This is an archive of past discussions about User:Carcharoth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
the version you are seeing was put together by user:Thebainer I'm not really sure one way or the other on the matter of links to the candidates question pages other than to say we got by without them last year.Geni11:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I was gonna msg you to let you know - I did it as the bot had stopped working, and I thought that may be why... but then I checked the history and it actually stopped a couple hours before so must be something else. Gurch isnt online but when he comes back on I'll chat to him and we'll reinstate it. :) Glen 15:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
That was a mistake; I was in the middle of voting when I made the comment. I'd edit that one out too, but Geogre replied kind of angrily, so I'll leave it be. As far as discussion goes, I think on occasion, it's important. I believe I left comments on two users: Geogre (because I felt that his actions on the vote page were inappropriate) and R.D.H. (Ghost in the Machine) (because I felt his action particularly wrong). It shouldn't become like RFA where 3-paragraph opposes are used on a regular basis, but if it helps voters, I don't see a problem with it. Ral315 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: ArbCom tally
Carcharoth wrote:
In case you haven't spotted it (it's not always clear), JzG has withdrawn from the ArbCom election, and your bot-generated table doesn't show this yet. If people update the page by striking through the candidate's name, will this mess up the bot, will the bot just write over it, or is it OK to do this? Carcharoth15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I came here to thank you for your continued commitment and leavelheadedness in the ArbCom process, and then I read that you were looking for a way to manage your watchlist. You may want to organize them like this. (This is not up to date, but you get the idea.) — Sebastian(talk)04:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks. I know about the Recent Changes method, and I had ideas to do something along those lines, but I've never seen them organised that way! :-) Carcharoth10:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome! BTW, do you know a way to combine recentchanges with whatlinkshere? Since I now have 37+ talk pages of high-profile editors on my watchlist, I had another idea: I'm adding the template "User:SebastianHelm/replyhere" to new posts and keep it as long as I watch the talk page. Ideally, that would create its own watchlist. — Sebastian(talk)18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the idea, I usually do a bit more research before I bother people there. Now, back to work - I distracted you long enough. — Sebastian(talk)20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)(I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)
"IRC discussions"
Freakofnurture specifically did not want to deal with the situation at the time I took care of that. I'd leave a note on his talk page to confirm it with him. Ral315 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion: [2] ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to make certain I understand what you are saying on the Wizard (fantasy) talk page. If I go through and disambiguate all 305 links to that page, and find a majority (over 50%) of them dab to the Magicians in fantasy page, then you believe Wizard (fantasy) should redirect to that page and not the dab. Do I have that right? :) Dreadlocke☥04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was just asking for clarification on your own opinion, since jc37 was asking for clarification on consensus, he obviously values your opinion on the subject - and you're part of the discussion and thus part of consensus. I'm already quite certain the redirect should point to Magicians in fantasy and not the dab page. :) Dreadlocke☥16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Re:Thanks for the fireworks incident links
Those thanks really are quite unnescesary, but are gratefuly received all the same, and the same aplies to your comments about the new articles. It's nice to hear that your contributions are apreciated sometimes! Blood red sandman17:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Viewing page modification statistics (from the 401 edits shown on this page):
User statistics for these edits:
Number of users: 223
37.91% IP/anon edits (152 edit(s))
1.75% likely new user edits (7 edit(s))
8.23% likely unestablished user edits (33 edit(s))
36.16% likely older user edits (non-admin/bot) (145 edit(s))
11.97% administrator edits (48 edit(s))
3.99% bot edits (16 edit(s))
Time range:
1 approximate day(s) of edits || 65 approximate day(s) since first edit
Most recent edit on: 00:00, October 6, 2006
Oldest edit on: 00:09, October 5, 2006
Current time: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:25:44 UTC
Analysis:
Notable edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0 edit(s))
Significant edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.75% (7 edit(s))
Superficial edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 19.45% (78 edit(s))
31.42% marked reverts (any) (126)
20.7% probable reverts of vandalism (83)
Unmarked edits: 47.38% (190 edit(s))
Averages:
47.38% edit summary usage
Average edits/user: 1.8
[Value unknown]* edit(s) per day (current)
403.522 edit(s) per day (since last active)
126.792 marked revert(s) per day (since last active)
1 : 0.46 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV)
42.89% edit progess (non-reverts/reverted edits) (172 edit(s))
47.92% of edits by IPs/new/unestablished users are non-reverts/reverted (92 out of 192 edit(s))
47.37% of edits by IP-only users are non-reverts/reverted (72 out of 152 edit(s))
*Average edits per day not shown because the most recent edit to this page is not visible
I just updated these numbers due to a bug where users are renames/revisions deleted which causes many edits to be counted as reverted. It now has a limit to help stop that from happening. Voice-of-All21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
OMG, I was gonna delete some files that I didn't need from my computer, and guess what I came across: "hobbit redirects for carcharoth". Do you remember when we did that? It was a while ago... Cbrown102305:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Good to see that you're working on Requests for arbitration. Could you please take a look at the
Deltabeignet case which I just added? I have never done anything like this, and I could not find instructions how to do it, so I probably didn't do it correctly. I am at the moment so frustrated that nobody cared about it when I posted this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected identity theft, while cases like a medieval quote on a userpage receive pages full of attention. — Sebastian01:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
You did the right thing to post to WP:ANI. I think you should give it a bit more time for people to respond there, and then take it to WP:RFC if needed. WP:RFARB seems a bit premature, but as you've added it there, see what they say. Bits you've missed out include "Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request"; and "Confirmation that other steps in have been tried". If you want to know more, I'd suggest asking one of the ArbCom clerks, or someone like User:Newyorkbrad, who is more involved with ArbCom "watching" than I am. Carcharoth01:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Newyorkbrad happened to see this. It seems to be a little unpredictable sometimes what topics will get picked up on the noticeboard or not (I just did a "see thread way up there, someone please respond to it already" post about something else a few minutes ago). I agree that you need to give things some more time before escalating to something as serious as ArbCom. The ArbCom clerks might also be a good source of advice; most of them are also administrators as well, and thoroughly familiar with all the procedures. Newyorkbrad01:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Nuh, uh! This is Wikipedia. Doesn't work that way... :-) We do stuff for you while you sleep/work/whatever. I'll post a "see up there" mail, and maybe Brad can tidy up the ArbCom case to say that maybe the case is not needed. Brad, do you want to do that? Carcharoth01:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Responding to your comments at RFAr. Really, the Signpost isn't that different from true encyclopedia writing. The style of writing that is appropriate for a newspaper is quite similar to that of an encyclopedia. When people ask me, all I ask is that it be an interesting, informative article and that it be submitted to me by our deadline. I really don't even consider myself to be the "head" of the Signpost; though I technically hold the title of editor-in-chief, it's like being an administrator- it essentially means that I'm the janitor, and doesn't give me any de jure powers. I rarely ever reject contributions, unless they're short, or irrelevant (i.e., if someone were to submit an article on some other, non-notable wiki, but I've never had anything like this happen).
I think what people see is that it's the same editors (currently Michael Snow, Flcelloguy, Trödel, David Mestel, Simetrical, and myself) who write the bulk of the articles. This may create the illusion that it's an exclusive group. Occasionally, others will help out, but it tends to be a rarity. This isn't, I think, an issue of anyone being explicitly denied from editing, but more of people being too busy on projects that directly benefit the encyclopedia. Frankly, I'd love to see more people helping out- more stories lead to a wider coverage of Wikimedia. I used to issue calls for writers every few months in "From the editor" pieces, but usually only one or two writers would volunteer, and I'd never hear from them again. Ral315 (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Have you considered calling for writers again? Maybe not every week, but every now and again? I know committment can be a problem, but you might be pleasantly surprised at the response. I once considered (when I was a newbie) on submitting a diary-like column that showed someone stumbling their way through the place, learning the ropes. Too late for me now, and maybe column-like stuff is something you want to avoid. I find it difficult enough to find time to read the Signpost, let alone contribute, and I'm amazed at how you and your team manage to get a well-written Signpost out every week. You do cover the important things, but what maybe doesn't come across is that there is lots of other stuff out there that the Signpost can't hope to cover. Maybe a list of links to other newsletters might be an idea? I know of the Esperanza one and the Military History one and the WikiProject Biography one, but can't think of any others off the top of my head. Carcharoth01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
On your other question, I believe that the redesign is the biggest English-only vote, not including ArbCom. With ArbCom, there's a good chance more people voted, but since they didn't vote on every candidate, the vote for any one candidate is much less. On the foundation level, the last Board elections had 2347 valid votes cast. Ral315 (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Candidate re-entered the ArbCom election
Sorry about that. My fault for trying to sleep while the elections are in progress, I guess. Fixed now – Gurch06:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Quick question then- what of a user who has voted before a year long ban ? The ban starts before end date of election, but the user has voted before being banned, does this vote count ? Haphar15:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
People have been striking out or removing such votes, although I don't think there is any official ruling on whether they should do so (nor do I even know whom one would ask for such a ruling). But as it happens, particularly in light of Jimbo's recent comments, this isn't a process where one or two votes is going to matter much one way or the other. Newyorkbrad15:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for warning me about the email issue.Ricky 19:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Ricky
Cyde's comment.
Thanks for letting me know about that. I was wondering if he would. On the one hand, there are situations where comments are clearly necessary, eg, voters without suffrage. On the other hand, long did/did not discussions are clearly bad. This seems to be somewhere in the middle, but (IMHO) closer to the first case. While I regret implying that he made a deliberate decision to mislead people, his comment is a misrepresentation of what actually happened. I'm going to ask him to clarify it. And I'll put back just the correction without any comment on him. Thanks again, Ben Aveling
Announcement
Announcement
The "Help name my baby" Poll has closed :). Greta Annette was born 12/12/06. She weighs 6lbs 14oz and is 19inches long. Mother and baby are both doing fine. Thanks for all the suggestions!
To keep this slightly Wikipedia related I have started Adopt a State, so adopt your state article today!
RfA thanks!
Thank you so much, Carcharoth, for your gracious support in my RfA (48/1/0)! I am very happy that you trust me with this great honor and privilege. If at any time you think that I need to step back and take a deep breath or just want to talk, please contact me. Happy editing! Cbrown102303:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Panther species redirects
I don't think that it is appropriate to have a redirect page residing in a category. Apparently, some time ago it was decided not to use genus/species name for article titles, so I thought that I was fixing old redirects. I didn't realize that you had just made all of those changes recently, but I think my changes were appropriate. Actually, I like the idea of the category that you created, but it does not seem to agree with the existing scheme used for other panthera species, so we would need to re-engineer the whole category and its subcategories, which I personally wouldn't do without group discussion first.
Also, the text on the category page has been moved to an article of the same name. Somewhere in the WP:MoS, it says that category pages should not have more than one window's worth of text in them, if necessary. Dddstone14:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's take the points one by one. (1) Where does it say that redirects can't be put in a category? If people are browsing the category pages looking for something but they don't know the common name, they should be able to get to it easily by browsing to the Latin name. Also, some existing redirects are currently categorised (or should be) using the templates you see at the bottom of some of them (for example, common typos or miscapitalisations). (2) Discussion about this, including both the appropriateness of the scheme and discussion of the idea of having the article text on the category page (for this sort of thing only), not category page on the article page, as you said above, is at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Category_versus_list. I see you've commented there, so I'll copy all this over there. Carcharoth14:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't find the discussions either. But I got thinking...what if we considered these as peculiar features of the software? Then, there wouldn't be anything to fix! --HappyCamper23:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was where I visited first - but I thought my comment was too flippant to be of any use. By the way, thanks for your work on Wikipedia - your contributions keep popping up on my watchlists! --HappyCamper12:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for calling me on that rather confused move on my part -- I do appreciate the feedback (and opportunity to correct my mistake). With all the new "Popular Culture" vs. "Entertainment" action lately, I evidently got onto the proverbial Road to Hell in my attempt to preserve the discussion in the appropriate place. See my comments there after yours, with point-for-point explanation. Sorry! -- Deborahjay22:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If any arbitrators or arbitration clerks are replying to those messages I left, please remove them if needed. I would have used e-mail, but haven't enabled it yet. In future, is it possible to send e-mail to the ArbCom mailing list, or to an ArbCom noticeboard, to avoid running around trying to find a clerk or Arbitrator who is around? It might not be that serious, but I thought I should do my best to contact someone who can make a quick decision. Thanks. Carcharoth23:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Re:Protect ITN images, please!
Scolding an admin for making a beginner mistake on a Main Page template is no way to handle the situation. I doubt they're going to come back to edit any Main Page template any time soon after that kind of warning.
A instructive and informative approach is better since people will actually learn from the mistake, and may come back to help ITN, DYK, or whatever it is, in the future. Btw, do you really expect me to patrol your contributions and see whose side you are on lol? Nishkid6422:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, I am afraid to change ITN images b/c I think I would screw things up. That's why I only work with the DYK images. Nishkid6422:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Fair enough. Sorry if I came across as scolding people. I guess I was kind of finger-wagging a bit too vigorously! :-) Carcharoth23:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Salutary lesson?
Oh dear. I guess this is Sod's law or some incredibly ironic self-WP:POINT foul-up, or the ultimate demonstration of hubris? I couldn't believe this when I saw it, and I just had to record this here as a salutary lesson to myself more than anyone else. I would laugh if it wasn't so tragic. Commiserations to Nishkid, and no offence intended to anyone at all. Carcharoth02:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: Archives
Thanks! I rather like them myself, too. :-) It gives me a chance to be witty and also attempts to document the approximate time period the archive covers... we'll see what the next one is in about 40 messages! Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I like the warnings you put here. Would it be possible to also mention how reverting to old versions of the template can lead to unprotected stuff ending up on the Main Page? Carcharoth16:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I can't edit protected pages. But I can use {{editprotected}}, so I'll do that.
Ah, so you can't. I guess I assumed that because you were asking about the warning to administrators, you were an administrator yourself :). You should consider it; you seem to have all the necessary experience – Gurch20:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been considering it, but I still want to try out a few more areas and see where my editing interests lie first. I'd much prefer to (eventually) be a prolific editor than end up doing too much admin work. Also, it's only recently that I've found any need for admin tools. I'll see how it goes in the next few months. Thanks again for the vote of confidence. Carcharoth20:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Posted on AN/I about personal user info being revealed...
but I am concerned that it might get lost. Please take a look, if you have a moment. Thanks! (the guy who's info is being posted is definitely a party in some mediation or arbitration, so it might be a single use sock for the other side?? ) Jd2718 03:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC) I forgot to add this. Helps. Jd2718 03:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, user:Khoikhoi got to it. Jd271803:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I e-mailed per "Request for Oversight." In the meantime, should I revert the following discussions to hide the difs?:
Sure, we do cover it... although I'm the one who usually does that, and for a variety of reasons, I haven't been able to do so lately. Mind helping me see what belongs there and what needs to be fixed? (Ideally on Talk:Hurricane Katrina. Titoxd(?!?)04:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Carcharoth. To answer your question why the discussion was on Centrx's talkpage, well, I'd just say that I didn't expect to drag on that much. Centrx rarely shows up on ITN/C, anyway. Take care. --PFHLai15:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Image question on help desk
Yes, the image you referred to is indeed GFDL. So you can copy it to the commons for use in all projects. Make sure you copy all description details over too. If you send me a note when you're done. I can translate the image details for you. - Mgm|(talk)11:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Another problems with the #REDIRECT [[Category:Foo]] method above, is that when you click "What links here" at the destination page, the redirect doesn't show up in the links! Carcharoth13:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
All redirects pages should include a {{R from...}} template on the line, listed in Category:Redirects and it's subcategories. However, apparently due to the prohibition on such 'Hard Category Redirects' in the past, there seems to currently be no Template:R from other category name(edittalklinkshistory) template or category. Changes always cause some confusion, and whilst such Hard redirects are now supported in system software (as they weren't, and so were depreciated), I confess I don't know the current consensus on using them now. If they're legal, we need such a tagging and autocategorization template which can be made to take the new category name as a forced perameter, and so generate the 'What links here' link you discuss.
It would seem that this discussion needs some further thrashing out. The old tag suggested the pages were BOT moved back when I first ran across it last summer, or perhaps it was the talk page. Now I'm not sure that is still true. In any event, if Hard Redirects are being used at all, we should for consistancy create a 'R from other category' category and template, and apply it aggressively. Perhaps we should raise this at WP:VPP? // FrankB18:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (Xpost to Carcharoth
You can submit something that follows DYK rules without an image. There's not even a guarantee the image will be used anyway. Proper licensing is problematic because the original library of congress negative wasn't dated. and since he lived from 1866 to 1952 the photograph could be taken later than 1923 meaning it's not in the public domain by age. If you can't determine the age of the image, your second best option would be to find an image which is certainly old enough to be PD. - Mgm|(talk)20:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to let you know that I have become obsessed with Serge Voronoff and have added material and edited a bit. God bless that man and his eunuch monkeys. --Nik20:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Re : Esperanza MfD - salted pages
I double-checked, substansial history is sufficiently avaliable on Esperanza's talk archive, and the organisation page itself in its early days. - Mailer Diablo07:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Commons
Why did you upload that picture to the commons with the username commons:User:Carcharoth (Commons)? If you use the same name as you do here, without the bracketed modifier, you'll profit from the single user login when it gets implemented. I suggest you request a name change there. - Mgm|(talk)09:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I've corrected it; thanks. For the future, feel free to correct anything prior to publication, and any minor errors at any point. My only issue with edits are those which substantially change the article, since most people only read the article once, and big changes should be reserved for a new article during the following week. Ral315 (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear. I was aware of the Picasso connection, plus the long history, plus the Grimaldi Cardinals connection. But I didn't think there were two chateaux Grimaldi? This article has more on the Picasso connection. The tricky thing is that the Picasso collection moved. Also, I found the following on a Yahoo trip planner (tricky to link):
"Château Grimaldi, Antibes, 06600, France. The Château Grimaldi buildings are a magnificent sight, with their high, rugged dry-stone walls facing the sea. This fortress shelters some truly captivating works of art; contained within these walls is a great collection of works by Picasso that will make your eyes light up in wonder and delight. You won't find any of Picasso's blue period or Cubist pieces here, rather works radiating an intense and clear light, fruits of the years the artist spent on the Côte d'Azur. The museum also has some very fine paintings by artists who are connected with the region. One not to be missed is Nicolas de Staël's piece, 'Le Piano Rouge'."
That one seems to be near Antibes. The other websites say things like: "Located in Puyricard only 4 miles north of the beautiful Provence city of Aix-en-Provence", with a "panorama sur Cagnes, la mer et les Alpes."
Looking on a map, Cagnes-sur-Mer and Antibes are close to each other on the eastern Provence coast, near Cannes. Aix-en-Provence is over the other, western side, north of Marseilles. I suppose it is not surprising that the Grimaldis built more than one chateau! I'll have to pick my way carefully through this! It is the one that had the Grimaldi Cardinals in that I want, as that sounds more interesting. I also want to know which of them is likely to have been the home of Serge Voronoff. This link says "his castle of Grimaldi, near Ventimiglia", and this one says "the Castle of Grimaldi, in the Riviera", which could be either one. But Ventimiglia is near Antibes, so I guess the Voronoff Chateau Grimaldi is the one that Picasso stayed at. Hmm, I'd better revert this edit and this edit as they are putting Voronoff in the wrong Chateau Grimaldi!! Thank goodness you spotted this before the Wikipedia mirrors spread this misinformation too far. Thanks for pointing out there are two Chateaux Grimaldi. Carcharoth02:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, lots of the Voronoff references say that he lived near Menton. This says that Grimaldi acquired Menton. Menton is eastwards along the coast from Ventimiglia, and has an associated chateau. It is possible that this chateau is colloquially known as the Grimaldi chateau, and is a third one, different from the two above. As Voronoff is buried there, there is an easy way to check, I guess. Carcharoth03:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Basel earthquake, was selected for DYK!
I have February 2007 already selected. This weekend I'm planning to add four more months to the rotation of articles, pictures and the new anniversary section. If you have any suggestions, let me know. =) Nishkid6415:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Rofl, Boston molasses disaster is definitely April 2007. It's too funny. It's a perfect real April Fool's Joke. Haha, thanks for the other suggestions, Carcharoth. =) Nishkid6422:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
MoS (writing about fiction)
In the past you have participated in discussion about this guideline, or voted in it's acceptence. There is currently a discussion about a partial rewrite of this guideline. The discussion could benefit from some more input. Thank you for your contributions. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
admin seniority graph
Re: September, there is always my answer to Question 4 on my RfA. As for the admin seniority graph, you can see how it has changed over time here, and yes the sections stretch as time goes on (look at the graphs at the bottom). Thank you for the appreciation of the NoSept Admin Project :). NoSeptember 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion
I agree that digging up nastiness does (or should) reflect badly on the person that does so, but that doesn't really stop people from doing it anyway (viz. ANI where some people regularly drag up ancient disputes with whomever is being discussed at the moment). Other than that, you are right that a full list of deletions would be useful. For this particular case, I'll post the full list here:
That's all. For Esperanza with its literally hundreds of subpages, I'm not sure how to go about obtaining such a list, but I suppose you could start from the deletion log of whomever closed that MFD. HTH! >Radiant<13:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Re : Full listing of pages deleted in umbrella nominations
I think trawling through the deletion log is the only viable method at the moment I can think of, but I don't expect the deletion period to stretch to over two to three days. (~ 5000-10000 records) - Mailer Diablo22:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Enculturation
The Original Barnstar
Enculturation really just needs people to talk more and demonstrate how they do things (rather than just doing them). Takes certain types of people to be role models. Actually following someone's edits, or meeting in person and watching how they do things, can be very instructive.
Hello. This is a follow up to the discussion on that page. If we do the change can you help to change the... (ahem) 600 links that currently point to Invasion and will have to point to Invasion (military)? Thanks. Miguel Andrade16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Radiantem
Depends on the declination. First declination ends in -us (for masculine words) or -um (for neutral) and derives to -um, as does fourth. Second ends in -a (mostly feminine words) and derives to -am. Third and fifth declinations derive to -em. If my username would be considered a gerund of the verb "radiare", it would follow the third declination, thus giving "radiantem". Unfortunately that verb doesn't actually exist; the English 'radiant' derives from the Latin 'radiatus', or 'spoked' (as in a wheel, I'm sure you see the metaphor here). From that root, the best answer would be 'radiatum' without N, following first declination. HTH :) >Radiant<13:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I must have known that instinctively, as I tried to type in the joke, and I typed Radiatum, then Radiantum, and only then Radiantem... Carcharoth13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, Sindarin at first blush, but modelled by Tolkien (need to find a reference for this) on the same Greek word that leads to Carcharodon carcharias. Tolkien glossed 'carch' as 'fang'. In the real world, "Greek, karcharos = sharpen + Greek, odous = teeth" [3] or "the generic name is derived from the Greek word carcharos for ragged and odon for tooth" [4], depending on your source. Carcharoth14:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk:List of wizards in fantasy
Okay, there's obviously a dispute. I'm no mediator but it got brought to the admin's noticeboard so you got me. I've archived the previous stuff at Talk:List of wizards in fantasy, it was getting long and I could not make head nor tail of it. Now sometimes that is seen as a contentious move so let me reassure I'm not trying to close off debate, I'm just trying to wipe the slate clean and start again. Any issue you want to take from the archives and paste back on the talk page, please do so. What I would ask is that you don't right now. If you give me a week to try this attempt to resolve the dispute, then I'll move off if no headway is made. You can of course tell me to butt out now and I won't mind, I have better things to do now. What I would like, is for someone from either side help me out and explain what content has been moved where and where they think it should go. Keep it simple and don't point fingers, let's focus on the content. And pick one section to edit, A or B and don't edit the other. Just your own point of view, nothing responding to the other side at this point. Maybe if we work through this we can work out the best way to solve it. I have the impression it might all get solved by the requested move process, but I want to make sure the page history is all in one place so that the requested move can be set up properly. Then I suggest all sides allow a consensus to be built on the requested move and we work form there. I'm going to be taking the view that we request the move from where the content is now. That's not an endorsement, rather think of it as a wrong version issue. I hope this issue can get sorted out, because continuing disputes do no-one any favours. Thanks for your time. Steve blockTalk14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've had to withdraw from this, I apologise for messing you about. I simply don't feel like I have the time and energy to devote to mediation. As I indicated above, I'm not a mediator. I feel you may be best served requesting a move through requested move and seeking mediation, if you can get all parties to agree. Good luck, and once again I apologise. I am especially sorry as you had already taken the time to respond to this. I'm feeling a fair bit of wikistress at the minute and I think taking this on would only add to it. hope you can understand, Steve blockTalk14:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
NPA
Hm, good point. Perhaps NPA shouldn't be policy, as that encourages wikilawyering (indeed, it's very tempting to tell people "you can't do that per NPA", which almost never gets a good response). As with WP:FAITH, people are supposed to do it, not cite it. Maybe we should just encourage people to use WP:KETTLE, though. >Radiant<16:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
My original post to the Village pump is here. I've looked through the page history for a few days, and I found some later versions of that thread, plus another thread. Have a look here and here. Those may not be the final versions of those threads before they were archived. I (or you) would have to look through the page history of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive to see when precisely the thread dropped off the Village pump. The version moved to the archive would be the final word on that thread, though you could ressurect it if you wanted to by posting the same question and linking to it in the page history like I have above. I'd also be happy to advise on the specific problem you have, if you want to give details. Carcharoth20:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I would ask you revise the basis on which you decide which admins played a major role in the close of the Esperanza debate. You should also take into account move logs. [5]. I personally think the whole thing was a mess, since pages I dealt with appear to have been redealt with, since after i dealty with then they were recategorised as having been undealt with. The whole thing seems to be a mess, and part of me regrets no-one listened when I ask we work up a list of how to do it. Still, I can't carry on saying I told you so forever, can I? :) Regards, Steve blockTalk14:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I was vaguely aware that lots of pages had been moved, but that link really helps. I also found that your deletion log summaries were very helpful, especially where you explained that you deleted stuff because there was little or no existing content. I'll add a record on the "moving of pages" (including your major contribution in that area) - probably sometime this week. Things seem to be slowing down a bit now. Could you point be to a couple of examples where stuff you dealt with were redealt with? I did notice a set of 15 restorations of calendar stuff, but that might be unrelated. A mess? Yes, but hopefully things are getting back to being more ordered now. I couldn't agree more that a list should have been made and carefully sorted and admins assigned to deal with relevant areas. As it was, it looks like several admins just dived in and dealt with it, which is commendable, as long as they are prepared to help clean up if it is pointed out that they rushed into dealing with it. Really though, it looks like most of it was handled OK, but there were an inevitable few crossed wires here and there. Carcharoth14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The collaboration was the area I feel I dealt with and then it appears to have been re-dealt with. Off the top of my head I moved the American Revolution stuff to a subpage of the article, redirected the main collab page to the Wikipedia wide collab page, and archived the talk page. The latter two were subsequently deleted. I believe I noted my sorting of the collaboration on the mfd talk page. I have mentioned this at the review. I do intend to delete all the esperanza calendar redirects one day, since I don't think they need keeping, there's no history involved, but I think I'll hold off until this turns out. I don't know why certain calendar pages got deleted. I tend to agree the whole thing is mostly crossed wires, and I think the drv need not have been opened in the manner it was. It is somewhat aggressive and furthers the hostility. I would have had no objection quietly talking to a couple of admins, it could probably have all been resolved by now. Work on your list, I'll chip in what I think when you have it. Steve blockTalk15:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Talking to the admins involved would have been a better starting point than going straight to a DRV, but that's in the past now. The DRV is here and has to be dealt with. Do you think the best option is to put the DRV on hold until the lists and analysis are ready? Is there a way to do that? Then reopen the DRV when the list is ready and allow X days further comments based on the conclusions from the list and analysis? Carcharoth15:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The DRV is open now. My last attempt to close one early was reverted, so I doubt you'll get much joy trying it here. The sword of process cuts both way. The closure of the DRV has to be by someone not involved, and any attempt to influence the decision could be read, quite legitimately, as clouding that independence. All I can advise now is to wait and see how this one is closed. To me, how this turns out is of little consequence. I'd rather we just moved on to the next thing. Steve blockTalk16:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm running round the major deleting admins and see if I can get at least outline approval to discuss a list we can get drawn up. I'm not interested in touching anything overtly governance or membership related. What do you think. Steve blockTalk16:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Maybe even get them (and you and any of the 'moving' people) to collectively state and sign something at the DRV. Again, the MfD is where this should have been done, as you tried to do on the talk page over there. Still, doing it now would make things a lot easier. I might have one final push at organising that list I made, as it would be good if that could be used as the starting point (probably needs to be a bit tidier). Carcharoth17:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
We definitely need a list. In theory, if I get tacit approval from the admins involved, we could get the DRV suspended, since the closing admin is supposed to be asked first, but I don't hold too much hope. Radiant is agreed in principle. But I doubt they want to get into drawing up the list. I'm hoping we can just give them a list and they'll aye or nay each page, and we go from there. Steve blockTalk17:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I had the approval of all admins to implement the clean-up but this is turning into a witch hunt now and I want no further part in it. My apologies. Steve blockTalk13:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Witch-hunt? Where? I've been inactive for a day and this happens? <sigh> I'll go and have a look and then come back and comment. Carcharoth13:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Meh. I probably misread something Ed wrote, but his comments at his talk page and the DRV indicated little room for me to manoeuvre in. I'm not interested in rewriting the close of the mfd, which is how I interpret Ed's comments. I'm interested in closing the mfd as it was closed. Perhaps I made too much of the line "we still don't know why this happened". To me the answer is clear, and of little importance: it happened. Steve blockTalk14:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
By "I'm interested in closing the mfd as it was closed." I mean to say I wish to see pages left in the state Diablo indicated in the close. Steve blockTalk14:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that will probably still happen. Don't worry about Ed's comments. Please do carry on brokering this deal, as I think we are close to something everyone can agree on. Even if you don't want to carry on, can I present the list instead? I agree that this DRV should not be about rewriting the MfD close, but should be about tidying stuff up to agree with the MfD close. Anything Ed wants to do after that should be done after that, not now. Have you talked to him about this yet? That might help. Carcharoth14:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, if you want to put the legwork in on the list, working out what should happen in each case, I don't mind brokering the deal. Whether that will be allowed depends on how the DRV gets closed. Steve blockTalk16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it is time to start. Since we both work on Bridges, why don't we start there, and work out the kinks. Or perhaps we could each take a different one. Earthquakes seemed like a good candidate. --Samuel Wantman09:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, been away for a bit. I'm happy to take Earthquakes, and comment on how things turn out at Bridges (I've never really worked in that area, I don't think). One thing though, is that I like to have the flexibilty to add comments and notes to the category blurb. I suppose those would be added below the category types templates? Carcharoth11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for asking. :-) I have been considering it, but, as I said before, I want to become a better editor before I do that. I've currently been putting together User:Carcharoth/Contributions to try and work out exactly what I've done here over the past year, and then assess where to go from there. I also want to focus down and commit more to certain areas, and feel I've achieved something in those areas first. Also, while the housekeeping tools of merging page histories and viewing deleted pages when coming across old AfDs, would be great, I'm not so sure about what I'd do with the block and protect tools, or whether I need those. I guess I want to do more editing, and don't really want to get sucked too much into the admin side of things (though I'm not doing a very good job of that). Does that make sense? Oh, I also quail at the large number of policy and how-to pages that I would want to have read first. But maybe I am holding myself to impossibly high standards? Carcharoth15:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I would certainly support you. I've been immensely impressed with your work and your contributions list is very impressive. Please let me know if you ever stand. (Sorry to butt in by the way!)--Guinnog15:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I do believe you're holding yourself to impossibly high standards. I'd say go for it. Knowing policy by heart is not a prerequisite, you can always look up stuff at need. >Radiant<15:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I think your viewpoint may need a bit of de-skewing :) Adminship was originally supposed to be about having some extra tools that enhance your ability to contribute to the encyclopedia. Having those extra tools does not mean you have to frequently use them. In fact, 50% of all admin actions are done by 20 of the most active admins in each of those areas. Yet, there's ~1000 admins. Granting of the tools was intended to be about trust; can you be trusted not to hurt the project with those tools or no? That's it.
You don't have to be a policy guru. In fact, I once did a study that showed it was essentially impossible to be a policy guru because (if I recall correctly) 1/3rd of all policy was undergoing frequent revision. What you do have to be is willing to review relevant policy in doing something you haven't done recently. I.e., if you want to, for example, delete an image that's been orphaned for 7 days find out what the current policy is on that and then follow it as well as you can. I don't know all of policy. Heck, I never will. It's too massive to understand. I'd have to devote all of my wiki time to reading it all the time just to stay up to date. We're building an encyclopedia, not the U.S. Tax Code. Did you know that virtually all CPAs do not know the entire tax code? You can't. It's too complex. In microcasm, that's what we have here. Nobody is being paid to work here. We're working on volunteer time. Our focus is to build an encyclopedia. Having a requirement that admins have a 100% complete understanding of policy would wipe out our ability to operate.
It's good to be reluctant in my opinion. It's good to want to improve yourself. That should be a constant process and not something you should set out to achieve as a goal. Since you are already doing that, in my opinion the 'goal' is already met; behavior conducive to constant improvement.
Block/protect tools: I don't use them much either. I've been an admin for more than a year. I've used protect less than 50 times and block ~100 times. I've used delete more than 2000 times.
I haven't done an extensive review of you, but I have come across you in a few different areas and been impressed with your comments. I saw your comments on the RfA talk page today about my admin pages and while updating a line in my guidelines (linked above) I suddenly realized I was overlooking you and checked to see if you were an admin already. I was surprised you were not. Then I checked your talk page; nobody had suggested it to you at least on this page (didn't check the archives). I then checked to see if you'd had a prior RfA and you had not. I was puzzled, thus asked.
So, how big of a ring do I need to put on your finger before you'll walk to the altar? Would 10 carat do? :) --Durin15:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks for that. You have gone a long way to convincing me that I have got things the wrong way round. I'd still like to tidy up a few things so I have the time to respond properly to an RfA, and I'd like to read just a little bit more, so give me a week or two and I'll drop you a note. I'm very flattered by this vote of confidence. Thanks again. Carcharoth15:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I just came by looking to see if you would like to be nominated and found this discussion already underway. So I'm available to co-nominate if you are interested. -- Samuel Wantman
I was coming here to let you know I was back, etc etc... And saw this and wanted to repeat what I've said previously, that is, that I think you'd be an awesome admin. I have a feeling that once you announced that you would accept, you would have a queue of co-nominators ready and willing (including me : ) - jc3714:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is this...
...on the admin noticeboard? I can answer that one. WP:AN is one of the best places to get a clueful answer to complex meta-questions. Simple meta-questions are best left on the village pump, non-meta-questions (e.g. regular questions) are best left on wikiprojects, RFC, talk pages and wherever. >Radiant<15:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I guess I should re-read those policies before making hasty changes like that again. I saw consensus was Delete/Merge, so I didn't have any problems with doing that. I forgot about the editors who made the contributions, though. Thanks for correcting my mistake. Nishkid6415:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a seriously messed up category structure! Many entries appear 4-5 times in different subcats. Seems like the location and religion subcatting went a little overboard. As of 20/01/2007, there are 1146 articles in Category:Missionaries and its subcategories, but if you take out the repeats, there are only 541 unique pages. I'll stick the list of those 541 pages on the category page. Carcharoth02:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
OK. Done. About 15 minutes. Too long to do many, but short enough to do some on request. I should document the process, though hopefully the software changes will enable this to be done automatically. What this is effectively doing is unifying categories below a specified category. This could be attempted by Special:CategoryTree, but that doesn't eliminate duplicate entries, and it doesn't list them alphabetically. Carcharoth03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikiproject ME
Thank you for all your efforts! I will try to help where I can. And about fair use images, I'm no expert in any sense of the word, but if I'm ever feeling ambitious, I might tackle that area too. --Fang Ailitalk16:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you want to keep track of the dab pages. I added "NA" to the proj tag classes if all the dab links were ME-related. If it was a general dab page, I removed the project tag altogether. We're making good progress! I've removed a bunch, but I'm going to take a break now. Cheers! --Fang Ailitalk17:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Project tags are mostly to aid assessment. For non-assessment pages, we tend to use other talk page templates, like {{ME-category}} and {{ME-template}}, or categories, like Category:WikiProject Middle-earth templates (it is a long story why templates are tracked with both a page category and a talk page template), and Category:Middle-earth redirects. Images are collated (or should be, but rarely are) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Images (creating categories is not allowed for fair use images, and free images shuould be on Commons anyway). That just leaves Wikipedia: and Portal: namespace pages, which are mostly the administrative pages associated with Portal:Middle-earth and Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth. I think that covers everything. What is really needed is for this system for organising and labelling relevant pages to be discussed at WP-ME, and the relevant pages updated (some, maybe most, have been updated, but the whole thing needs formalising). Not quite sure what to do with dab pages at the moment. I think they should be treated separately, probably with a talk page template. Something like {{ME-disambig}} or something. Carcharoth18:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe even {{ME-disambiguation}}. <sigh> I forgot I'd created that tag. So yeah, that should be used for the dab pages. Thanks. For now, apply to all dab pages with any ME entries? Carcharoth18:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Carcharoth. I thought I'd bring this here rather than create a whole off-topic strand to the thread at Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology. I hope you don't mind.
Your description of the naming convention is fair enough. Perhaps it's just me, or maybe others are the same, but I personally don't consider the "Storm" part to be anything but a common noun, with the "Great" being the given name for the "storm". It's a bit of a silly thing really, but the none-capitalised name is obviously redlinked, and just makes it a little more difficult to get to perhaps. Adding a re-direct from Great storm of 1987 is the obvious answer. Any objections? Crimsone23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I was pretty sure that you were acting in good faith; I am very relieved to know that I was right (I mean, I'm always relieved when I'm right, but this is a special case). Thank you for leaving a note on my talk page. I appreciate it. Happy editing! GracenotesT § 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad's RfA
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, and for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
She beat me to it! Anyway, this Tolkien Barnstar (of the Dúnedain, of Fëanor, of Eärendil... you pick) is for all you've done for Wikipedia's Tolkien stuff. :)
About stuff that needs to be done, I think it's better to wait till Februrary before updating the talk page, since a lot is going on. Sorry I can't help around as much right now. Uthanc 08:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Carcharoth, the edit you mention [6] was made whilst you were in the middle of doing the redirect bit (I being unaware of that). When I hit the 'go' button, I immediately saw that you'd done it, but there was nothing I could do about it...
I think I have understood the difference between a redirect and a merge (which I obvoiously didn't a few weeks ago, when I posted on the Talk:Wheellock page). The page Wheel lock though, fitted in both categories: it had a different spelling than Wheellock (so it needed a redirect) and it also had an article most of which was also on the Wheellock page - albeit in a different form (so it needed a merge). I realised after a bit of thinking that it should not have been deleted.
Very many thanks for your kind help. I'll try and do better next time! Nick Michael14:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix, I did not know about that feature to find subpages, I knew there were subpages, but I was not going to list them untill I saw the first MFD go through. Thanks, Navoubanter00:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, everyone I believe, makes mistakes. Apoligies for posting to the user page, it looks like a talk page and I did not pay enough attention. Emoticons are still today. Regards, Navoubanter00:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, that wasn't directed at you in particular. It's not a big thing, and I'm not upset about it. Just being a bit grumpy! Sorry about that. The comment was meant to be general, directed at the procession of people who have mistaken my user page for the talk page. The fault really lies with me, for procrastinating and not redesigning my user page. Carcharoth01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I still have yet to fix the userboxes on my user page (amongst other things) so I completly understand. Its very difficult to relay feelings in text. All is well. Regards, Navoubanter02:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Your idea at CfD
Maybe I'm missing something (or a few somethings), but I don't see how your idea would work. By putting only the lists in the categories, you are removing the category from visibility (i.e. the actor's articles), and so no one would actually see Category:The Lord of the Rings actors, right? If it was put on article pages, the only advantage I can see is that this consolidates the 3 categories (the 1978, 1981, and the other one) into one. But I doubt that would reduce the overall number of category links (which seems to be a main point of argument for the delete folks). (I'm replying here instead of there because the discussion is getting very long and unwieldy!) Cheers, Fang Ailitalk16:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't think those categories are very helpful. If you want to see a list of all articles on actors in a particular film, then you should go to the film article for that. If you want a list of all the films an actor has been in, go to the actor's article. If you want to see what other actors were in a particular film that an actor was in, go to the film article for the cast list. Categories need to be about what best defines the subject of the article. And what film an actor has been in does not accurately define who they are. And a film is not accurately defined by who is in it. The most important categories are the people categories. Other categories are superfluous, and are usually only other ways of getting to related information better found by clicking on the links in the article itself. As for the category links clutter, the redesigned Category:The Lord of the Rings actors is not meant to be put on any actor articles, only on those three 'redirects to cast lists' and nothing else. The only way people would get there is by following links from suitable places. As I said above, from the actor articles, people should look at the actor's filmography, click on the film, and click on the cast link in the contents page. The category could actually be replaced by an overview article listing all actors involved in any LotR adaptation ever, anywhere. If anyone can be bothered to do that. Carcharoth16:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yo, it's me Masky, the creator of WikEh?. If you feel that WikEh? needs to be deleted, go right ahead, do it, doesn't matter to me. Masky (Talk | contribs) 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I know I seem like an angry guy to you, but I'm really not! However, there are a few things. Firstly, I think that your idea of that page move is a very good idea and I'm behind you 100% on it. I didn't think it possible, but that suggestions may well make everyone happy.
I'd like to note, however, that I don't blow my fuse all the time. Yes, I argue my points quite vigorously, and yes, I dislike it when people refer to essays like they are policy (who wouldn't?). As for implying that I expect you to defer to me, huh?! You confuse my beliefs with arrogance, which is a pity. Hence my heading "Feeling a bit annoyed". Please, assume some good faith on my part! - Ta bu shi da yu08:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Good faith now assumed! I actually admire you for standing up for what yourself in the face of quite a lot of opposition. I apologise for suggesting that you would blow a fuse. I'll go and cross that out now. Carcharoth10:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
