User talk:Carwil

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

Porvenir Massacre article[edit]

Well done for starting the Porvenir Massacre article and for writing a balanced overview of a controversial issue. I'm putting a barnstar on your page in recognition of your contribution.

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your work in creating the Porvenir Massacre article and writing a clear and balanced overview of the incident Pexise (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your constructive contribution[edit]

Hello, Carwil. It is nice to meet you personally on your talk page. Let me quote User:Macrakis:

Wikipedia has tremendous potential, but it is discouraging to see how much effort we have to spend to deal with mindless vandalism, puerile boosterism and nationalism, and crank POV-pushing. It is also time-consuming to correct well-meaning but ill-informed enthusiasts, and to try to educate people about good research practices, but at least there you feel you're acting in an educational role. --Macrakis 18:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally have family (wife kids), day job, sport activities. All those topics come before editing Wikipedia on my TODO list, generally. Anyway stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


It looks like you have not been notified of the additional scrutiny the topic area is under. This is your notification of that. The case page mentions a "warning" but please look at this as no more than a simple heads up on it since the only concern was that revertlike edit at Psagot. Not a major concern but it is slightly annoying and could grow into a larger problem if editors start knee-jerking. SO to make sure everyone is on the same page: "As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here." Cptnono (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
Your neutrality and sensibility are appreciated. Keep up the good work! Noleander (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 15:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Excellent work on Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For one of the most thoughtful comments I've ever seen in an RfC. Noleander (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
You've just done a very good deed with your rigorous edit of the Sondra Peterson article. Which translates into a very good deed with regard to the Filipacchi/sexism scandal. Bravo! (And be prepared for someone to accuse you of being my sock puppet.) NaymanNoland (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Complimentary Gamergate Notification[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Avono (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on Campus Sexual Assault[edit]

Hey, I'm just dropping you a note because you previously participated in this RfC on the Campus Sexual assault Talk page. The dispute was never really resolved, in part because of a lack of participation. I've posted a new RfC that deals with the issue, and, if you have time comments would be appreciated! Nblund (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, I know this is tedious. I realize I may have bludgeoned the issue in the DRN. I will be doing my level-best to keep my comments to a minimum, and maybe that will lead to better progress this time around. Nblund (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Anna Rügerin[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 27 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anna Rügerin, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Anna Rügerin's 1484 books are the first publications known to be typeset by a woman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Rügerin. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Anna Rügerin), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


groups facing bias

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you quality contributions for more than ten years to articles about indigenous people, women and other groups facing bias, such as African Americans in Tennessee, Sudanese refugees in Egypt and Anna Rügerin, for personal projects such as Coca in Bolivia, for supporting projects such as anti-war and climate change, - user of many languages, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Brock Turner Talk page contributions[edit]

Thanks for turning up the FBI cite. I think there are still some ambiguities here, so I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions just yet but you brought up a good point. Please review my recent changes and my discussion of them and discuss on the talk page for the article if you have something to share about these edits. Yakushima (talk) 03:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the vague warning you left on my talk page, I would like if you could elaborate via special:diff which edit you are talking about and what issue you have with it. Have I written anything offensive about Brock? Ranze (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for linking the diffs, addressing:
  • special:diff/725763371 and special:diff/725818752 are not debate over a sexual detail, but rather, Emily's attributing a statement to Brock (him making a claim about the sexual detail) in her victim impact statement. Brock's own statement to the judge doesn't mention this. That Emily brought it up herself is what makes it seem acceptable to mention. I don't see how BLP protection for her applies here, she brings up this alleged orgasm-claim in her impact statement and this statement is referenced in our sources.
  • special:diff/726759804 and special:diff/728219251 are not proposing original research, but rather, the location of sources, which is not "original" research. Wikipedia editors finding sources is certainly describable as research but not 'original' since it is merely locating other people's research. Original research is making a source out of yourself. The questions I asked about the case are ones I was wondering if people could answer through reliable sources. I was also asking what documents were available to the public to reference, because it is helpful to attach primary sources to the secondary sources which report on them. It allows secondary sources to be better read.
We already include information about blood alcohol. The issue is obviously relevant, but even if we debated that, secondary sources report on the blood alcohol content, establishing that the issue is a notable one.
I am simply proposing we do what we can to find all the information reported in sources to give as much information as is acceptable about the blood alcohol content.
If a secondary source says "blood alcohol was xx% how is it original research to ask "does anyone know if it's been reported when the test was taken?" Organizing a collective search for the most accurate secondary sources and seeing if the underlying primaries are citeable or not does not seem like OR to me. OR is like "let's go break into the evidence locker and test it ourselves" or something.
What speculation about Emily Doe's consciousness are you talking about? I just want to report all the facts. For example that she opened her eyes when pinched, and the paramedic ranking her 11/15 on the Glascow Coma Scale. This is reported by a secondary source here: so I'll be adding it. This was the sort of thing I'm discussing: non-original research, ie the location of sources, not the manufacturing of sources.
The external impetus is obvious: Brock is still claiming innocence and his lawyer has stated an intent to appeal the case, so it's not example a matter we can conveniently bury, we should strive to remain neutral here.
I have read her entire statement multiple times, possibly more than you have. I am not victimizing her, and I am not mounting a defense, I am simply trying to keep the article neutral. Right now the BLP violations are against Brock not against her.
I'd like if you could make a clearer argument as to how I'm violating BLP concerns because I don't really see it. Leaving out facts on the other hand, or taking a side in the case (even if it is the side of the jury) is not NPOV. Ranze (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

great find[edit]

Learning more one can always be lured into the wrong idea that one knows everything, special:diff/729611069 is the first instance I can recall reading about an incline in this case, previously I had instinctively just pictured the entire scene as a flat one. Whether or not and if so, to what degree, it was inclined, seems like an important detail to explore, since it could have affected the speed of Brock's cadence. Stumbling down a ramp would be easier to mistake for running than crawling up one.

Do you happen to know any other articles which mention an incline? Like someone other than Brock talking about it? Or maybe say how steep it was? I'm beginning to wonder if this detail even made it into the crime scene statements since it does seem like a subtle one that may not have been taken into acount. Ranze (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

BLP policies remain increasingly in mind, particularly that it is required to abide by US law and neutrality/verifiability/NOR. I would like to use the talk page to discuss further about WP:BLPNAME and any other issues people want to bring up.
In this case when I did include names, I considered them people to be directly involved in the article's topic. They were witnesses who offered testimony or police professionals who worked that case, that's clearly direct involvement.
I didn't include any intentionally concealed names (the names which were not included in the complaint I didn't try to find) and the complaint has been widely disseminated. Ranze (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

James Watson[edit]

Thank you for your expert contribution. I fear there are some who want to erase the history of this man's racist views. Please check back and keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talkcontribs) 10:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you should just go ahead and edit the article. This one editor clearly has a personal bias which has no standing in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landerman56 (talkcontribs) 19:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

James Watson redux[edit]

Your input would be greatly appreciated at Talk:James Watson#"Geographic ancestry" - is that like being descended from an atlas? Joe Roe (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Interview for LeadingLines podcast[edit]

Hi Carwil,

I'm trying to reach you to schedule a time to chat/interview for the VU EdTech Podcast - LeadingLines; please let me know.

Jeeyen18 (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]

Hi Carwil,

Tomorrow's edit-a-thon at Vanderbilt Library in Special Collections runs from 11AM to 4PM. The theme is "Nashville Architecture" and we're building on this year's list of the Nashville Nine (Most Endangered buildings). Lunch and how-to edit provided.

Mary Anne (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)