User talk:Carcharoth

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. For the fictional wolf of the same name, see Carcharoth.

Archives

---

• July 2005
• September 2005
• February - March 2006
• April - May 2006
• June - July 2006
• August - September 2006
• October - November 2006
• December 2006 - January 2007
• February - March 2007
• April - May 2007
• June - July 2007
• August - September 2007
• October - November 2007
• December 2007 - January 2008
• February - March 2008
• April - May 2008
• June - July 2008
• August - September 2008
• October - November 2008
• December 2008 - January 2009
• February - March 2009
• April - May 2009
• June - July 2009
• August - September 2009
• October - November 2009
• December 2009 - January 2010
• February - March 2010

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter

We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fromelles

Original message

Sure, certainly, merge them in. I was thinking this would be good for ITN as well: it's not often you get a new cemetery for WWI dead... There's a fair amount of material at Battle of Fromelles which should probably be taken over as well. On a similar note, have you seen our new articles on V.C. Corner Australian Cemetery and Memorial and Peter Corlett? Physchim62 (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I had plans for that one as well (V.C. Corner Australian Cemetery and Memorial - see also the list here). The trouble was that it is very difficult to find out the background history to that memorial (to the missing) because all the news coverage is of that statue you've pointed out (though even that is now being drowned out by the coverage of this new cemetery). I tried for ages to find out when it was unveiled, and gave up. The location you give for the statue is slightly off though. The statue is in the Parc Mémorial Australien de Fromelles, which is actually just down the road from the cemetery and memorial (see the map here). Things will get even more confused now with this new Fromelles cemetery! Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This aerial image shows how close the two are! I reckon that to be just over 100 metres. I've corrected the article V.C. Corner Australian Cemetery and Memorial to point out that the two sites are actually separate. Physchim62 (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I added some details of when and who opened it. As for the V.C. Corner one, the only source I found saying when it opened is here, which says "constructed between 1920 and 1921". I suspect that was the cemetery, as the memorials tended to be later, though other sources do hint at a date in the early 1920s. Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Super Bowl players BLPs

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Semiprotection_of_BLP_articles_for_Super_Bowl_players

Please read and comment on my observation of extensive vandalism to Nate Kaeding's article two weeks ago, and on my request to semiprotect all the articles of players in Super Bowl XLIV for the next two weeks until a week after the game ends. Chutznik (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully something will be sorted out at that discussion. I'm afraid I have other things to attend to tonight. Carcharoth (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

I would like you to perform a checkuser on 09jamieboro (talk · contribs) to see if he have created another account to bypass the block as he said he would in his unblock request. Thanks! --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please follow KnightLago's advice here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

EVen though I don't know his puppet User names? --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The checkusers and clerks there will tell you if a check is needed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery

On 3 February 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery, which you co-nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

Great work on expanding that article, it's very comprehensive now - Dumelow (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Credit for the nomination should really be shared, as both Carcharoth and I had the idea to nominate independently, and Carcharoth did most of the hard work to get the article up to a standard where it could be posted. Physchim62 (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, no problem. I missed Carcharoth's request at ITN/C but that seems fair enough - Dumelow (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, good to see the article up there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo request (Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery)

Carcharoth, Why don't you put this request on fr:wiki? I did on a couple of occasions & got results. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Déjà fait! ici ;) Physchim62 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, Frania, and thanks again Physchim. I did find some pictures on Flickr, so another idea would be to write to people who uploaded pictures there, and I also found this website, which has some great pictures. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 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) 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You are one of the six editors advancing into the final round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The final round started at 00:00, 11 February and ends 23:59, 10 March. The top three ranked players at the end of this round will become winners of the contest and receive special prizes! Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are advised not to reply before 2011

I stumbled upon User talk:NoSeptember/Leaving#Similar pledges a few hours ago and decided to continue what is turning into a remarkable time-lapse discussion. I suppose there are several factors at work here, but it got me thinking about a more general matter: replying to messages on talk pages (mostly of articles) which may be one, two or even four years old. In high-traffic pages they will have been long archived, but if this isn't the case, is there anything preventing one from replying? Not, of course, for the sake of the inquirer (even though there is no guarantee that they will not happen to return after a long time to check), but for those who may read the talk page and have the same questions. I have mostly refrained from doing this, but I am now wondering whether I should be doing it more often. After all, these fora are all public, and the idea of a discussion between two or three individuals is illusory, even if nobody else intervenes at the time. Waltham, The Duke of 09:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight

A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Wikipedia:Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#Proposal_for_new_.27public_interest.27_clause. SilkTork *^YES! 10:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

List of tallest residential buildings in the world

I have nominated this article for Feature list, "LIST OF TALLEST RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD" i need your help regarding, gramatical mistakes,and copy editing my purpose is to make this article perfect or close to perfection, so that it would for sure become a feature list.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

i am confused by your message on ANI. are you saying that it's unclear as to whether tothwolf has violated his restrictions? also, you said that he shouldn't rehash the same allegations over and over without providing new evidence, and his next message was exactly that. the community has done nothing to stop his behavior because he posts 2000 word manifestos which never address the issue, and which exhaust people's patience. so his behavior went to arbcom, and he was restricted from making these unsupported allegations. and yet that is exactly what he's back to doing. in that ANI thread he accused me of harassing his friends off wiki. how can this be acceptable from someone who is specifically restricted against this? Theserialcomma (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that if you think arbitration enforcement is getting it wrong, ask for clarification from ArbCom. They will either tell you that AE got it wrong, or that AE were right and you are wrong. Did you file a request for arbitration enforcement? What I'm also saying is that if Tothwolf thinks the case decision was wrong, he needs to appeal the case, not carry on with the same accusations. Carcharoth (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Note on allegations of plagiarism

I've been following the discussion here (thread as of time of writing, archive link to be added later) with interest, mainly because it came to my attention that in at least one fragment of the IRC discussions mentioned at that AN thread, one of the IRC participants raised similar concerns about articles that I've edited and created. Rather than post in that thread (and increase any attendant drama), I am posting a note here to indicate that I'm aware that such allegations have been made on IRC. Like Roger, I take such allegations very seriously, and like Roger my view is that such concerns should always be raised directly first with the editors concerned, on article and user talk pages, to enable them to respond, before matters are escalated to a noticeboard as was done in this case (and certainly not allowed to grow as rumours on IRC or off-wiki sites). Regardless of that, now that I am aware of such concerns, I intend, over the next few days, to go through a list of the articles I've created and heavily edited (though I don't have a complete listing of the latter), to see what improvements and changes can or need to be made. Ideally, everyone would do this regularly anyway, and/or when concerns like this are raised. While that is being done, I would ask that anyone with concerns please raise them with me first, or point me to the talk page of any articles that need discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Disasters

• Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Disasters

Hi Carcharoth, I hope you are doing well. :) Were you in the process of addressing points from this discussion? Cirt (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found the time. I would make a new promise to do something by Wednesday (I have some free time coming up next week), but I've learnt not to keep promising to do something when it turns out I didn't have the time after all. :-( If you want to do something, please do. If it needs to be de-featured, that's not a problem (clearly it can't stay featured in its current state). I'll say something similar over there. Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter

Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to Sasata (submissions), our round one winner (1010 points), and to Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions), who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). Staxringold (submissions) claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), Geschichte (submissions) claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points), Jujutacular (submissions) claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and Candlewicke (submissions) claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! 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, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 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) 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well it seems like I missed that due to my currently very limited wiki time, but I promise that the name of the winners as well as the finalists will appear in the March issue. Thanks for your interest! --Eurocopter (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN

"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:

• User:Peter Damian (old)
• User:HistorianofLogic
• User:Logicist
• User:Here today, gone tomorrow
• User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

re:WWI Contest

Hi, I'm glad that you liked this contest and thank for your active participation. Of course I'm planning a summary of the contest which will be posted soon on Milhist coordinators page (so people will now how effective is such an activity and organize it in the future as well). Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Finalist - Henry Allingham World War I International Contest (1st edition)

FINALIST

Congratulations on reaching the finals of the Henry Allingham World War I International Contest Thank you for your great performance and your valuable contributions to the project!

1st edition (11 November 2009 - 11 March 2010)

Eurocopter (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Precepts on the secret of success in life drafted by Tokugawa Ieyasu. Calligraphic original in the collection of Nikkō Tōshō-gū.

Carchoroth --

During the Edo period of Japanese history, the hortatory precepts of the founder of the Tokugawa shogunate were widely known. After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the aphorisms of Tokugawa Ieyasu faded from public prominence.

In our unique "mentoring" relationship, perhaps it may be construed as helpful to recall these words:

"One who treats difficulties as the nomal state of affairs will never be discontented."

I hope this becomes a helpful reference as we work together and face whatever lies ahead.

Sincerely,

Tenmei (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry.

One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented.

Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy.

Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure.

Blame yourself rather than others.

It is better not to reach than to go too far.

— Tokugawa Ieyasu, 1604

ArbCom -- BLPs

Thank you for these comments. That is helpful. Maurreen (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your summing up. However, with only four interested parties left on the workshop page, I'm not sure where the natural leaders should emmerge from! --Kudpung (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Poets' Corner

I've left a few suggestions at the talk page. As for completeness, this booklet might be worth getting; I'm not sure where you're based, but as I work in central London, if you'd like me to wander over to the Abbey shop and get it to save you the postage, I'll be glad to do so. Bencherlite^Talk 14:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Replying on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/Cambridge 6

Talking about March 27. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Now confirmed. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation of Climate Change probation

This discussion is not particularly encouraging. Jehochman ^Talk 12:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting that and for pointing it out. I'm not going to comment, though, and I would suggest you follow up there, rather than here, though do please point me to an update later if there is one. Carcharoth (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Poets' Corner

Yes of course, glad to help. A very attractive article - much more so than the place itself which I have found to be quite depressing and about as far removed from poety as one could imagine! Sorry that I have not taken the time to discuss much - as you will see I tend to skip about quite lot. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion of lead sections

The technique is mentioned in WP:Summary, and discussed several times on that guideline's talk page. It has drawbacks such as making the history harder to follow, as you point out. But I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks in cases where there is a lot of controversy and high risk of forking, which has happened with the Ghost article. Until I recently cleaned it up, most of the content in Ghost#Spiritualist movement, which showed Spiritualism and Spiritism as main articles, was not in fact present in either child. Editors had added the content to what should have been a summary of these two, but had not updated the detailed articles, thus creating a fork. It is easy to understand how this happened.

I am not a strong advocate of the approach in general. With more stable and less controversial subjects, it is probably better to copy the intro from the child article into the parent and then edit it to flow better with the parent article context, perhaps rearranging and expanding a bit. But in this case, where there is great passion about the "pseudo-science" aspect, the approach serves to discourage forking and to focus debate where it belongs, in the child articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever seen an Arbcom case? There were several about pseudoscience, fringe science etc., and we might soon have another one. Hundreds if not thousands of links to page history. Can you imagine how much more complicated such a case would be if every link needed an annotation and additional explanations/links? E.g.: "X reverted back to this version [1], except at that time the section titled "Pseudoscientific aspects" was transcluded from the lead of this [2]." I think transclusion should only be done in non-contentious areas. Hans Adler 19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Best to discuss here. Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Carcharoth. Thank you for your comment. As you will see in my comments in [1], Elonka is attacking me for illustrating the Mongol forays into Palestine in a certain way, although she actually has been developing and supporting a basically identical depiction of these forays in another map (please read the full paragraph). This is a clear contradiction: she makes accusations against me, that involve misrepresenting facts she herself knows are actually true. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer you discuss that with Elonka. The support for the renewal and extension of your topic ban is based on more than just what Elonka has said. Carcharoth (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

And what do you think is it based on? I have not seen any actual presentation of what I would have done wrong.... Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That is better discussed back at the arbitration pages. Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that Elonka's accusations come to nothing, I would really like to know what you actually consider worthy of a renewed ban. I think my contributions have been truely examplary in the 2-3 weeks I was able to contribute again to Mongol-related articles. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I will answer that, but you need more answers than just from me, hence me saying go back to the arbitration pages and ask there. Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done [2] Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pederasty in Ancient Greece

One result of the Haiduc case has been that several well-meaning and concerned editors have been removing his edits, even when (as on this article), they appear to be factual and verifiable. This seems an undesirable result, and one I doubt ArbCom intended.

Where are the actual findings of fact and sanctions in Haiduc's case? Do they need to be tweaked? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Haiduc is banned (anyone wanting to discuss that should follow the instructions that should be in the block log), but edits made before his ban should not be automatically undone, but rather evaluated on the same basis as any other editor's would. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Haiduc has cherry-picked from primary sources to express a "pederasty is/was ideal" POV. We well-meaning and concerned editors believe that secondary sources should be used to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, particularly in a contentious area which we know is visited by those wanting to promote a certain POV. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed a bit out there: "...evaluated on the same basis as any other editor's would on the talk page of the relevant articles" (i.e. not here). Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter

We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. 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.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. 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, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 [3] 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 [4] 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)

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 [5]. 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)

BLOCK USER

I want to propose a block for the user "Deshbhakta"[[6]], 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)