. It was simply extremely inappropriate to call it the 'US Church" (even when referring to the Anglican Communion, since in the US the church is not the Anglican Church). —Cuiviénen 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: deletion of 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies[edit]

I have speedily deleted the old version of the article as nonsense. Its content was:

There's talk about one of the next world cups being held here in the US. So soon after USA 94 is of course too early. And the fact that the Americanians are as inept at Soccerball as they are at every other team sport is likely to again highlight their inferiority at any World competition that isn't in reality confined to their own insular little US world.

Mike Rosoft 09:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Legend of Zelda Categories[edit]

As someone who has previously voted or commented at the recent CfD discussion about the naming of Legend of Zelda categories, I thought I would let you know that I have started a new discussion in an attempt to reach a consensus. The current position of having 2 sets of categories serving the exact same purpose is unsustainable, and we need to reach a consensus on which set should be removed. If you have previously voted on this proposal, I would ask you to reconsider your vote, and ask yourself whether you are willing to give a little ground in order to reach a compromise. This is a generic message I am leaving for everyone who took part in the previous discussion. Thank you for your time. Road Wizard 14:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Further to my comment above, I am letting you know that Proposal 1 (merging all game sub-categories) has been successful, and I will be relisting it at CfD later today. Of the renaming proposals, only option 7 appears to have gained a consensus in support. However, I am going to leave that discussion open a few more days as we have had a related proposal (No. 11) that has not yet been discussed. Please use this time to consider whether you wish to support or oppose the new proposal, or in any way change your previous votes. I will be reassessing the situation at about 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC). Road Wizard 19:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Hey there, Carcharoth. Thought I'd give you a heads up about this straw poll which concerns a possible name change for "In the news." Your feedback would be greatly appreciated. The Tom 00:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


One can use the proper formulae for spherical coordinates (such as great-circle distance), however for an area this scale, you can probably get a good estimate with Cartesian calculation (with an approximate scale factor on the latitude of ~ cos(45) or something). ed g2stalk 16:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Eight Explosions[edit]

The timeline item on the CNN site says seven explosions. I'd blame dodgy journalism rather than things still being uncertain. What we need is someone who can read the local websites and papers - they may be more helpful. Are there wikis for the Indian languages? Those might help as well. For example, this appears to be the Hindi article on the bombings, and what looks like a table has seven red-linked entries and one not. So that could be seven or eight. But I can't read Sanskrit(?) unfortunately. Carcharoth 23:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's most likely seven. I can't read Hindi (probably not Sanskrit), but I'm pretty sure that last row is just for the total. -- joturner 23:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for catching that! I usually cut and paste the name directly from the biography. And the redirect via the Navigation Box used to be corrected by a bot at night, but now has been turned off according to the redirect talk page. I will fix the spelling error and finish the redirects right now, sorry for the spell error. Me type pretty one day. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC). I have asked for a deletion of the redirect Charles Brenton Huggins so that we can move the article to its proper spelling. I think the Nobel bio should be considered the last word in correct spelling. OK?

I apologized too early. I didn't misspell the name, you changed the spelling a day after I made the move. I used the name contained in the biography.

  1. 12:11, July 19, 2006 Carcharoth (Talk | contribs) (correct spelling of middle name)
  2. (cur) (last) 16:35, July 18, 2006 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (Talk | contribs) m (moved Charles B. Huggins to Charles Breton Huggins)

Main Page talk comment (since removed)[edit]

Hi David. I read the comment you made on the Main Page talk page. The whole section has since been removed, but from looking at that editor's talk page, I think it is probably the GraalOnline case (which I know nothing about). In particular, see Talk:GraalOnline. HTH. Carcharoth 08:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!  :-) —David Levy 09:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Good to see you back[edit]

Thanks Carcharoth :). Well, inactivity is fine, as every Wikipedian would be once in his/her life, and it'll be good to see you back when you return as well. You contribute a lot to the WikiProject — nice job with the categories, especially. A vast improvement from the old, and thanks for your constructive criticisms — it helped me improve. :)Mirlen 10:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)