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
• April - May 2010
• June - July 2010
• August - September 2010
• October - November 2010
• December 2010 - January 2011
• February - March 2011
• April - May 2011
• June - July 2011
• August - September 2011

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are Adabow (submissions) (Pool A, 189 points) and PresN (submissions) (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from Casliber (submissions)) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from Another Believer (submissions)). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. 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 and The ed17 11:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Toronto Star/Globe and Mail archives

FYI, there is a online database available through the Toronto Public Library website called Pages of the Past. It is free as long as you have a library card (which is also free). If you live outside Toronto, you should check your local library to see if they provide access. I was able to view the Patrick Lawlor obituary through this database from my home computer. Cheers. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you. I have access to a fair number of online resources with my library card, but possibly not that. I will have a look and see. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Response on DYK expansion

I agree that expansion of already created articles for DYK should be encouraged more. I have expanded stubs myself for DYK - my favorites being Expiration Date (film) (excellent movie, btw) and Bohemian Citizens' Benevolent Society. There are some longer articles, but those are my favorite. I also expanded mushroom articles with the help of another user that are C-Class or better (I consider it my mushroom article phase). I may have a rambled on a bit, but I'm just trying to say that I agree with you very much. Joe Chill (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Ramsay Heatley Traquair

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

My review of your DYK nomination

Hello, Carcharoth, and thanks for your comments on my talk page, about my review of your recent DYK nomination. You seemed to be rather disappointed that I didn't do a more thorough evaluation and critique of your article. In fact you should be flattered that I didn't; it was clearly a well written, well sourced article that passed the basic requirements for DYK, and that was what I was looking for. Here's where I was coming from: I have submitted maybe a dozen DYK nominations over the past couple of years; it's not something I do often or stay in close touch with. And so when I came to the DYK page this month to submit a nomination, I was staggered by what seemed to be a new, massive increase in the requirements for reviewing someone else's nomination. I expressed my feelings about the new system at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, namely, that I was simply not going to submit my own nomination, rather than have to jump through all those hoops. You mentioned that your own review of someone else's nomination took an hour; that is exactly what I feared, and why I decided "the hell with it, I just won't submit my nomination". However, I looked again a day or so later and found that some reviews seemed to be going through under the "old system," in which we simply needed to verify the dates, article length, hook length, the fact that the hook facts were cited and the citation actually supported those facts, and the article in general seemed adequately sourced to Reliable Sources. I always found that much reviewing to be a reasonable demand, and when I saw your nomination without a template attached, I went ahead and reviewed it. It took about 10 minutes, which I think is reasonable to require us to do in order to submit a nomination of our own. I was pleased to see that the review I did was accepted and the article was promoted to the front page. If in the future a 10-minute review is no longer acceptable - if we are expected to do an hour-long multi-day evaluation - then I will not be submitting any more nominations.
Meanwhile, of course it is perfectly OK that you cited my review in your comments elsewhere. Everything we do here on Wikipedia is public and is subject to being discussed elsewhere. No problem. --MelanieN (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You put your finger on the fatal flaw in the new requirements: "Also, I took an hour because I was doing it for only the fifth time or so. If I did it regularly, it would get faster, I'm sure." What does this say about the effect of the process on a person like myself, who does not "do it regularly"? I can count on spending an hour plus, if I actually try to do it; more likely I will just say "forget it". The rules require me to do a review if I want to submit a nomination of my own, but I'm never going to do enough reviews to get good at it. The result will be that most of us casual nominators will simply stop submitting nominations; the stringent review process is prohibitive.
Maybe the "regulars" don't see that as a problem; maybe they would rather keep the review process in the hands of people who specialize in it. In that case they should repeal the "nominate one, review one" requirement, because you are NEVER going to get the level of review you want from people like me. Or maybe they don't want to get nominations from non-specialists and are happy to see people like me removed from the nominating as well as the reviewing process. Whether intended or not (and I doubt it was intended), that will be the effect.
So where does that leave DYK? Who is going to do the nominating, and who is going to do the reviewing? Are there enough DYK specialists to sustain the project? The new rules added to the time burden of reviewing but did not give any thought to where the additional manpower is going to come from. In fact, the opposite seems to be happening; I see from the DYK talk page that half a dozen people who used to do this kind of thing regularly have resigned from DYK work altogether.
Just some things to think about - if people want Wikipedia to continue to have a DYK feature. Please feel free to quote me in any discussion about this. --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comments at ANI not appreciated

Over the top, out of context, in bad faith. I'll keep them in mind. And where were you when I was called "stupid" and "silly" by Rjanag at DYK a few days ago? It really does seem that there's one rule for admins and another rule for everyone else. Glad to see that you're supporting this dichotomy. Tony (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

And this is way out of line: "the community should also put others who argue incessantly at these pages (WT:TITLE and WP:MOS) on notice and topic ban them in short order as well, if things flare up again. Some of them have been topic banned in the past, so it would be easier to act in those cases". You seek to slur many people to bring all down to the same level? I say site-ban you for standing by and watching blatant breaches of civility by Rjanag at DYK. Tony (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'm at it, I have serious concerns about some of your other assumptions, too. "While I can't condone Pmanderson's conduct here, I think that on balance his contributions still outweigh the negative aspects." So is this the kind of balance sheet you used in decision-making while an arbitrator? An editor is excused of wrongdoing on the basis of other contributions? Pity about Rlevse and many others I can think of. Perhaps this underlies your apparent support of the notion that admins can get away with breaching wp:civil.

And there's yet more: "Unlike most of them, [Anderson] actually edits articles, with actual content and not just script-assisted fixing of MOS issues." Well, I just strayed onto your own contribs list, and it's not a pretty picture in those terms. Something back on 24/25 July on one article, and that's about it. Tony (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Tony, thanks for the comments. As I've said to Ohconfucius below, I've been busy the past few days, so apologies for not being able to reply earlier. I need to catch up on what has been said in various places, but will respond at some point today to what you have said here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've now got more time to respond here. Some of what I say here will repeat what I said to Ohconfucius. Firstly, I want to apologise for bringing up your WT:DYK edit at that ANI thread. I really shouldn't have done that, and I should have raised it on your talk page at the time (part of the reason I didn't was because I saw others telling you that the RfC result you were waving around wasn't a pass to do as you liked, and because I had hoped that you would focus on working with others, rather than against them). The case of Rjanag's comments is a good one, as I think you over-reacted there. There was no need there for any escalation by either of you. You are both quite capable of working together without demanding apologies for perceived slights. Your comment above of "I say site-ban you for standing by and watching blatant breaches of civility by Rjanag at DYK" is another classic over-reaction on your part. There are other examples of over-reactions I've seen from you in recent months. First the whole kurfuffle with Wehwalt that spilled into that excruciating thread at WT:FAC. And then the whole issue of what led to that recent block in your block log. I don't know what happened there, but getting into all these disputes suggests that you might be getting close to burnout, and I don't want to see that in you any more than I do in any other editor. It frustrates me that editors that clearly have useful things to say end up arguing with each other, making it more about personalities and emotions, than about calm and logical argument. When I see that happening, my advice is for people to take a deep breath, try and calm down, and consider whether a short break from Wikipedia might do some good. On your specific points, about balancing positives and negatives, I use those considerations for community ban discussions. For arbitration cases, this was less of a consideration as by the time something reaches arbitration editors should have had enough chances already. On your example of Rlevse, I was critical of what happened there, but more that he didn't stick around to face up to what he needed to do, and also because of the slow pace at which things happen at CCI. Rlevse exercising his right to vanish is something you can't stop, but I am happy to go on record that he shouldn't return or unvanish without picking up where he left off and responding to the concerns raised, and without helping to finish off the CCI, and having a robust discussion about what changes he needs to make to his editing based on whatever numbers of article are problematic at that CCI. And the final point is easier to respond to, the link you should be looking at is this one, and that shows you have your dates wrong above. And now, as I said to Ohconfucius, I'm going to respond to Pmanderson, and it will be a lot shorter than what I've said to the two of you. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated

I would appreciate an arbitration which kept strictly to the point; do we make decisions by majority rule? Casliber called a draft consensus, when it reflected only a majority; on one point, the majority was 15-14.

The draft (and such discussion as there was) is Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_124#Dashes:_a_new_draft; I believe Casliber's description of this as "consensus" is on the same page. This ignores not only the minority, but JeffConrad's lengthy demonstration that the rule on spacing is not what most style guides recommend. MOS is following Tony's preferences, not reliable sources.

The one compensation for all this is that MOS is now so complex that not even Tony can find things in it, so it does no real harm. But if ArbCom were to consider such a case on its own motion, it would - on balance - be helpful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, my Wikipedia e-mail attachment works, and if you ever wish to contact me again, that would be preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Having spent far too much time on this, I have only two things to say here to you:

• (1) You need to apologise to GTBacchus and others for what you said on his talk page.
• (2) You are letting things get to you too much, and need to take a long break from Wikipedia.

If there is an ArbCom case, I may have more to say, but that's it for now. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Interesting discussion, but my talk page is not really the right place for this. Please feel free to continue the discussion somewhere else. As I've said to others who have posted to my talk page over the past few days, I'll respond to the initial post later. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

---

If I may interpolate a point here:

"Casliber called a draft consensus, when it reflected only a majority; on one point, the majority was 15-14."

A plain misrepresentation. Figures plucked so violently from their context as to be meaningless, with not the slightest concern for the facts of the matter. PMAnderson cites the same talismanic figures all over the place. Let him show the whole text surrounding these magic ciphers; and let him show my analysis as well.

Noetica^Tea? 02:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

That's Noetica's own count; if he wants to change it, fine. I would have counted it somewhat differently myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

There's another misrepresentation above, so to inject a little balance into statements such as "MOS is following Tony's preferences, not reliable sources", please note that just the main MOS page alone has had over 7,500 edits in ten years by more than 2,100 distinct editors (and five times that many edits on the talk page). It is also worth noting that many of the current editors often debate Tony1 concerning suggested updates on the various MOS pages.

It is of course important that WP base article information on reliable sources, however please see my recent post that gives reasons why it is important for WP to have an in-house style manual that is sympathetic to its own peculiarities and needs (and how "reliable sources" are not always relevant for that). For other non-formatting issues, external guides are often consulted when formulating WP's in-house guide. In fact, the use of outside guides is deemed so important that a comprehensive list of their abbreviations has been included as an easy reference at the top of the MOS talk page.

Cheers, GFHandel ♬  02:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, the 15-14 meme is coming from item 5b. "When prefixing an element containing a space" at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting. The 14 non-agree-ers are heterogeneous, and PMA is insisting on an artificial homogeneity to it. Some were opposing to avoid the construction altogether when the vote was actually on what we do if it is unavoidable (some supporters were keen to see it used as little as possible too). Anyway, take a look yourself and decide how you would have closed it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Both sides are heterogeneous; many of the 15 said nothing about requiring dashes; they merely agreed with the main proposal. But I am duly impressed with the argument that somebody who doesn't support using dashes at all is part of the consensus to make them mandatory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha very funny. You know what I mean. I can see this isn't going anywhere so it remains to be seen what others think then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

All I know is what Casliber says; if this is not what he means, he should try more detail, as GTBacchus has. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 19 August 2011 (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.

Pmanderson

I just wanted to express my very big disappointment in you. Your tolerance of said editor's behaviour marks a very stark contrast to your intolerance of other editors' incivilities whenever you come across them. I furthermore note that you have still not replied to my two posts [1] [2], at ANI or anywhere for that matter. Thank you for your attention. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't replied because I was out on Thursday night, and working late Friday night. Sometimes Wikipedia comes behind lots of other things. It's now Saturday morning and the weekend, so I'm going to be able to reply in various places. It may take a while, though, for me to catch up. If I'd known I'd not have a chance to reply for so long, I'd have said so, as I know how quickly things can move on Wikipedia and how some like quick replies, but that wasn't possible here, I'm afraid. Carcharoth (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've now got more time to respond here. Firstly, I want to apologise again for bringing up your WT:DYK edit at that ANI thread. I really shouldn't have done that, and I should have raised it on your talk page at the time (part of the reason I didn't was because I thought Gatoclass closing the discussion had already sent that message that there was starting to be more heat than light). The reason I pointed it out was that your edit and Tony's edit were the closest examples I had to hand to show that others also interacting with Pmanderson also get frustrated when things don't go the way they want them to. Again, that doesn't excuse Pmanderson's behaviour (I will be coming to that when I reply to him above), but the whole history of MOS and TITLE and related pages is people who argue at and sometimes snap at each other, and often argue past each other as well. But I should have been more expansive with my argument, and in future I will endeavour to not tolerate anything like that when I see it. If you think I've tolerated something, it will be most likely because I either haven't seen it, or I don't think it is an uncivil comment (not everyone agrees on when the line is crossed). On the matter of script-assisted editing, my main frustration is not being able to see what content editing wiki-gnomes are doing. It sometimes feels that Wikipedia is splitting into overly specialised factions that sometimes argue unnecessarily. And there are other downsides as well, see what I said here. Some of the other comments I made around there as well might also help you realise why it frustrates me that editors that clearly have useful things to say end up arguing with each other, making it more about personalities and emotions, than about calm and logical argument. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So why ambush people at ANI with such irrelevant claims? I feel affronted that you threw dirt all over me at ANI (so ... I used capital letters in a heading and I felt threatened and annoyed by a stalker who has a prior history of posting provocative messages on my talk page—and who has in one or two cases been abusive?). Do you realise how much this flinging around of accusations degrades ANI by reinforcing its reputation for damaging other people who dare post there, but who are not the subject of the complaint? Unfortunately, that phenomenon has been part of the downfall of Wikiquette, too.

I must say that you're giving every sign of encouraging a morphing of scope to encompass other issues you may, in your mind, see as related. A disinterested observer might even suspect that you have a personal agenda, although I might doubt that myself. If you have problems with people's posts at DYK or MoS talk or anywhere else, why don't you raise them at the time rather than storing them up for what seems like a cynical purpose?

I, for one, try to steer clear of Mr Anderson nowadays, so what is the purpose of trying to rope me and what would be a whole lot of other users who've had to endure his antics into a huge, unproductive ArbCom case? It beggars belief. And, to see it more broadly, it would waste Mr Anderson's time and cause him stress, too.

As you've already noted, I didn't agree with the motion to indeff him from the site. I expect more good faith in the same environment than I think I'm receiving from you. Tony (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)