User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Much thanks

I am very grateful for your help with the article so far. It will be a difficult task to get the article to an FA standard in a little more than a month, but these efforts will certainly help accomplish it! ceranthor 16:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, thanks! You'll be sure to go on the nomination slip when this is at FAC. :) ceranthor 14:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting is major contribution - and that's not all you've done, either. I think I addressed those last two things you've mentioned; the article is shaping up really well. ceranthor 17:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Bruce Lyttelton Richmond

On April 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bruce Lyttelton Richmond, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit Request

I found your name on a list of users willing to copy edit articles. Could you please copy edit the one I wrote about Napoleon and Tabitha D'umo? I've had it looked over before but I've changed it a lot since then and I think it's in need of a refresher. Would you mind? I would appreciate it. // Gbern3 (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm afraid it's not really my sort of article. I'll have a quick read through it, but won't be able to do more than that. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Any help is appreciated. // Gbern3 (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 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) 21:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kurt Meyer (soldier)

Hi. I'm involved in a never-ending edit war with a weirdo calling himself Jemesouviens32. He keeps claiming that Anthony Beevor's book D-Day does not mention atrocities committed by the SS General Kurt Meyer although it does. Our "discussion" can be fund on the edit and discussion pages of the entry about Meyer. Jamesouviens simply won't stop. I appeal to you to warn him - to block him, in fact. Not to put too fine a point on it, when he claims there is no mention of Meyer's atrocities in Beevor's book, he is lying. That can be easily checked by looking in Beevor's bok.Ojevindlang (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I don't get too involved in stuff like this, and don't have that much time free at the moment, so it would be best if you asked someone else to take a look. It sounds like a content dispute, so I suggest trying WP:3O (asking for a third opinion). I'll drop a note on your talk page as well, in case you don't see this reply. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind. I will have a look at this. I will leave a note on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into this; it seems relatively trivial to verify from digitised material that these allegations were certainly made, and trace back to a post-war war crimes investigation. However, the user who initially objected is still objecting; he seems to be dismissing them on the grounds that looking at a Google or Amazon copy is somehow not the same as actually looking at a printed copy, which baffles me. Shimgray | talk | 16:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Disasters

• Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Disasters

Are you going to work on this portal? -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought I was, then I found someone else who might have been willing to work on it. If neither of us have time (as it seems), then it should be de-featured. I've also left a note there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

FAC

I nominated the article here; I hope it goes well! ceranthor 23:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

RICEST

You asked me a week ago about Regional Information Center for Science and Technology ; finally got to it; With JV's additions , I think it will hold. What is struck me as remarkable & not to our credit is the redlinks for the universities. 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

T:EIACC

Not sure I agree with this. Obviously, we don't want a long sprawling thread, but I worded the proposal very carefully to limit it to potential improvements to that article. For all OR's faults, I don't think even his avowed enemies would deny that he acts honourably on his own terms - if someone could extract an "I won't touch anything else" promise, he would abide by it. (Of course, his views on what constituted an "improvement" might not tally with anyone else's, and he could end up in a shouting match.)

Because en-wiki is so much bigger than the others, it's something that doesn't often arise here (transwikis from simple to en-wiki are rare as hen's teeth) but while I appreciate the reasons for keeping OR banned, I'm not sure it's serving a useful purpose in this particular case. He's still working and "in good standing" on Simple—transwiki-ing his articles from there isn't equivalent to proxying for A Certain Other Problematic User With An Interest In Poetry—and given that he's coming up for probation in a few weeks anyway, I'm not sure anything's gained by the blanket ban. (Fozzie's "he needs to disengage completely" doesn't convince me; he's editing happily away on WV and Simple with no apparent problems, so it's not like he's incapable of avoiding conflict.) – iridescent 11:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment, but I want to focus on the content issues only here, not the conduct issues or the editors. If you want to discuss the matters arising from the arbitration case, you are better talking to SirFozzie. Carcharoth (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles written because the subject died in a significant event

Yes, with regard to articles that are written about a person because they died (or participated) in a significant event, I agree that a systematic approach with full discussion is appropriate. I also like to see guidelines improved as a result, but if it happens more often than not, that is sufficient. I remember, last month, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion there was a discussion about a minor entertainer, who would not otherwise have an article except for the fact that she was murdered, and the murder was significant and had its own article. The group decision there was to merge her into the event article, IAW WP:1EVENT. I am sure that other historical discussions about this abound. The trouible I see with the existing guideline is that it only considers two factors: degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role. Important other factors should include things like the significance of the person outside the event and adequacy of potential coverage within the event article without skewing the event article. Where would be the best place to hold such a discussion and gather together the treads from the past? Should a proposal lead off the discussion or is stating the issue sufficient? --Bejnar (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

DYKs

Hello, Carcharoth. You have new messages at Innotata's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Copyedit Request

I found your name on a list of volunteers, I was wondering if you could have a look over go card and TransLink (South East Queensland)? Any help is appreciated, thanks. Gerry (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David A. Johnston/archive1

Hi Carcharoth - just pinging you to let you know (in case you didn't see) that Juliancolton has some comments on the FAC for David A. Johnston. I got to some but I'm about to head off to bed and wanted to let you know. If you don't have time, no worries, I will tomorrow (well, later today actually, well past midnight here, grumble). Hope this reaches you at a more agreeable hour over there, Awickert (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Took care of it, Awickert (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Was away over the weekend, but will still go and have a look and see if I can add anything useful to the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Star and Garter Hotel, Richmond

Ucucha 08:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Brewing revert war

Heads up. On the page Simon Tolkien, user MikeWazowski is insisting on bringing back the false statement that Christopher T "removed" Simon from the board of the Tolkien Company in "retaliation" for Simon's support of the movies. Solicitr (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that you offer no proof that my edits are ringing back a false statement, since my edit is is backed up by a verifiable source. You, however, are inserting material based what appears to be your own personal opinion, and a link that doesn't exist. This "revert war" is your own doing. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If any discussion could take place at the article talk page, that would be good. I'll try and look at some point, but if the dispute is over sources, please leave the material out until this is resolved, per WP:BLP. If there are verifiable sources, it may still not be suitable material. It may simply be a question of phrasing and considering the reliability of the source. Carcharoth (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Carcharoth -- I have posted something new at Response to Carcharoth:

I wonder what distinguishes the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread from "raising the bar"? If this is not "raising the bar", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Carcharoth -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do?

I look forward to your further comments; and I continue to hope for action. --Tenmei (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. We are close to deciding what to do here, so a little bit more patience and thanks for being so patient so far as this has indeed taken some time. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I grasp the surface meaning of your words; but I also understand that there is more between the lines. --Tenmei (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Star and Garter Hotel

Coord does not provide any facilities to differentiate two coordinates pointing at exactly the same point. And to be honest, I'm not sure how map providers that have a wikipedia layer deal with the issue. I think it is most likely that both articles will be shown at the same point. I'm not sure I see a good alternative. I tend to think our first responsibility is to readers of articles on wikipedia who may wish to make use of the coordinates on the article to view the location of the subject, and that being the case I would suggest we go ahead and recycle the coordinates on your next article. Having a couple of articles with the same coord is not that uncommon, though I cannot point to an example as I write; I know I've duplicated coords a number of times, for instance on parliamentry constituencies which match scottish or welsh assembly constituencies, as well as on sites which have had a number of distinct notable buildings. If I get some time I'll see if I can dig some up and we can check what happens in Google or other map providers.

I confess I didn;t read the article in depth, but commend the great detail in it; well done. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration case help?

I'd like to link to the Altenmann case in this deletion discussion, but I can't find anything more than a link to a motion to desysop Altenmann. Could you add a link to the case at the deletion discussion? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It was under a previous name. I could look it up if you really want (look through the list of arbitration cases from 2009), but I don't think it is that relevant. I've also commented at the AfD. Carcharoth (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter

Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to Hunter Kahn (submissions), our clear overall round winner, and to ThinkBlue (submissions) and Arsenikk (submissions), who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. 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.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants Stone (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) for their help in preparing for round three. 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 17:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

David A. Johnston (FAC)

David A. Johnston passed! I would like to thank you and Awickert for your incredible work. Now we just have to get through TFA/R... and there's already an article being considered for May 18. :( ceranthor 19:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Passing is good news (though there are a few more polishes of the article needed, as the post-FAC edits make clear). The TFA requests system is ... interesting. I'll try and keep an eye on it and if the page gets through, will try and help out on the day as well. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my talk page

Could it be that you are using a screen resolution lower than 1024x768? (I use 1280x800) Anything lower indeed makes the floaters much too large for comfort. Nonetheless, majority of visitors to my talk page should be comfortable, see stats here. Only ~3.5% of people still use 800x600, and 1024x600 is so rare it didn't make it into top 10 there (so presumably it is under ~1.8%). Unfortunately, I don't think that floaters can be set up to screen %, rather, they require fixed pixel size (as far as I know...). I will ask on WP:VPT about it in the near future, probably. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll check into this as well (once I get free time, heh). At least in LaTeX, you can do things like "0.3\textwidth". But I'm not so sure that this is possible in HTML, etc., since the width of the page isn't fixed in the setup (and I imagine that the clever people who do the formatting would have done this if it were). Awickert (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

<eyes glazing over>... Carcharoth (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

TFA blurb

Thanks for doing the blurb. I just finished reading another 20 pages of Western US tectonic history and opened my computer to write the blurb, but you did beat me to it! Get some rest - you deserve it. Aren't you in the UK? The time there must be... Awickert (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

But we have a bank holiday tomorrow! :-) One thought I did have was the "saved thousands" - is that referenced in the article? It could be more properly described as "hundreds", as technically thousands would have been killed outside the exclusion zone, but the eruption extended beyond the exclusion zone (not predicted by the USGS team, though maybe it was considered). What really saved the lives of lots of foresters and loggers was the volcano erupting on a Sunday. A day later, lots more people would have been caught by the blast. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad you have a holiday! "Thousands" is referenced here, which is one of the article's refs, although the "thousands" part is only mentioned in the lede of the article (so the ref isn't used for it). I'm going to try to find a good place to put it in the body. Awickert (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Added it. Awickert (talk) 03:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Apology

You are correct in pointing out I have acted inappropriately, and would do apologise. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, though the best apology would be directed at those you acted inappropriately towards, and to try and avoid getting frustrated like that in future. And it is not just you, it is others as well. Hopefully everyone can calm down when discussing things like that. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I'm taking the liberty of posting within this section, since my point, which I wanted to convey to you before I knew of any apologies WRT this matter, seems to be on-topic. You wrote "a strike-out of unnecessary commentary, which doesn't really undo the harm done by making such comments". I don't see enough apology and striking through on WP. You may be aware that I've tried to promote such actions, even encouraging admins to try to resolve matters of incivility and the like by requesting back-downs, as an alternative to blocking where judgement and track-records suggest it might work—the WAS (warn, apologise, strike through) protocol. The detractors have said that an empty apology is worse than none; but I think this is a narrow view. An apology and/or strike-through, even if suggested by a third party, is more than a social nicety: it is a public gesture that acknowledges a user's role in an incident or dispute. It is a practice, like "please" and "thank you", that contributes to the lip service we need to pay to social harmony (all we have is our lips, here). I see many posts that include "please" and are thus acceptable by convention, even though the word masks an order, or even a seething "fu" beneath the text. So be it. I wonder whether you agree that apologies should be encouraged as part of the engine of social harmony on WP. It does require a little negotiation, though.

Thank you for your practical tips to clerks and admins on the Anderson topic ban issue.

Given your comments, I am posting brief reminders on the talk pages of WT:Words to watch, WT:MOS, WT:MOSNUM, and WT:LINKING of ArbCom's concerns, expressed last year, about the need for the styleguides to be stable and socially as harmonious as possible. I will explicitly include myself in this respect. I do want ArbCom to know that its views are taken seriously on these pages. Tony (talk) 09:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts and for posting reminders to the MOS talk pages and other talk pages. I'm not against strike-outs, but I think that sometimes people strike out things and think that undoes what has been said, when it doesn't. I think there should be a place in the social etiquette for complete removal and apologising with a diff to the removal (for transparency, either at the removal location, or a user talk page, or both). Strike-outs are best used for factual corrections where the original text should remain visible. When something is offensive or antagonistic, it is sometimes best removed, as well as being apologised for, as leaving it in place means it can still stir things up even if struck through. The difficult thing about apologies is that you can't really ask people to apologise - they have to realise themselves that they need to apologise. The other thing to consider here is that the comments by Pmanderson were removed completely, rather than struck through. What is the logic there, do you think for removal versus strike-through? Should civility be enforced by strike-throughs of the posted text, and topic bans enforced by removal of the posted text? Carcharoth (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

On a different aspect of this, could you also consider what SirFozzie said about not using "these sanctions as clubs in debates"? Pmanderson pointed out that it was you, not Ohconfucius, who first raised the unrelated issue, and looking at the AE thread, I see that is the case, and it was that which may have prompted Ohconfucius to go to Ryan's talk page (the diff I objected to). Given that, might you have further comments to make here? (that's a link to an old page version, so if you do add something there, you need to go to the current version of the talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I've archived the following posts as the above was a reply to Tony1, and involving others is not helpful here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

You may wish to read what Tony actually said [at MOS, MOSNUM, and so on]: he cited your statement, as though you were speaking for ArbCom. You should also keep an eye on what happens; in Tony's posts, stability means reverting dissent and denying its existence, cohesion means obedience to his whims. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep this in mind, but you really need to talk this through with Tony, not me. Carcharoth (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't; this restriction prohibits me from editing those pages. (Nor am I particularly interested in wasting more time on a faction editing in bad faith.) All I can do is encourage neutral admins to keep an eye on them, in the hope that they will either reform or cease to edit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• This comes, I think, close to the heart of the date-delinking case, and to the problems with MOS as a whole - and why I have not contested, and did not intend to contest, the widened restrictions; and why I would have avoided and dismissed the discussion at WP:Words to watch, had I realized that it was not only adopting the behavior of MOS, but actually involved in it.
• The date-delinking case involved a half-dozen editors attempting to legislate this trivial point by majority vote, and impose it on Wikipedia by bots, ignoring wide-spread objections, claiming a false consensus, and prevailing by repetition and abuse.
• So here. Tony's scatological abuse of many editors is documented at the date-delinking case; his attempt to find mud to sling in a five-month-old settled dispute (in which I went to 2RR, but no further) is a more sophisticated use of the same technique.
• There was no consensus to merge and reshape WP:WEASEL into WP:Words to watch when I arrived on the page; there is none now that I have withdrawn. Nevertheless, the usual handful has been attempting to ignore and silence the opposition - and this case is one branch of that effort. Removing and striking through my voice (and both were done) is the goal of this barratry.
• But my fundamental attitude to MOS remains what it was. It is not consensus, it is not English usage, it should be ignored; I have better things to do than involve myself in it (I have tried and failed); and I would not have continued with WP:Words to watch, if I had realized what it was - ban or no ban. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• "The date-delinking case involved a half-dozen editors attempting to legislate this trivial point by majority vote, and impose it on Wikipedia by bots, ignoring wide-spread objections, claiming a false consensus, and prevailing by repetition and abuse"—a comment that is simply breathtaking in its inaccuracy (I counted nine mistakes in that one sentence—which I hope is a record).  HWV258.  01:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• I've archived several posts above, as they were responses to a post that I made that was intended for Tony1 to reply to, and the latest response by HWV258 shows how easily it could end up in another dispute. I'd still be interested in Tony's thoughts on what I posted, but it would be best if others didn't jump in here to add their thoughts. Carcharoth (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, I agree entirely with the distinction you make: "there should be a place in the social etiquette for complete removal and apologising with a diff to the removal (for transparency, either at the removal location, or a user talk page, or both). Strike-outs are best used for factual corrections where the original text should remain visible. When something is offensive or antagonistic, it is sometimes best removed, as well as being apologised for, as leaving it in place means it can still stir things up even if struck through."

I would favour the addition of something like these points at WP:CIVILITY, and perhaps even a reminder at WP:ADMIN that admins do at least have the option of encouraging such social behaviour.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your statement that "the difficult thing about apologies is that you can't really ask people to apologise - they have to realise themselves that they need to apologise." Asking could be applying great pressure, or it could be mere encouragement. Of course there's no substitute for a well-meant apology/withdrawal that springs from the offender alone; but failing that, I believe that an apology arising from encouragement—whether by an admin or other editors—can have a healthy bounce-back effect on the giver in retrospect. How often have we looked back at what we've written and found it to be harsher than we meant. Apology in retrospect can be like please in advance: a welcome nicety, a promoter of social harmony. I concede that it doesn't work in every context, but so often the chance to start the healing process in print is missed and the offence remains forever on public display.

I say these things from my observation that mediation is not WP's strong point, and that while blocking is often indicated, it often does not achieve its intended effect, promoting a simmering resentment, especially in established users. Tony (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't have time, but you make some excellent points here. If you have time, could you try and promote both the practice of self-refactoring (but still with transparency) and pushing people (and least the first few times until they get the hint) to learn to apologise more? WP:APOLOGY is a not-very-good essay in that direction. I also noticed (when reading through the talk page arguments that led to a recent desysop) the idea that instead of telling someone to go away from one's talk page, that politer ways are promoted to keep people at arm's length, such as various forms of talk page thread archiving and changing the topic or changing the location of a discussion (changing venue can change people's behaviour markedly sometimes). The trick is to strike a balance between not engaging with someone to the extent that they think you are being evasive, to engaging with someone so much and being so frank that the encounter becomes confrontational and escalates. Whole books have been written about this (the dynamics and etiquette of communications), of course. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't want to get into another barney with our friend, but I feel his comment not entirely helpful in lowering the temperature, when what you are doing is attempting to mediate and reconcile. What Tony said was not fundamentally wrong, nor did it misrepresent you in any way, or Arbcom's position on the matter. Tony pointed out your reiteration - yes, you are an Arb although you were not wearing that hat when you made that comment - was something Arbcom already believed in, for there are motions which testify to that. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Shorter OC: Identifying a post expressly not written as a member of ArbCom as an ArbCom opinion is not misrepresentation in any way. I could hardly say more; I could not have invented this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This probably isn't indented the right way, Carcharoth. I think it's time for a new essay, and I'll think about writing this in a few weeks, since I'm suddenly beset by clients until 18 May. I've got a permalink to your comments. Tony (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Bolded stuff (or: Lost in the web)

• Happily changed the "strongest oppose" in the RFC but AFAICT the RFC is now redundant anyway: in the end the process was fixed as requested and even enacted in part by me as a two step process. FWIW I think that the "strongest oppose" vote at the time was a reasonable reaction to a process abuse. It got attention, got eight or nine supporting opposes and got the process fixed. But the RFC was left irrelevant and high and dry. Perhaps I should have just closed it. --BozMo talk 20:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah. I'd been having the exact same conversation about overheated RFC !votes in another venue, and was also wanting to be responsive to Tony's related point about making the atmosphere on these discussions more harmonious. I got confused about what I meant to be saying where (and Doc and HWV's comments had made me laugh--really their edit summaries, which you might have missed). All the best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• Just letting you know I replied at my talk. Feel free to remove this after you read it if you wish. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Motion in progress

You indicated here that you're the one drafting the motion related to this recent "incident." I certainly hope that the Arbitration Committee will include motions to remove Prodego's adminship as well as an admonishment for Coren for needlessly creating drama by using an indefinite block where one wasn't necessary. I doubt either will get enough support to pass, but they should most certainly be included, in the interest of fairness to all parties.

I suppose it would also be nice if it pointed out that no such "bright line" rule exists with regard to self-unblocks, though that's just dreaming on my part, I realize. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be more work. I spent enough time laying out in detail the timeline from the self-unblock to desysop. The blocks and unblocks by Coren I ignored as those were not part of the desysop process and (as you say) were not needed. I suggest you take it up with Coren if you have a problem with those blocks. The rightness or wrongness of the blocking action by Prodego could be examined also, but I see that as a separate matter. To examine the actions by Tanthalus39, you only need to find that the blocking action by Prodego was something that, even if it was debatable, was not a simple error that should be undone by the admin who found themself blocked. In essence, you need to follow normal dispute resolution (and ultimately request a separate arbitration case) if you want to dispute Prodego's action. The only way we would examine Prodego's action is if Tanthalus39 appealed on the basis that Prodego's action was abuse of his tools. That wouldn't excuse Tanthalus39's self-unblock, but it might be a valid reason for mitigation of the desysopping. Going back further still, to the talk page argy-bargy that led to all this, the community should be able to deal with that without any need for ArbCom to be involved. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 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) 19:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Carcharoth. You have new messages at Colds7ream's talk page.
Message added 00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-MBK₀₀₄ 00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge meetup

The next Cambridge meetup will take place on 29 May. Hope to see you there. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't have been able to make it. Apologies for not letting you know beforehand. Hope it went well (will copy this to your talk page along with reply to other note below). Carcharoth (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Ceranthor#Johnston TFAR

Hi Carcharoth,

Ceranthor mentioned getting in touch with the USGS if David A. Johnston is selected as TFA for the 18th. I'm trying to figure out which one of us should do this; please follow the section header link if you want to discuss. I'll be out of touch shortly, and back late Sunday night (Monday morning UTC). Awickert (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your great work on helping to get the David A. Johnston article to FA status, you deserve, at a minimum, this barnstar. The article was excellent and it is contributions like this that make wikipedia a useful, insightful, and topical source. Please keep up the great work! Remember (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, David Johnston was one of those TFAs that makes one proud of Wiki-- which doesn't happen often enough!! I was ashamed and embarrassed once when we ran an article about a deceased person on her birthday, in which we made unnecessary, gratuitous comments about her mother-- imagine the mother having to see that on her lost daughter's birthday! Your work restores my faith in the possibilities to highlight good work on the main page. Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (to you both). The barnstar and comments are appreciated. If you want to read more about the background to the eruption, including the others that died, I found a page here that gives a good overview (the other sections of that site are good as well). Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration

Could you look at my conversation with Shell [1] please? I do not know what exactly can I do to have this topic ban reviewed in a positive way, ever. I suggested this alternative. But maybe there is something else I can do? Otherwise, this looks indeed as an indefinite topic ban. Please keep in mind that I only edited in the Science and Soviet/Russian history areas. To be honest, I do not want editing anything at all right now (after the outings and the arbitration), but I still might wish to return to editing in a few months.Biophys (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment at the relevant arbitration case talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. Since you said that giving me a new account is unlikely to happen, I marked my current account as active and will occasionally edit. However, I do have a problem [2] and probably will not be very active for that reason. You also offered to clarify the scope of the ban. A few questions. 1. The ban reads as not editing any articles. But can I still participate in discussions in this area (WP:RS, AfD and article talk pages)? 2. Can I edit Russian history prior to the year of 1922 when USSR has been created? For example, can I edit People's Will of 19th Century although some authors consider it a predecessor of CPSU? I will not edit any mention of the CPSU, of course. 3. Can I edit geographically different subjects? For example, can I edit something about US or North Korea although the both countries were allies of the USSR. I will not edit anything about the USSR in such articles.Biophys (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) No (the topic ban includes a ban on participation in discussions); (2) Possibly; (3) Depends. There are no general answers to the last two questions, and you have to use your own judgment, asking when you are not sure, but don't ask me, ask at WP:AE if you must, but the best thing to do for now is just find something completely different to do for a month or two. The ability to drop something and change to something else for a while is essential for all editors that have just been through an arbitration case. Testing boundaries is never good, especially just after the case has closed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.Biophys (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

You are invited to participate in WP:Peer review#Iron. You can expand the history section. Thanks. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the other day that all the solar system planets are featured articles. I wonder how long it will be before all the chemical elements are featured articles? Will try and give this one a brief review as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A Nobody procedure

I'm sorry if the procedure I used caused you problems, but I was in a quandary. The discussion on the noticeboard was becoming both accusatory and defensive, and I felt like linking directly from it to ANI would just transplant the problem. What I chose to do was to put the notice on ANI and link to the other discussions from there so that everyone commenting on ANI was aware of the existing controversy, in hopes of getting a calm and reasoned commentary. It spiraled after a while, too, but stayed remarkably on track for a discussion that tends to descend into mud-slinging vitriol very quickly.

The 24-hour limit took me by surprise as well. I hadn't ever heard of that before.—Kww(talk) 12:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, it's appreciated. I can understand you thought it best not to link it, but in future it would be best, really. You can ask those reading a note left at a particular discussion to declare at ANI that they read about the ban discussion in a particular location. If you disagree with the 24-hour thing, may I suggest you start a discussion about that? My suggestion would be for a 24-hour breathing space for people to calm down, followed by a 24/48-hour discussion. And a reminder at the start of all ban discussions that people will be warned for excessive comments and the closing administrator should have wide latitude to close a ban discussion as "too much back-and-forth and heated arguments, will restart ban discussion in one week's time to get a calmer measure of community feeling". Carcharoth (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate change RfC

I opened Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/RFC before seeing your comment at RfARB. If you have the time and inclination, will you please review the statement of concern? I feel fairly strongly that an RfC that is biased in its formulation is worse than useless, and if you think that I have failed in this I would support it being moved back to my userspace for more draftwork. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks OK, as you've taken an approach to just provide the background and let people comment on the detail as they see fit. One thing that would be best is to list on the talk page where you have listed it, so whoever closes it or reviews it has some idea of where opinion has been drawn from. Use "what links here" to see where it is currently listed (and bug the developers for a way to show which links are from a template listing and which are from a listing in the text of a page). And give a minimum time that it will remain open for. Carcharoth (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Good idea on the advertising notice, thank you. My thought was that this would stay open 30 days, after which some lovely volunteer watching policy RfCs would swoop in to offer a concise but thoroughly fair analysis of the opinions rendered and advise the best course of action going forward. Increasingly desperate appeals to WP:AN are also an option. My standard offer of bribery in the form of creating articles and expanding stubs in exchange for someone willing to take on an arduous and largely thankless task would probably not be appropriate as I have offered an opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Humour?

Well if that's what makes you laugh [3]. I find it all rather sad and not just a little concerning.  Giacomo  18:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The humour I saw was in your over-the-top comment wondering whether arbs have the gift of thinking. If you merely meant to give your opinion that the wrong decision has been proposed and that ArbCom are getting the decision wrong, then you could just say that instead of using pretty words, and then claiming you are not going to bother making suggestions. The point about suggesting actual wording is that it is easier to criticize a decision than to actually write one. Carcharoth (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Were I am Arb, I would write very good and very perceptive proposals. I am not, but you are.  Giacomo  20:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Peer review : Age of Discovery

Hi Carcharoth. You are invited to participate in WP:Peer review#Age of Discovery. Thank you.--Uxbona (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ack. This is something I am actually very interested in. Will try and actually commit to doing a review here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

BLOCK USER

I want to propose a block for the user "Deshbhakta"[[4]], He has a history of 3 reverts, and more he is not allowing others to write or update the article on Communist Party of India (Marxist), which needs a freqent updation. Sorry to coplaint, but the edits proposed by him are highly biased, and are not well supported by the general consensus. If you need than you are free to look at the "Discussion page of Communist Party of India (Marxist).

I think it must be done immediately to maintain the healthy and unbiased character of wikipedia, as a global free encyclopedia.

Warm Regards

Viplovecomm (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time to look at this. I suggest you first discuss with the other editor, if you have not done so already, and if that does not work, then post at one of the administrators' noticeboards (such as WP:ANI). Ask them to first of all tell you where you should be asking for help, and then follow the advice you are given. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Carcharoth. You have new messages at TreasuryTag's talk page.
Message added 08:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 08:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, since you seem to be interested in paid-photographer-copyright (good on you!) I found documents describing the sytem in the UK – ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 08:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Benson

William Benson (abbot) for Poets' Corner. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Note re Lar/Polargeo

The situation between Lar and Polargeo, similar to the situation between Lar and Stephen Shultz is escalating. Here is the sequence of events:

1. Polargeo adds some views to the uninvolved admin section.
2. Lar moves these and adds one of his own views.
3. Polargeo reverts this, accidentally removing Lar's view.
4. Hipocrite returns Lar's view.
5. Lar move's polargeo's view again, and threatens to block Polargeo if he returns his view.

Lar was asked to stop removing views on his talk page and instead take a lower-drama action of noting his problems on the page by me, seconded by Thparkth.

This is rapidly spiriling out of control and needs emergy Arbcom intervention to prevent further disruption. I have asked both Lar and Polargeo to stop. Perhaps the individual who choses to stop first should be rewarded, as opposed to losing by default. Just a thought. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Note, Polargeo has been disrupting the CC probation page for over a month now. He actually submitted a formal request against himself last month, speaking of himself in the third person (see this historical diff and this section). Polargeo believes Lar is involved, and that RFE against himself gives the appearance of gaming the system to get others to recognize Lar's involvement. But per AGF, even taking that RFE at face value, Polargeo freely admits involvement, and therefore should not be posting as an uninvolved in any case. ATren (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Stunning!

It was all worth it. 66,000 page views! I guess we can thank all the other websites who posted memorials for that. ;) Great work. I am amazed that you and Awickert were so helpful (eventually, you both did much more work than I) and I am ever so grateful. Thank you both very much. ceranthor 13:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You noticed the page views! :-) I enjoyed working on that article with you both. We must do that again some time. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Invitation

Here is one of only 5 invites. Only 5 to avoid canvassing accusations. Feel free to attend. Anybody can attend. Free beer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Suomi_Finland_2009/Wikipedia_Improvement_Conference_2010 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I'm about to go on wikibreak and don't really have time to comment. Hopefully others reading this will! Carcharoth (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice

A discussion in which you offered comment has been returned to deletion discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter

We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is Sasata (submissions), who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by Hunter Kahn (submissions), Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) and White Shadows (submissions) respectively. 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.

Two of last year's final 8, Theleftorium (submissions) and Scorpion0422 (submissions), have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to White Shadows (submissions) for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! 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 20:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)