User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

DefaultsortBot has stirred up some controversy...

Hi Carcharoth,

Sorry to ask you to drag yourself into this, but I figured since you requested the bot, I should ask for your input.

You may remember that 2-3 weeks ago you asked me for a bot that could try to put {{DEFAULTSORT}}s into as many biography articles as possible. I've since written it, obtained approval for it, and put it into operation...and started getting objections left and right with 5 seconds.

At the moment, the biggest outstanding objection is from Magioladitis, who is claiming that not every page needs a DEFAULTSORT, especially when the DEFAULTSORT is the same as the page title. I'd appreciate your input on the matter. It's been moved around several times, but the bulk of the discussion at the moment seems to be going on at WT:Categorization#DEFAULTSORT = Pagename (although you can also read User talk:Mikaey, User talk:DefaultsortBot, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive541#A rogue bot, and WT:BRFA#a serious problem to get some background on what's been going on).

Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope I'm not too late for this. I'll drop a note on your talk page to find out where the latest discussion is. Carcharoth (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Clean up tag on Ian Blair

Hi, I notice that you have been active on the talk page of this article in the past and am wanting your opinion on the clean up tag I have placed there. My view, as explained on the talk page, is that the article consists of a jumbled collection of facts with no rhyme or reason given as to their selection. Two anon users (probably the same person) argued with me and then today someone has removed the tag which I hav e reinstated. Could you, as an experienced and respected editor, please give your opinion. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My views won't have changed much. They will be in the talk page archives or still on the talk page. Sorry. No time to look right now. Carcharoth (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I've eventually gone for WP:3O adn got input that way.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

E-mail to arbcom-l

I noticed you're posting some votes in the Macedonia case at the moment. I've sent a suggestion to arbcom-l, but it seems to be stuck in moderation; I don't know if you have moderator access, but if so, could you possibly take a look? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

An e-mail has arrived. I presume it is the one you are referring to. It is being discussed, and when Kirill or Roger see it, they should send out an official confirmation that it arrived. Carcharoth (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

List of helicopter prison escapes

Not sure if this is your cup of tea but I need a skilled hand to fix this page. It almost made FAL but was held back because of bad grammar, inconsistency, etc. Needs a good copyedit to whip it into shape! I'd do it but most of the problems on the page are caused by me. Me no good at english -- Esemono (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. No time right now. Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are on TV!

You have just been mentioned in the Colbert Report. --Itub (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's true, it's true! Colbert was talking about the AC Scientology decision and said how the Arbitration Committee is made up of people named "Carcharoth, FloNight, Newyorkbrad and Wizardman". Carch, yours was the first -nym shown on the TV set! :) Then he said something about how these judges don't wear robes, they wear bathrobes... But that's a totally different cabal, maybe I should write in and straighten that out. :) Franamax (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We are still accepting applications. Images can be uploaded to the project or sent to me via email. We currently have no members who are Arbs, however, all are welcome. :D لennavecia 12:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Watch the segment here. (2 minutes) Jehochman ^Talk 02:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone else might want to use this link, AOL limits viewing to US viewers. Regards SoWhy 16:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. Managed to find a clip of it, and it was fun watching it. Some people in some threads got the pronunciation right! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to bother you. I believe two editors who are uninvolved in the ADHD articles and scuro are going to try and hijack the arbcom to attack me. I have opened up an RfC here.Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD/Evidence#Requests for comment Is Skinwalkers evidence acceptable and can I be allowed additional space to respond to the accusations?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not active on that case. Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FPAS

I like your suggestion here.[1] If you would make this into a binding remedy, I would support it. Desysoping is indeed too sweeping, and the other proposed alternative seems like it might become torture. Cool Hand Luke 07:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I ended up supporting the temp desysop remedy. Carcharoth (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

J&S application

Hi Carcharoth,

I respectfully direct your attention to this. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not currently active on anything arbitration-related except two cases. Have notified the other arbitrators, though. Carcharoth (talk) 16:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nogrod Belegost

Hi! I'm from Turkish Wikipedia. I searched some Middle-earth fan to ask a question and I saw you edited the portal Middle-earth. Well, this is the question, which one of those articles tell the truth about the founders of Nogrod and Belegost,

• 1. Realms_of_the_Dwarves
• 2. Nogrod and Belegost

Either the first one or the latter is wrong. I had translated the first article into Turkish, then I just realized that disaggreement. What do you know about that?--Tuleytula (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You might get a quicker answer at WP:WikiProject Middle-earth. Ask on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia" - it would be interesting to discuss that definition in detail one day. Anyway, from what I can see, the idea didn't take off. Maybe look at similar ideas that have been proposed before? Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Active arbs

Hey Carcharoth, since you've returned to active editing should you perhaps be noted as active on the arbitration committee page? Nathan ^T 20:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I went on wikibreak the next day (it was really two wikibreaks close to each other). But now it is July, I should remove the notices, and will move my self back to being active. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

(Notifying you personally because you were one of the arbitrators who showed some interest in the content side with your questions.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As you asked about where the discussion was advertised: it's been registered as a regular RfC, listed in the WP:CENT box, and notifications were given at WP:VPP, WP:ECCN, the Macedonian wikiproject, and about a dozen relevant article talk pages. Personal notifications (similar to the one above) were also given to the editors who had participated in the Greece poll in March, and some people who had taken part in the debate after the page moves of April. These notifications were mostly done by Shadowmorph and myself (and I'm glad to say they are one aspect of this story that hasn't created friction so far.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I had not seen your reply on the AR/C page before now. Just to clarify, I did not intentionally neglect to place notification of the RFC in various places. This is going to sound rather foolish, but in any case, I started working on moving to the next phase in middle-late afternoon local time. It took me approximately two and a half hours to update the pages and file the RfC. Just as I finished filing the RfC, my dinner (pizza) arrived, so I went to go eat. When I got back, everyone was going crazy because Michael Jackson had been confirmed dead, so I got caught up in trying to help maintain order in that area, and the Macedonia issue completely slipped my mind. When I remembered the next morning, Future Perfect at Sunrise and I believe Shadowmorph had already placed notification in all of the obvious places. I'm telling you this not so much as an excuse, I just wanted you to know that I was going to do it myself, but I got distracted. In the future, I will make sure that I complete each task I am doing before I move on to another one. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Doesn't sound foolish at all, and it is reassuring to know that there was a plan in place for the referees to do the notifications, even if the meltdown from the Michael Jackson news did disrupt things. It is also good to see that people do stuff on their own initiative to finish things off. Thanks for explaining what happened there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Publicising discussions

Thanks for letting me know about the name change. I've taken the liberty of making a number of copyedits, hopefully improving the flow, readability, and clarity of the page. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, and thank you for letting me know. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler as mentor/adviser for Mattisse arbitration

Fowler&fowler has stated his willingness to be one of my mentors/advisers.[2] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 18:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Thank you for being so helpful, in general. You have eased the pressure on me. I am grateful that you took the time to clarify issues as my arbitration ended. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:e-mail from ArbCom

Newyorkbrad tells me that you tried e-mailing me, but it didn't go through. Sorry for causing bother. What address were you trying to send it to? My current one, and the one attached to my user account, is Gmail with simon.pulsifer as the address. I also checked my old Yahoo account, but I didn't find anything from you over the last few weeks. If you resend it to my Gmail I should get it, and I'll respond quickly. - SimonP (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I sent something to your yahoo email address about a month ago because that was the one in my address book. We can resend it, no worries. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding National Portrait Gallery

Dear Carcharoth, thank you for your message. The discussions that I had with NPG concerned the portraits of M. C. Bradbrook (see in particular this section: [3]). At the time I even produced a low-resolution and smaller version of this portrait and e-mailed it to them, asking them whether I was permitted to upload it to Wikipedia (arguing that my low-resolution and smaller version would never compete with their version), but that was also not acceptable to them. As I have mentioned earlier (in that piece which you have quoted from me -- incidentally, I have no problem with the reproduction of my pertinent comment), they told me that they were in the processes of some negotiation with Wikipedia for arriving at some mutually-acceptable agreement, but not having been in touch with them since then, I do not know what has become of their negotiations. Unfortunately, since then I have changed my laptop (due to the breakdown of my previous laptop) so that at this moment I do not have access to my pertinent e-mails; otherwise I would have made them available to you so that you could see for yourself the details that I wrote to them and the things that they wrote back in response. I should say, send them an e-mail and they will certainly respond; my experience with them is overly positive --- the person who communicated with me was a very nice person and throughout our exchanges I had always the feeling that he genuinely wanted to help (he really understood my points and very sympathetically explained to me their side of the story --- all the e-mails that I received from him were genuine e-mails, and not some cut-and-pasted pieces of standard remarks meant to keep me happy). Kind regards, --BF 16:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for the reply. If I get time I'll point it out to various people. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom: ADHD

You wrote: "All the advice is good, and recommend a six-month review by ArbCom to see if the advice has been followed." Sounds like a very good idea. Is it too late to get that included in the decision? - Hordaland (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As the case has closed, it is too late now, but do come back in six months yourself and see if the situation has improved. If it hasn't, then do point that out to us. Carcharoth (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm making a note of that, hoping it won't be necessary. - Hordaland (talk) 09:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bugging you again. I don't know if the mentor required by the decision will/should be "publicly" announced? The deadline for finding one has passed, and if none has been found, ArbCom is to appoint one. Thanks, - Hordaland (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I notified ArbCom of this a few days ago, but nothing has happened so far. If you want a formal response, I suggest filing a request for clarification indicating ongoing problems and asking what is happening here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom: User:Ice_Cold_Beer

I hope I am in the right place. I request administrative restriction of User:Ice_Cold_Beer for the following reason:

He has blocked me and others from editing Ancient Egyptian race controversy, but I will focus on myself. The contributions I have made to the article for the most part have been sourced, if not by other references, by already established Wikipedia articles. Yet he says that I have been making contributions without source. He has accused me of POV pushing, despite the fact I have clearly explained my position and if you see in the article (priroly, I responded to the POV issues clearly). This article is a chronology of the controversy itself, and I have contributed to the chronology clearly, with citations (at least if not immediately, within a 3 day period).

My concern is that he has a biased agenda of his own, and that is to eliminate as much possible any inkling of knowledge or insight of the black Egyptians. The article is certainly clear that there IS a debate, but the article continually goes into discrediting one side (the black side) by calling it Afrocentric (and thus attacking Afrocentricism) instead of focusing on the controversy itself.

He accused me of personal attacks, but I responded to personal attacks,

But most importantly, without warning, without discussion with me directly first, he proceeded to ban me for, not 1 week, not 24 hours, but six months. An extreme use of his administrative power, based, I feel, not on any objectivity, but on a mission to silence a POV he feels he does not agree with. That is the only logical conclusion. I understand "any" editor can ban, but it is aginst Wikipedia policy for editors to ban based on neutralizing a legitimate POV, which is certainly happening here. Please advise.

Also, please forgive my inexperience. I am seeking admins of a higher level than user:dbachmann and user:Ice_Cold_Beer who can resolve this. Because the violations have simply gone up a level. Now, admins who are POV pushing via administration are messing up an article. And finally, anti-black POV users are not being banned when they engage in the same behavior. --Panehesy (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss this. You want to put the above at requests for arbitration, and I see that there is a request there, so I will comment there when I get round to that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Got your email

I got your email. I was not aware of the matter, but knew that I wasn't interested in participating just from the email. Things around our governance are too toxic for me to enjoy participating in them, and that was the primary reason I resigned as an administrator. I'm not at all interested in getting more involved in project governance matters. GRBerry 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Hopefully one day things will have improved enough so you feel able to return to administrating and other things like that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,please check your mailAlsoam (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I have. Should there be an e-mail from you? I can't see one. Carcharoth (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thelnetham Windmill

Hi, I wondered if you would cast an eye over the Thelnetham Windmill article and maybe do a copy edit on it. I'd like your opinion on how close it is to FA standard, and what work is needed to bring it up to that level. WP:MILLS currently lacks a FA, so it would be nice to get at least one. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

impressed

Carcharoth, your objectivity impresses me. [4] We need to get at the equivalency of behaviors, whatever username is involved. Thanks, Outriggr (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, thanks, Sometimes impressing is too easy. Do you want to review the windmill article above? Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(Would I be tilting?) Oh, that would take work—most of us old-timers have moved into a post-work Wikipedia limbo, it seems... Outriggr (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Category:Biography articles with listas parameter Is Going Away

Hi!

You were once concerned about the pages in this category that had erroneous values. I have cleaned out the ones after Z twice. However, because Magioladitis agreed with Gurch that the category serves no purpose, despite my disagreement and indication of a legitimate use, Martin re-programmed {{WPBiography}} so that the category will be empty. (The discussion is here. Notice that Martin was not involved in the discussion and that his edit summary of the programming change indicates that it is by consensus.)

You no longer need to be concerned about eerroneous values for {para|listas}} as there will be no way to find them except by accident.

JimCubb (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Dear Carchaort. I would like to ask a question about Wikipedia's tagging system. I've been recently tagged as a "possible scibaby sockpuppet" and I'd like to know:

1)how can I clear myself of accusation

2)how can I find out who tagged me and why exactly.

I'm sorry for bothering You but I need someone to help understand a few things. I was recently involved in a very suspicious case that ended up in partial success for me but still I'm tagged.

I was editing discussion panel on climate change denial.The topic is controversial so I started a thread titled "this article could become neutral". Right away I got this tag and local editor William Connolley with his friends who apparently disagree with me on the topic used the fact that I'm tagged to delete my thread from article's talkpage. After I cited wikipedia's rules from "Identification and handling of suspected sock puppets" KimDabelsteinPetersen changed his strategy ans started to claim that my comment includes a private opinion which makes it a soapbox and deleted discussion again. They ignored a rule "Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission" from talk page guidelines. In response,I've found a few sources and reverted my thread back to article's talkpage thinking now everything was going to be OK. But I was wrong. Kim's friend Aunt Entropy deleted my comment again without any explaination. I asked why did he do that on his talkpage but he simply deleted it! Despite threats I didn't give up and tried once again. This time with succes. Someone responded to my thread and local usurpators stopped censoring the talkpage.

I find this case very bizarre. Hours ago, user Treedel wrote to me : "The reason you have been tagged as a possible puppet appears to be that the last thing User:Scibaby did was get into a sockpuppet revert war with User:William M. Connolley. Since that was in late 2007, I think it's just an overzealous script finding a meaningless coincidence"

Does it mean that tagging is now a weapon against editors with opposite views??? Please help because I can't function normally with this tag. (Sorry for making ma point this long:)78.131.137.50 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You are better off discussing this on your talk page with the editors you mention above. This is not really a dispute I want to get involved in, and I'm a bit too tired to look at this right now. Let me know if you have trouble finding anyone to answer your questions. Carcharoth (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, You got me wrong:) I only wanted the answer to first 2 questions - all the rest is just a context. Didn't mean to get You personally involved. Anyways, have a nice sleep:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.131.137.50 (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tolkein in Lancashire

Hello and apologies for any Wikipedia editing faux-pas I am about to make in contacting you. I am completely unskilled in the field of Wiki editing and have no clue as to what the procedures are, but felt that you were the person to talk to. You are a constant contributor to the main J._R._R._Tolkien article, and I was wondering why there is no mention of Stonyhurst College, Clitheroe, Lancashire, in the article? It is well versed around these parts (I live not too far away from the College) that Tolkien took much inspiration from and wrote large portions of the LOTR books whilst in Lancashire, yet the article only mentions his Birmingham roots.

Here are some links that I feel would be of use to the article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/lancashire/lifestyle/2003/12/12/tolkien.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1696891.stm

http://www.oldclitheroe.co.uk/page172.htm

http://www.enjoyenglandsnorthcountry.com/movies/page.asp?pagekey=16&tcat=16&tid=1

I hope this is useful and that you don't mind me writing here.

Angstpristine (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply to this. You might get a quicker answer at WP:WikiProject Middle-earth. Ask on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

George Motion 4

Hi, would you please consider, provided you haven't already, my proposed motion 4? You seem anxious to get this case over with, that is understandable, but let's not allow the cost of haste to be injustice to one of Wikipedia's most venerable and best writers. Thank you,--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My questions

I've posted a response to you here. I just want to thank you separately for taking the time to reply in detail, both to this question and to previous ones. The responsiveness and openness are very much appreciated. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)