Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:27, 26 June 2008

This is a Misplaced Pages 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

CfD nomination of Category:Middle-earth calendars

I have nominated Category:Middle-earth calendars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Wall

I think the difference between your approach and jbmurray's is that he wrote the article on Wall as cultural phenomenon whereas you want to rewrite it as a biography. Apart from anything else, the second approach is made impossible anyway by the lack of biographical information. A person's name at the top of an article doesn't mean it has to be a biography in toto. I've fielded plenty of criticism at Anton Chekhov for writing it as an impressionistic piece, modelled on the style of his short stories, rather than as a biography (though people have ruined that effect now, and I have caved in): but I felt that his biography was boring, while his literary style is what makes him extraordinary. I think editors should be allowed this degree of independence rather than being forced into the lumpen mould of conveyor-belt biography. It's the only way we are going to keep gifted editors from being ground down and put off the project.

Do you remember all the trouble I had at James I of England trying to research the birth and death dates of his children? The reason was that the historians could not be bothered with such stuff, even in lengthy books. Biographical information is not necessarily notable, and in my opinion we should avoid becoming obsessed with it on Misplaced Pages. I think jb should be allowed to do it his way, and even fail at FA his way, if it comes to that. Idiosyncrasy makes the whole place more fun, I think, and, after all, is justifiable on the grounds of ignoring all rules. qp10qp (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

"I think the difference between your approach and jbmurray's is that he wrote the article on Wall as cultural phenomenon whereas you want to rewrite it as a biography." Yes, this is a nice and succinct way of putting things. I do also have an extended allegory up my sleeve, that takes in village fêtes, little old ladies, and the difference between chocolate cakes and fruitcakes. But I'll perhaps leave that for another day... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

colon

Thanks for your advice. TONY (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI...

Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem as far as I'm concerned. That edit reflects more on him than anyone else. Thanks for letting me know, though. If you see anything else happen (outside of his userspace), please remind people that he was warned. Carcharoth (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I thought he was reverting my warning there. I see now he was reverting your warning. I should have checked. I'll apologise for giving him that second warning. Carcharoth (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I hand't noticed any of this, but, had noted the referred to edit. So warned . SQL 07:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Here's a {{WikiCookie}} to recharge your batteries after all the hard work you put in summarizing the MZMcBride situation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Longish post

I avoid AN/I because I strongly believe that it is harmful to the project as a whole and should be abandoned with all due haste. But as it continues to be used (and defended), one begins to realize that you can't always get what you want. However, that doesn't mean I need to feed the beast. And so, I don't.

You mentioned to me several times that I should discuss deletions before making them. Well, I should point out that speedy deletions are supposed to be things that don't require any discussion. ; - ) But even if I wanted to post somewhere, I guess my real issue is where. Do we have an appropriate forum to announce such things. And, I suppose there's also a concern that making announcements will simply bring out vociferous users who do nothing but drama-monger. The general housekeeping work that I do is (supposed to be) uncontroversial. Though, it seems I can't even do CSD#R1 deletions anymore without someone getting angry. : - /

I think your discussion about the "watchlist effect" is spot-on. Not only do deletions show up in watchlists now, they also show up when attempting to re-create a page. And the detriment vs. benefit of these changes is unclear. One thing that is for certain is that my talk page is certainly busier than it used to be. There's also a "volume effect." For better or for worse, had I made the deletions that I recently made a lot more slowly, fewer people would have noticed / cared. The watchlist updates would have been spread out over days, and the talk page complains would have been spread out over weeks. Which I think explains how a lot of these deletions have been going on for years without any real notice given to them.

You've asked for a deletion analysis previously. I should be able to create something, though I'm not really sure what you're after. A lot of my earliest deletions were a wide variety of speedy deletions. I'll probably have to have a DB query run to get the full list and then it shouldn't be too difficult to parse. I'll get back to you on this.

Thanks for the heads-up regarding AGK's talk page. I read what you wrote there. I don't understand how you have the stamina to write as much as you do... : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry I haven't had time to answer yet, but it is good to understand things a bit better. I see AGK has a nifty "backlog of talk page posts to answer" system. I should try that some time! Carcharoth (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I had one of the Toolserver folks pull all of my deletions from the database. There wasn't much I could do too easily to analyze them properly. However, I did remember that I've been writing a user subpage for a few months that you might find interesting. It's sort of technical, but it breaks down a lot of the maintenance work I do. It still needs quite a bit of updating, but it's a start. It's /CSD in my user space. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group (3rd nomination)

There are better ways of resolving problems with the BAG, such as WP:CENT. The current looks of the MFD is a 9-0 tally (excluding the nominators), and I would just speedy keep this one per WP:BOLD and WP:SNOW, but there are multiple requests on the page to let it run longer. Please let me know if you still object to it being closed early. Useight (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that CENT is one of the other options, but really, a 5-day discussion is not going to harm things. My view is that having the tag on WP:BAG for 5 days (drawing attention to the problem in a way that CENT would not - or do cent discussion tags get high profile visibility on a page?) is better than closing the discussion early and people edit warring again (it has been going on for months). People might say block or topic ban the edit warriors, but I've not convinced that would be the right course of action here because (a) Locke Cole does have a valid point; and (b) those reverting are BAG members, so it is difficult to judge neutrality. This is, again, partly why I didn't want to accept a BAG membership nomination. If the current tag were replaced by one to a discussion, then a close might be a good option. Finally, part of the problem is that Miscellany for Deletions are really sometimes just centralised discussions by another name. MfD came before CENT, and I'm not convinced that CENT solved all the problems or gets people's attention as much as it should. A visible tag on the BAG page itself and other location is the only way to get enough input, I think. Certainly, Locke Cole should have explored other options, but once the discussion is open, moving venue can sometimes be counterproductive. I'd still favour waiting to see what happens. Carcharoth (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arghh, I got into some lengthy discussion with another Wpedian on other things whilst looking at the MFD. I was going to !vote "whatever Carch says" (with the option to say whatever I thought), but now it's closed. Dang! Sweeping under the table doesn't seem a good approach here, but I guess I'll wait 'til the next inevitable go-round. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 08:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of page move redirects that were a year old

Hi there. Could I ask you to look in on the discussion at the bottom of the section here? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied but I can't see why this is an issue. --Kleinzach 08:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Appreciate

Thank you little Carchzilla. bishzilla _ROARR!! 12:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

Monthly updates

Thanks, that's kind of you to say so! TONY (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Your question...

.. has a reply - thanks! FT2  21:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

. . . BTW, your note at the bottom of the page

You wrote: " . . . BTW, your note at the bottom of the page . . . . There are ways to do this cleanly, probably involving transcluding from a subpage, but it can get complicated. Just letting you know there is a solution if you want to avoid moving it down to the bottom all the time." . Thanks indeed. How can I do this? --Kleinzach 23:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Library of Congress (loc.gov) Image Titles

The following Discussion/Talk about Image:Project Paperclip Team at Fort Bliss.jpg was posted elsewhere instead of at that image's Talk page:

I've come across a Library of Congress (actually, Historic American Engineering Record) picture similar to Image:Project Paperclip Team at Fort Bliss.jpg, which seems to have been taken at around the same time, but where the provided information contradicts what is said at Image:Project Paperclip Team at Fort Bliss.jpg. The image is here, and it says: "34. HISTORIC VIEW OF GROUP PHOTO OF THE GERMAN ROCKET DESIGN TEAM SHORTLY AFTER THEIR ARRIVAL AT THE REDSTONE ARSENAL IN 1950." The image is number 34 on the list here (click on the "53 B&W images" link at the top to get back to the pictures). ... User:Carcharoth (Commons) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

However, the hyperlink identified as 53 B&W images" displays a page of thumbnails with captions -- captions that are themselves hyperlinks to the images. Please note that the hyperlink caption is what generates the inaccurate title for the image and that the actual image in question does not have a title. To illustrate, here is a link that has a different title for the image in question

Also, please note that the file Image:Project Paperclip Team at Fort Bliss.jpg has an Other Versions section, which is where an Edit is appropriate (instead of Discussion/Talk). Likewise, the Image page also identifies that there are differing captions for the Image. Mugs2109 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow up on topic ban

Hi Carcharoth, I've tried to reach you by email but haven't heard back from you. I am curious to hear what conclusions, if any, you reached about my topic ban. (I've asked John about this too.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think the pages are currently imperfect in the ordinary way. That is, I think they need to be improved by ordinary, civil editing. On the current interpretation of the ArbCom ruling, however, the pages are likely to become biased in a different way. A particular POV has been identified and is now being actively marginalized. I don't even hold that POV, and I've been banned just for proposing to treat its proponents with a modicum of respect.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comets

Yes, I think that probabably means old style/new style, since January would still have been in 1664. These were later comets than the one James saw in 1618, but, reading around this, it seems that Robert Hooke thought one of the comets was the 1618 one returning. Although he actually turned out to be wrong, he was on the right lines in believing that comets were a returning phenomenon, as Halley proved much later. Interestingly, it seems that the scientific community in 1664-65 did not consider the idea of the comet as a portent, which was still a big deal in 1618—shows how far scientific thought had advanced in the interim. One gets the impression from Pepys of a scientific age in full swing by then.

Awadewit and I have put Mary Shelley up for Peer Review, if you can find the time to have a look. Not really my period, but I've immersed myself in the books and tried my best to keep pace with Awadewit. I'd be very interested in your thoughts on the "Naples charge" (see "Italy" section): this is a true mystery, with several equal possibilities: I hope to do an article on it sometime. I cannot solve it, but I wouldn't put that past your intrepid self. I've become obsessed with cracking it. qp10qp (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like an insoluble mystery. Particularly as the child died young. In fact, it is rather depressing reading about all those children dying young. And then I got to the bit where her husband dies in that boating accident: Percy Bysshe Shelley#Drowning. That is a really fascinating mystery! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't find that one so much of a mystery; I don't really believe any conspiracy theories about it. But what happened in Naples is extraordinary because clearly you had four people sworn to secrecy about what was going on. It's Elise who breaks ranks two years later. Basically, she says that Claire had Shelley's baby in Naples, and this is by far and away the biggest clue and the biggest likelihood, it seems to me, yet it seems none of the commentators go for it. My first principle is "never neglect the obvious", but that's exactly what everyone seems to be doing. The reason one has to be on top of one's game with Claire and the Shelleys is that in my opinion the threesome's journals are totally rigged. I don't think most scholars can quite grasp the fact that they are being blatantly duped by people who knew full well the power of diaries and the likely scrutiny of posterity. qp10qp (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Putting threat looming overhead behind me

It's not possible to put the threat behind me, because one of the biggest problems on Misplaced Pages, outside of the missing articles on major topics in tropical agriculture and its pests, is the amount of misinformation or poorly sourced information. This needs tagged. I'm not allowed to tag content as needing sourced on Misplaced Pages or I'll be banned. Looming threats lie overhead, not in front. I do hope you don't get whatever information you do have on tropical plant diseases from Misplaced Pages, though. ANd I'm sorry when I see so much bad information returned via google searches that find these Misplaced Pages wrongs. But, thanks for the note. --Blechnic (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll just get banned if I point things out, so there's no benefit in it. Right now I edit crap, and it passes the time.

I shoot micrographs and have issues with false colorization for electron micrographs, except when the colors are for light micrograph sized critters and the colors are correlated with the LM, which is what I do: EM (SEM and TEM) and LM, as usual, then colorize my SEMs only according to my light micrographs. On Misplaced Pages it's done poorly by amateurs who know nothing about micrographs. For example, there's a featured picture where the carbon sticky tape has been elaborately colorized along with the bug. I was going to post some of my micrographs, but the quality of micrographs on Misplaced Pages is so poor and the editors so entrenched in keeping the poor ones that it seems pointless. There are excellent sources on-line about tropical agricultural pests, although in my area, tropical West Africa, most are in French--copyright laws in western Africa are diverse and complex. The limits are in the sources that describe the morphology of the pests and the ecology of the ecosystems. Still, there's good on-line material, particularly viruses. --Blechnic (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion Peer Review

Hello. You would be interested in participating in the peer review of the Priory of Sion article? --Loremaster (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Image work

Actually, after receiving some advice by e-mail, I'm going to just disregard Redvers' warning. It seems pretty plain from other opinions that the warning was not serious, and I'm sure Redvers got that message from what others have said. I don't anticipate any problems here. If Redvers replies to the concerns, that would be great, but I don't consider it necessary. Thanks for your work in defusing this, hopefully it results in improvements all around. I've certainly learned something. Kelly 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK - Redvers has responded. However, it seems that Redvers has a minority opinion, and if I modify my approach, the threat can be safely disregarded as irrelevant, I think. Given that a huge proportion of my work has been moving free images to Commons, and the big notice on the top of Redvers' talk page, I now see where the vehemence has been coming from. I will simply avoid this user. I personally think that User:Redvers/Say no to Commons should be sent to MfD as an attack on the good faith of a sister project (most of whose editors are also contributors here) but I am definitely not the right person to do that. Maybe I will call attention to the essay elsewhere, but I will do nothing until receiving your advice. As a Commons contributor myself (I do most of my work there) I find the essay insulting and disruptive, but I can just ignore it if need be. Kelly 18:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom proposal

I'd be very interested in your take on this current proposed ArbCom decision. Until a few hours ago, the only place this was being discussed on-wiki appears to have been the related proposed decision page and its talk page. Notices have now been posted on WP:VPP and WP:BLP talk page. Risker (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's 19:59, 24 January 2006 all over again... I'm stunned by the facts that

1. ArbCom issues rulings that clearly create policy,
2. That there is such a strong chorus of "They can do what they want, live with it," and finally
3. That stewards appear to simply rubber-stamp ArbCom.

I thought that we, as a community, had outgrown some of this elitism/appeal to authority. I came back to write articles, and this is practically the first thing that I see. *shakes head*

brenneman 00:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Marked as resolved

Well, I sure wasn't expecting anything better. Save your wind from posting on my talk page in the future. Don't worry, I'll do the same for you. --Blechnic (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

At some point, the threads have to end. If you want your incident to be raised separately, by all means do that. I am currently tidying up some loose ends from that thread. Yours is one of them. Carcharoth (talk) 07:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Both incidents should be resolved now. There shouldn't have been a second incident because there was a month of no problems.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I think it is more important to be diplomatic. You may have been right, I don't really care. The point is that Blechnic has got the wrong idea about how things work around here, and you should be making that clear, but not in the way you are. I would suggest an action you could take to help resolve things, but it needs to come from you, not me. Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a month of no problems, because I'm not allowed to tag articles because you brilliantly harrassed me. Is this forum shopping? I've heard of it. And there's no resolution as long as I am under threat of one more wrong move and I'm permanently banned from Misplaced Pages. I got the wrong idea? That's what I was told by an administrator. If I got the wrong idea, I was lied to. --Blechnic (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

My images

I like my images, and don't care how long it takes to load the page. And I'm sick and tired of people criticizing my talk page. --Blechnic (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it for now. Carcharoth (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ANI subpages

I think it's a good thing the ANI subpages, as it keeps discussion surrounding that particular user centralized in one place. Of course, if any thing did happen in the future, it'd be best just informing ANI of it. Some discussions (that Kelly one) was bridging over 100kb, and some discussions, notable the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/User:Andyvphil discussion, has now gone to 120kb and beyond. Having that on the ANI page was seriously clogging it up - in fact, in that discussion I believe serious advances have been made, so in that case, it was probably justified for it to have a subpage. I'm only doing it to unclog the ANI page, and some times it bridges towards 300-400kb, due to the weight of one or two discussions, which could still be discussed in some weight on a subpage and also because it states it in the header. Anyway, I'll stop creating/moving subpages for now. Feel free to bring it up at WP:AN, as I think we need a consensus about this. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Large ones, yes. Not all the time, though. I think WT:AN is the right place for the discussion, with a link from ANI and AN for visibility. Carcharoth (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. You go ahead and start the discussion, and I'll copy-paste my comment above. D.M.N. (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind starting the discussion? I need to do something else now. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'll leave a note at WP:ANI and WP:AN for visibility. D.M.N. (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

E miail

No, I don't accept this as anything but what it was and remains now that Ryulong seems to think he wants to continue: a gang band of a bunch of established editors and admins against an unestablished editor. And your comment doesn't remove the threat of being being banned from Misplaced Pages that Hersford issued. --Blechnic (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough

Done. Neıl 龱 09:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP remedy in Footnotes Arbitration case and Signpost coverage

Strictly speaking, the quote I used is exactly true. Whether it adequately summed up the effects that the remedy may result in is certainly another question. The remedy itself is vague, and upon initial reading, the "any and all means" quote seems to be aimed primarily at page protection and deletion, given the clarifying second sentence. Other actions like blocking would seem to encourage compliance with existing policies like the blocking policy. The second paragraph, particularly the "sanctions" part, seems to strongly encourage practices that are already in effect; my assumption given the ambiguous wording is that the sanctions have to hold community muster. The "emergency measures" part may be the only new part of the policy, by my reading, and even that is possibly "de facto" tolerated, assuming that such measures immediately go to community discussion.

Since I can't speak for the Committee, I certainly can't tell whether they meant to create new policy, or clarify existing policy. My understanding is that it was overwhelmingly the latter, and FloNight's recent comment seems to me to encourage that viewpoint.

You are right that I haven't done this much recently; while I handled the arbitration report from August 2005 until July 2006; David.Mestel wrote it from July 2006 until last month. I've been covering for him while he's been busy. Ral315 (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the reply. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnoted quotes

Heh...I just realized now that I'm using footnoted quotes in my current work, for instance Utah State Route 9#References. Good thing the case didn't actually have anything to do with these :) --NE2 23:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Meaning of "special"

I suppose the real answer will be somewhat anticlimactic, but here goes:

The word was not intended to mean anything in particular; rather, I was looking for a suitable name for this remedy, and happened to come up with "special enforcement" as a term that wasn't already being used for anything else. The provision is modeled, in spirit, after the existing discretionary sanctions; but, because it's somewhat different in setup, I wanted a distinct name to avoid confusion down the road. Kirill 00:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wording of some proposals

I can't speak for the wording of the template, not having authored it, but a large part of the problem you see is essentially with my own writing style—which tended towards overly dense prose to begin with, and has gotten worse after a year of drafting the bulk of arbitration decisions. I try to avoid getting bogged down in my own verbiage, but obviously that doesn't work all the time.

To be quite honest, I'd almost be in favor of having more informal commentary by the arbitrators accompany the formal decision in a case, particularly for broad and contentious cases. This could give us an opportunity to outline our reasoning and motivation in more detail, and perhaps allow the community more insight into how we approach the case. The drawback, of course, is that such openness would quite likely undermine the community's regard for our decisions; we are often not as uniform in our opinions as the votes would suggest, and too much sausage-making out in the open has a way of disturbing people in any case. Kirill 01:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment; If arbcom was concerned about the community regard for itself, and its decision, we would have seen less of arrogance and pontificating and more humility (more in line with the demeanor of now sadly gone NYBrad and Paul August.) If one ArbCom member habitually Meh′s from the bench, the other has no shame in saying that he does not read the statements that are "too long" to his taste, the third boasts not bothering to read the workshop, the fourth has a habit of saying what he "would like to see", etc., this is not helping in bolstering the community regard. --Irpen 02:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

How is transparency going to undermine anything? ArbCom doesn't have power to begin with. It has agreement from the agents of Misplaced Pages. Letting people see them reason poorly would give people a chance to speak directly to the causes of the bad result, but demanding that people pronounce by fiat their decisions as if from on high is a sure fire way to give people a choice only of obedience or leaving. I can't argue with your faulty step, if you don't show the steps. If all that we see is nothing at all and then an erroneous idea delivered with utmost force, the result is people leaving or defying. ArbCom is not the U.S. Supreme Court. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Coker response

Please see my response at ] MBisanz 08:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive request

Can you archive this? I'm afraid that Bishonen and I were editing simultaneously and it was requested I repost this my request to have it archived, but I didn't realize it had been deleted, etc., etc., etc. I ask you as you seem to be online. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a bot that archives it. I also see Bidgee is commenting in a new section. Hopefully someone will be able to come up with some response, as I don't have enough time to deal with it now. Sorry I wasn't around last night to reply earlier. Carcharoth (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

AE Post

Has a reply . MBisanz 08:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Coker and BLP

Hi. Thought I'd let you know I just banned myself. See the Coker talk page. I probably should have proposed standard medcab back in Jan. But on the other hand Alansohn never made any proposal at all that I can remember. Anyway, I hope you stay active in trying to settle this and hope other outside editors help settle this issue peacefully. Best wishes.12:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlevse (talk • contribs)

You should still participate in discussions, just not edit to enact or enforce them, IMO. But thanks for taking this step. I think it will help. I will try and remain (or rather, start to be) active there. Please drop me a note if I fail to keep up with the latest developments. Carcharoth (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When on the Coker talk page, you said "those previously involved"..."should not edit the article but should be free to use the talk page" (paraphrased), does that include User:Alansohn and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I am simply trying to avoid misunderstandings here. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone and everyone, but some people should avoid editing the page itself over the issue in question. At least for a period of time, and certainly not without discussing things first. Carcharoth (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Protection of User talk:Alansohn

May I ask what the reason was for protecting User talk:Alansohn? Does it harm anyone if he creates school articles while he is blocked? It might seem wrong, and maybe you are trying to enforce a break, but is it really going to help if it upsets him? Carcharoth (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been bothered with an e-mail yet, so it obviously doesn't upset him enough. If you don't think it's necessary, remove it. I just was under the impression that the user talk page is only editable during blocks in order for the blocked party to contest his/her block (hence why you can't edit other pages in your userspace that are equally, and perhaps more, trivial). -- tariqabjotu 18:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm...no. That has never been the case. The practice has been that user pages are protected when the "unblock" template is being abused, or the edits are inflammatory or violate policies like WP:NPA or WP:HARASS. It is the exception rather than the rule. Risker (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Excuse me for butting in, sorry...I'll get my coat

Something needs to be done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#My_comments I've been waiting since the 16th June. Admin's are failing to do what they should be doing here. I've lost my patients with waiting. Some needs to be done now. Blechnic's issue was raised on the 15th of June and was resolved on the 17th, yet I've been now waiting longer and nothing! Bidgee (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like someone to place a note in Bidgee's block log, along the lines of what was palced in Blechnic's, since when I placed the blocks, I placed them on terms I considered equal for what I viewed as equal violations, since Blechnic's has been overturned after discussion, its rather unfair to keep penalizing Bidgee for being less vocal. MBisanz 01:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm uncomfortable about the precedent, but I'll do that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright stuff

Originally posted here. Other editors invited to review the articles. Responses below.

The copyright thread at ANI is interesting. It got me thinking more about a series of articles I created back in April. They didn't get onto the main page, but they were created by effectively turning biographical data from a database into prose and wikilinking it and finding one or two other sources and tidying things up from there, though some were also built up from a PD DNB edition. The database in question is The Royal Society's Library and Archive Catalogues of brief biographical details of their Fellows. Would you be able to look at this list and have a look at a few of the ones from Augustus Matthiessen down to Thomas Lewis (cardiologist)? There are two points: (1) the copyright status of the biographical data; (2) the use of exact phrases. Regarding the latter, I'm afraid some of the phrases I used were not rewritten as much as they could have been. Compare the following:

• "'Augustus Matthiessen (1831-1870), chemist and physicist; studied at Giessen, 1852, and at Heidelberg, 1853; returned to London and studied with Hofmann, 1857; F.H.S., 1861; lecturer on chemistry at St. Mary's Hospital, London, 1862-8, at St. Bartholomew's, London, 1868: worked chiefly on the constitution of alloys and opium alkaloids." - User:Magnus_Manske/Dictionary of National_Biography/10
• "Worked with Bunsen in Heidelberg (1852-1856); isolated Calcium and Strontium in pure state; worked at the Royal College of Chemistry, London (1857); set up a laboratory at 1 Torrington Place to research the properties of pure metals; Lecturer in Chemistry, St Mary's Hospital, London (1861-868); Lecturer in Chemistry, St Bartholomew's Hospital (1868-1870); under severe nervous strain, committed suicide" The Royal Society entry plus biographical data in database form.
• "Augustus Matthiessen (2 January 1831, London; 6 October 1870, London), the son of a merchant, was a British chemist and physicist who obtained his PhD in Germany at Giessen in 1852. He then worked with Robert Bunsen at the University of Heidelberg from 1853 to 1856. His work in this period included the isolation of calcium and strontium in their pure states. He then returned to London and studied with August Wilhelm von Hofmann from 1857 at the Royal College of Chemistry, and set up his own research laboratory at 1 Torrington Place, Russell Square, London. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1861. He worked as a lecturer on chemistry at St Mary's Hospital, London, from 1862 to 1868, and then at St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, from 1868. His research was chiefly on the constitution of alloys and opium alkaloids. For his work on metals and alloys, he was awarded the Royal Society's Royal Medal in 1869. Matthiessen committed suicide in 1870 under "severe nervous strain"." My initial version of Augustus Matthiessen

Note that the Royal Society lists its sources as "Bulloch's Roll; DNB; DSB", though they don't specify which edition of the DNB they are working from, or when the information in that entry was compiled. I've also quoted directly from the award citations, but I think that is something different, and OK (though I should have put references in at the time to make clear where the direct quotes were coming from). If you have any thoughts on this, I'd be interested. You might need to look at a few of the other examples though, as this one (with a large chunk of text in the "database") is not representative. Most are just straight database entries that have been expanded quite a lot. For example, John Allan Broun and the Royal Society entry. Carcharoth (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation and plagiarism are not precisely synonymous. Then there's the issue of competing citation methods. Without spending too much time on this (I'm stretched a bit thin), the short answer is that if you're going to use another author's exact words, they ought to be attributed and in quotation marks. There are several ways to attribute paraphrasings, but it's not enough to mechanically change a word here and there. Take this example as a model for how not to do it. Durova 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see a problem with that. The only real similarities are in the order, but this is, after all, chronological. It could use more sources, yes, but the prose is substantially different, and, so long as it's referenced, it's not really a problem. The problem in that ANI thread was that whole sentences and even paragraphs were being used without any substantial changes, which isn't the case here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree (obviously). I think it is the difference between taking a collection of facts and turning them into prose (something User:Polbot did, by the way) and copying or only slightly rewriting a piece of prose that was itself written based on a set of basic data (in the ANI thread case about plants). Going back to the original data, or decomposing the prose and rewriting it, is OK, but it does need care. It is a problem though when some short stub entries in different publications use the same basic style and presentation (for good logical reasons), and it becomes difficult to transmit the same information in the same style without ending up with something substantially similar. Carcharoth (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I chafed in exactly the same way until I got used to it. If a little practical advice is what you're seeking, here's what I do in a pinch: open a text editor, paste the relevant paragraphs from the sources, and then draw a line on the document. Beneath that line I write my own synthesis. In order to counter brief spurts of writer's block I'll pour iced tea and play some jazz. Best wishes, Durova 18:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It helps me, actually, to read a passage, put it down and ask myself what did that passage just say? Sort of the classic reading comprehension exam in grade school. My memory is horrible enough that I can't remember actual passages, but instead I get the overall meaning. For technical terms, lists, or other words that I can't avoid, I use thesaurus.com pretty heavily. Every once in a while, I find myself using unmistakable words the source used, and I wonder if that's more of suggestion by proximity or association - as if reading it nearby snuck into my thought patterns. However, I do my best to change them when I find them. --Moni3 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c maybe e/irrelevant) I can't seem to get at the DNB sources to properly evaluate this, free links? Looking at Matthiesen, on the face of it "the son of a merchant" would rouse my interest - curious phrasing for a writer in 2008. I'm a little biased since I was involved in the Broun and errors on the RS website thing though. Franamax (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The DNB stuff is at User:Magnus Manske/Dictionary of National Biography. It is the Concise Dictionary of National Biography and the OCR scan is here, though they call it the "Dictionary of national biography : index and epitome (1903)". But looking at the phrase that caught your attention, yes "Son of a merchant" did come from the Royal Society website. Should that have been rephrased? Carcharoth (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Carcharoth, are you worried that you plagiarized? Or are you just curious what others consider plagiarism to be? First, I don't think that copyright violation needs to be determined. I think we can actually hold ourselves to a higher standard instead of feeling relieved if we figure out no laws were broken. I don't know how much of the text in the Everglades article was part of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britiannica, but that had to go. My goal was adding enough material to remove the tag. If it's been done, it's been done, regardless of copyright status. Second, what you did was take a skeleton of text and expand it into a paragraph. I think that's about the same as taking a graph and putting it into words using the numbers in the graph. I don't think that's plagiarism. That's more difficult to ascertain because the examples you gave were so short. It's a lot easier, of course, when there's more prose to compare. --Moni3 (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I worried I plagiarized? In some sense, yes, but I am also curious to see where others draw the line and where those articles I wrote come in the spectrum. I did try to aggregate information from at least three different sources, and to present the information in a different form, but sometimes a particular piece of information was only in one of the sources. Citing of sources are needed for verification, but also for attribution. As far as 1911, or other PD text, goes, I thought that the tag remained for ever, but in some ways removing the tag once it has been rewritten enough makes sense as well (the tag will still be there in old versions). Carcharoth (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I will review and rewrite, as necessary, these articles for you:

• • Ramsay Heatley Traquair
  • William Carmichael McIntosh
  • Henry John Carter
  • Central retinal vein
  • La Ferté-sous-Jouarre memorial

I have had a couple of conversations on the issue with Carol Spears. In general, Curtis Clark has a good point, Misplaced Pages doesn't have a plagiarism alert, but this is usually the problem, plagiarism, not copyvios. Yet, I believe that Misplaced Pages copyrights its own work, and this makes plagiarism problematic, I believe. I'm not a lawyer.

(outdent:) For what it's worth, I looked at a couple of the articles, but as I couldn't access the original sources, couldn't comment. For the example you give above, it looks fine on the whole: you put the phrase "severe nervous strain" in quotation marks; you should also of course have an inline citation there, to make it clear which source you're taking the phrase from. HTH. --jbmurray (talk • contribs)

Copying distinctive phrases from books without quotation marks

Unique descriptions and phrases copied exactly from books must be put in quotation marks as I did with "in the rock crevices and water-receiving depressions". It is not enough to correctly attribute the source, if the same exact phrase is used it must be in quotation marks. --Blechnic (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case I would add, in addition to unique descriptions and phrases, entire sentences or longer portions of text. It's a simple guideline. --Blechnic (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one problem is that people when they are citing something, they are also implicitly saying: this is where I got the information from. But they sometimes forget that if you preserve the form of the writing, you need to quote and attribute, and well as give a source, but I don't actually think the articles I wrote need much if any rewriting. I'll watch and see what changes you suggest or implement. Carcharoth (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

When Misplaced Pages was young, the threshold for copying was similar to a blog or diary. Now that Misplaced Pages is established, firm and harsh rules must apply. Misplaced Pages must follow the same rules as print encyclopedias. No copying, no plagiarism, no moving a few words around. Those who do must be notified and asked to stop. We have to start acting like a trustworthy group, not a band of kids writing half-copied term papers. We also need to have good customer service and courtesy, not gossip, IRC, etc. Model710 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Some actual examples would be nice though. Without plagiarising (obviously!) we need something with which to educate our readers. WP:PLAGIARISM/Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism or some similar title (maybe "avoiding" in the title?) would be good. I see the latter already exists and redirects to WP:Copyright problems, which has a section on plagiarism. We also have User:Andries/Wikipedia:plagiarism, but not much else. Carcharoth (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've proposed we create a separate plagiarism guideline (or rather, how to detect, deal with and avoid it). Please contribute at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think the point "distinctive phrases" is key here, as, again also previously pointed out, having important events in the subjects timescale in the same order is simply following a chronological convention; nobody is going to muck around too much with such a basic format (you can do something in the order of "Subject, the 2005 winner of Prestigious Award, was born in 1963 in..." where the notability comes first, but afterward everything will follow the timescale convention. It is when "distinctive phrases" are used without attribution you get into murky areas. Sometimes it is difficult to use appropriate phrases without it seeming to be echoing the source - but often in scientific areas you cannot substitute words like synthesize or reduce because they have a specific meaning within the context - and perhaps no meaningful substitute. Plagiarism will occur only if the original authors train of thought is transported wholly and without attribution into another article - Michael Faradays unwillingness to experiment in the same areas as Humphrey Davy until his mentor had died needs to be written in a dissimilar format to that of the source, because even thought it is true (and well known) it is a turn of phrase that truly belongs to the original author, so it needs to be said differently. This is where some knowledge of the subject is most useful - knowing what is precise and unalterable appropriate wording, and what is the original authors "distinctive phrases" when describing the article. The former must not be altered (as anything else will render it inaccurate) and the latter must be, to avoid suggestion of plagiarism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

LessHeardvanU's last point is very important and may have been the source of some problems with Carol Spears, namely her inability to distinguish a "distinctive phrase" due to limited knowledge of the subjects she was editing. This is, I think a problem with a lot of Misplaced Pages authors. I've removed phrases from articles that are so distinctive from single sources from well known authors, that no one in the field would fail to recognize the plagiarism, phrases that were used without attribution, without quotation marks, as if the Wiki editor just made it up themselves. I'm not sure what Curtis Clark meant about academics not editing Misplaced Pages because of the plagiarism, but this is why I hesitate to edit Misplaced Pages for the plagiarism: I come across articles where living scientists have had their work stolen and used to create an article that gives them no credit. I don't want to seem part of that, so I try to avoid editing articles where this issue arises. There are times in science writing where a distinctive phrase is precisely the choice to use, because altering it changes the meaning as LessHeardvanU points out, but you have to have enough knowledge of the subject to know which phrases are this, belonging to the subject, and which phrases belong entirely to that author. --Blechnic (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on Elonka's talk page

Carcaroth, thanks for your suggestion that Elonka and I should reach an agreement. I've posted a proposal which I think would be a reasonable compromise - see User talk:Elonka#Proposal. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

An invitation to show some balls

This is an invitation to use your real name and to divulge actual credentials, such as work history and education.

My supposition here is that it takes real balls to work with those things being splayed out for everyone to see -- not the splaying of balls, but the splaying of whatever makes you (or anyone else for that matter) think that they have any right to review, vote on and determine the quality of the work of anyone else.

The strength that seems to be felt from an anonymous internet does not seem to do so much to improve the content of 1)this chunk of the internet and 2)the rest of the internet.

I could be wrong, but I am right about this one thing, it takes balls to not work anonymously on the web. -- carol (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That's truly amusing. The sum total is invested in Carcharoth, there is no more you need to know. Judge that persona, he has always been consistent, it's all there, take a look through the contribs of Carch. What does it matter who the personal identity is? Judge the editor by the edits, it's all there for you to see. Franamax (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Franamax. You said it better than I could have done. Carol is right that it takes real balls to use your real name on Misplaced Pages. I have every respect for those that do, but I don't (yet) choose to do that myself. I also respect others that choose not to use their real names, or work under a pseudonym. Carcharoth (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What about when respecting the anonymous fails though? -- carol (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind the difference between anonymous and pseudonymous though. We are real persons, with real personalities, just like you. We're not really anonymous, it's our same selves using the same names, over and over. You might know me as Franamax, a lot of my good friends call me franco, a long-time nickname. Carcharoth is not anonymous at all, there is only one Carcharoth, with many thousands of edits, and hopefully we will see Carch at Tranche Beta pretty soon (hints broadly:). I don't care so much about the name you use, I care a lot more about your ideas and contributions. However you choose to tag yourself, it's your mind that makes the difference in the end. Franamax (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The beauty of Misplaced Pages is that anyone may participate. Carcharoth - or I, for that matter - could be a 12-year-old Ham radio enthusiast who has never stepped foot in the gardens of academe. None of that matters. What matters are the contributions each editor makes. We don't need letters after our names to publish material on what we find interesting. We just follow the MoS and cite guidelines and there it is for the world to see. Consequently, we can also review other articles and call into question any part of them. You may do that to mine, as can anyone who has access to the internet, including anonymous IP users. I see that as an advantage of Misplaced Pages. --Moni3 (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the problems I have created and were pointed out in the recent admin thing were when I asked people to either use a word correctly (or think about the use of a word) and I admit myself that words I have used boldly and with the strength of the others around me using them as well in a way which defied their meaning and defeated their purpose. Another incident mentioned is when a claim was made that a software could magically adjust for an aging problem in paper and I asked that this claim be substantiated. In that same administrative call out, a really well written defense was authored by a wikipedian who might be using a real name for his wikiuser name -- that user also provided information which really assisted me in understanding the botany information. So, there was a real name (perhaps), the claim of experience in the scholastic world of the subject and a wiki foot print of actual assistence with the subject instead of the often suggested 'if you don't know what you are doing don't author articles'.

If the twelve year old is making good edits and learning as the child goes and being productive with the encyclopedia; well, god bless this child and I want to be on that team. If the twelve year old is claiming experience in the higher education system and not substantiating this and other huge claims made annoymously, I think that the child should keep watching tele-tubbies (or whatever) until he has improved his self-esteem enough to be happy with who he is and looking forward to being who he wants to be.

I am actually excited if the people being contacted to review articles in my watch list are being contacted to review mine. I would prefer that people who had problems with me because they could not prove their claims about themselves and their tools be stricken from that list and consideration made from the other admin about the qualities that make the group of admin credible or not to the eyes of the users who watch and wonder.

And actually, there should be some place to really thank people for the review? The family Asteraceae is a very large part of the botany section of the encyclopedia; I have been trying to clean it up and somewhat standardize the articles (the taxonomy boxes and giving some articles references that did not really have any -- separating the food from the species and the gardening delight from the scientific presentation) and on the outside chance that review leads to assistance with the goal, I am all that more happy about the situation. -- carol (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you forget to Sine?

Can't help but notice this. I've told slakr before that I'll never be so grown up that I won't want that handy bot signing after me when I get too enthusiastic for the tildes. He's got an "experienced" directive in there though, as an edit count cutoff for those who should know better. Could we form a posse to hunt him down and demand a software change? I miss having Sinebot around to change my own personal diapers ;) Franamax (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I added myself to some list asking it not to follow me around. Mainly because I tweak stuff a lot and because there are times when you want to add text around something, or refactor a page, and not have a bot sign after you. Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Third party for Elizabeth Bentley

Would you act as a third party for the article Elizabeth Bentley. My additions to the article are still being reversed. There are three people reverting the deletions, that should constitute consensus. The three additions are: her employer, the spelling of her name, and material about whether her death passed with "relatively little notice" while having an obit in the New York Times and the Washington Post. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Another McCarthy-era article. I'll have a look. Carcharoth (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

At least he corrected his error, now that I pointed it out. He reverted back to his incorrect version multiple times, each time going back to an error he added. Everyone has pride in their edits, but reverting back to an error, just because you added it yourself, should not be acceptable . --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll pass for now. By the way, have you seen Julius and Ethel Rosenberg? Sounds like an interesting story. Carcharoth (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It still could use a third party. There are other issues in the RFC. It could also use a person to massage the paragraph about whether her death passed with "relatively little notice". Maybe you can come up with a way to combine the 4 publishers of her obit into one or two sentences that captures the notability of her death. Its getting very hard to get people to come to RFCs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rosenberg article is great. I like to bring the people on the edges of that era a little closer to the light. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Very cool, where did you find her marriage certificate? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I was joking. She wasn't married, was she? having said that, I do see a glimmer of hope here. Turrill was her mother's maiden name, wasn't it? Has that been discussed before? Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a subscription to ancestry.com that gives me access to birth, marriage and death certificates. That is where I find missing middle names. Ancestry also comes with the index to Who's Who which also is a great source for middle names and missing years of birth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the third party changes. Its much better to find a compromise wording or placement of information than just deleting new information. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Right, I hate to be a pain, but would you mind looking through the evidence I provided, and suggesting how I could best summarise it? I'm not very good at summarising evidence, I'm afraid; I think I tend to presume people are more capable of drawing conclusions from it than they are. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The way you presented it at ANI was fine (I know, sounds strange). Just laid out slightly clearer, and with the ANI babble stripped away, if you know what I mean? :-) Basically, on a page, with discussion taking place separately from the evidence, without the evidence all intertwined with the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. Should I start the RfC now, or wait until after Carol is unblocked and can comment? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As a courtesy, please wait until she is unblocked and can comment. If the RfC goes forward I can think of nothing worse than to smack her over the head with a page full of angry comments at her. --Blechnic (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I agree that you should wait. It is also sometimes best to start off with a draft in userspace. Framing an RfC the right way is tricky, and asking people to look at a draft first can help end up with an RfC that moves things forward, rather than increases the drama. Extensive evidence should still be on a subpage, otherwise no-one will bother to read it. Carcharoth (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

I'm not an admin, remember? I can't move pages over redirects, so had to leave German chamomile where it was. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. As I said, might move it now, but the other chamomiles are at the common names. Need to check. You could always start a move disucussion or ask at WP:PLANTS yourself. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay! =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)

RfC

How does User:Shoemaker's Holiday/RFCprep look? The Evidence page will contain the other comparisons from the discussion, maybe a few more if any show up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Incidentally, please ignore what I said about Durova being able to raise her concerns there. I had forgotten that This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. So I guess Durova gets to wait in the queue, which might be a weakness of the RfC system, but I think it is deliberate. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends, though. There is some connection, by way of the bizarre accusations made. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha!

Lol! Anyway, I've left comments about it at WT:BIOGRAPHY. Feel free to comment at the link. D.M.N. (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course! :P D.M.N. (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin question

Carcharoth, sorry to bother you, but you've offered good advice in the past on admin actions. Is it appropriate for an admin to redirect questions about their actions, or anything else, to an obscure subpage in tneir userspace in order to avoid scrutiny? The page mentioned is linked from Stifle's signature. Kelly 20:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Tis a bit strange. I saw that a few weeks ago. I'd raise your concerns with the editor first before seeing what others think. Carcharoth (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry again...

I'm sorry I was snippy to you on my talk page, I didn't realize that people were showing up there due to Jayvdb's link from the plagiarism discussion. Now that I realize that and I've re-read what you wrote several times I've realized that you may have even been lampooning the criticisms made. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Stanovoy vs Anadyr

Interesting situation. The Stanovoys near Lake Baikal are well-attested everywhere, while my one not-so-detailed map of Anadyr's region doesn't name any of the smallish mountain ranges. It could simply be that there is a minor range of the same or similar name, and the EB editors in 1911 didn't mention the distinction. I would just edit out the ref in the Anadyr article, let somebody else with more info add the real scoop. Stan (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Russert

I think the paper was trying to highlight the leaking of information. I wasn't aware that it was leaked onto Wikinews too. I suspect, also, they highlighted the project due to the common recognition of Misplaced Pages. Wikinews should get more coverage and things which Wikinews should be celebrated for shouldn't be assigned to Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure how to combat the situation except press releases, corrections when there are misassignments, and fostering partnerships with small newspapers and bloggers. --Oldak Quill 12:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The people at #wikinews tell me that Wikinews hasn't had any exclusive or first-to-break stories. A lot of competition between news outlets, I suppose. --Oldak Quill 12:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Surname lists etc.

I've been busy this week. I've completely rewritten the scripts that I used to make the lists, and I've only just finished with them. Just 15 minutes before you left your message, I uploaded a new version of User:Eugene van der Pijll/surnames. I'm not yet happy about the formatting of that page, so I'm now doing a new run. Tomorrow, I will have all people on Misplaced Pages in a database, and I can easily run queries on them, e.g. to make indices.

Just to give you an impression of the scale of the database: I've found 477579 articles on individuals; they have about 175,000 distinct surnames. Of these surnames, 116,000 are redlinks (so they would be inlcuded on User:Eugene van der Pijll/surnames); 95,000 of those redlinked surnames are carried by only one person in the database. I think we'll have to think about how much work can be done by hand, and how much by a bot.

I'll upload some more lists in the coming days; if there are things you would like to see, let me know. I think I'm going to use the Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for name disambiguation project page to put my lists on. Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'll upload the new, definitive list later today; I think we should invite other people to work on them then. At first, I think I'll only upload the proposed disambiguation pages, where there's more than one person with that name. I see these pages as navigational constructs; to help people go to the right page. That's why they are disambiguation pages; not full articles about the surname itself. That's why I use {{disambig}} instead of {{surname}}. But the preferred location of such lists of people is confusing; I wouldn't mind more feedback on that issue. Since it's only a matter of formatting, I can easily and quickly change this in the entire list. Let's discuss this in a central place later. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've improved the filter to catch biographies, and now I have about 504,000 articles on people. Still 17,000 less than the WPBIO people; I may want to add articles tagged with a {{*-bio-stub}} template, but I'll leave that until the next time I run the filter; it takes about a day to parse the entire database on my computer.

The sample that is now at User:Eugene van der Pijll/surnames is almost the final product. I think it's ready for wider discussion, so I'll put it at Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for name disambiguation soon. I have some ideas about creating an index for these pages; I'll come back to that later -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I do check {{lifetime}} and its redirects (even though I don't like them); the problem with Pedro Abad Santos is that that template was only added on May 29, and the database dump I'm using was created on May 24... I think I have the Unicode problems under control now. The Macs and Mcs will be a problem; I take the sortkeys as the surname (if available), but they are not consistent. I get entries like this one for Maccarty, with possibly another one for MacCarty, McCarty, and Mccarty:

'''Maccarty''' is a surname. People with this surname include:
* ] (1943-?)
* ] (1969-?)
* ] (1972-?), Adirondack Red Wings player
* ] (1977-?)
{{disambig}}

That is not good; I'll have to think about those some more. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

On the Mac/Mc business: for the moment, I'll let this rest. I know the output is not perfect, so we need some human supervision in adding these pages anyway. I may yet improve this in the next version of my scripts.

It's perhaps time to ask for other people's feedback. I've taken over the Misplaced Pages:Suggestions for name disambiguation, and put the first page of my list online. (These are all A's, so this does not include any Mc's.) Let's see if people like this thing. I'll spam some related pages with a link to my list in a few days... (I don't have enough time currently) -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for notes (and related edits) like this. You consistently make helpful edits of that nature and provide thoughtful feedback in many discussions. I just wanted to thank you and let you know it is appreciated. Vassyana (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks. It is also appreciated! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

wikisource work

Since you're serious about this, and also a busy person, I'll give you some bite size chunks of work to get you started, and try to give you a broadest possible understanding of Wikisource in a shortest possible period of time. Prepare for a bumpy ride.

1. On Latin Wikisource, sign in using your SUL account, and set your preferences to display English. Head to s:la:Liber:De_assensione_Stoici_quid_senserint.djvu, click on the yellow "8", and verify the page. The page has already been proofread, so it should be 100% accurate. All you need to do is verify that the text on the right is accurate version of the image on the left. - 10 mins max. Click edit. If there was only a minor tweak required, make the change. Down near the edit summary is a set of radio buttons called "Page status". Click green if it is perfect. Click blue if you find a major problem. Click Save.
2. Log onto English Wikisource as soon as possible. You need to be autoconfirmed in order to understand s:Help:Patrolling.
3. Verify s:Page:A Concise History of the U.S. Air Force.djvu/7 and/or s:Page:NYT - Fatal fall of Wright airship - transcription.djvu/1; or s:Page:H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976) Page 216.djvu (this is a bigger task, but has a higher profile); or s:Index:Rusk note of 1951 (which is four images)
4. Proofread s:Page:Wind in the Willows (1913).djvu/163 and/or s:Page:Nietzsche the thinker.djvu/11 and/or s:Index:Publick Occurrences
5. Proofread s:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Veni Creator Spiritus using the pagescan found on the accompanying talk page; it needs to conform closely to the actual presentation in the original. At least one correction is needed: the verse should be wrapped in <poem>Creator Spirit, ... worthy Thee.</poem>. Before you click save, there are a set of "Text advancement" radio buttons. These are the main namespace equivalent of the "Page status" radio buttons (mentioned above) which only appear in the "Page" namespace.

   Once that is done, you can edit Misplaced Pages page Veni Creator Spiritus, replacing the newadvent link with {{wikisource-lang|la|Veni, Creator Spiritus}} and {{wikisource|Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Veni Creator Spiritus|"Veni Creator Spiritus"<br/>in Catholic Encyclopedia 1913}}.

   Notice that the local Misplaced Pages page has English lyrics, without attribution. The Misplaced Pages talk page has a link, but those lyrics are slightly different. A google search brings up one Misplaced Pages, so it is probable that it is based on the edition listed on the talk page, and adapted by Wikipedians. i.e. it is OR. Misplaced Pages is littered with these. If I have time, I reconstruct the translation history from the Misplaced Pages edit history, in order to contact the contributors and try to establish that it is there own work or not, so that I can copy it over to Wikisource with only the appropriate attribution recorded for GFDL purposes, or ask those contributors to recreate the translation from a fresh slate on Wikisource. As often as not, the contributors either cant be reached, or the contributors reply that they copied it from a modern work (i.e. illegal) - I can send you evidence of this if desired. More thoughts on the yet to be written "Misplaced Pages is not Wikisource" essay here: Talk:Poetry_of_Catullus#Please stop tagging Catullus poems for (re)moval. Only in the most obvious cases do I bother to remove the lyrics from the Misplaced Pages article, because usually I am reverted.

6. While on the topic of translations, I suggest you take a look at s:Category:Works by original language, s:Category:Translations and s:Category:Wikisource translations. The last category consists of collaborative translations; sadly policy writing is our strongest point, so our guidelines are not indicative of our ability to manage this. Some of our better examples being s:Max Havelaar (Wikisource), s:Balade to Rosemounde (featured), s:Bible (Free) (specifically take a look at s:Talk:Bible (Free)/2 John), and s:Romance of the Three Kingdoms (this last one is a mind boggling effort - thousands of en.wiktionary entries have been created by the two Wikisource translators working on this project!). John Vandenberg 09:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Something got chopped off above? Anyway, cool! I went there and knew enough Latin to change my language, and I found a typo on page 20 - "Elcetram" (which I didn't fix) - does that make me qualified to help out too? I mean spotting the typo, not failing to fix it :) Franamax (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has been chopped off; I am going to be periodically expanding the list. Sure you can help. Sure you can help. If you have found a problem with s:la:Pagina:De assensione Stoici quid senserint.djvu/20, edit the page and mark it as a problem! if you cant figure out the correction to make, just add a "?" so someone else knows where the problem is. John Vandenberg 06:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please advise

You weighed in at Talk:Reaction to Tim Russert's death, so I thought I would ask you for advice. The folks who argued (and lost) for deletion at the AfD are now tag-team blanking/redirecting the article. I'm at the edge of 3RR, I believe. Is it acceptable for them to do this, and then warn me (as Horologium did at his talkpage) about it? What, if any, recourse do I have about this? I've already started a thread at ANI about it. S. Dean Jameson 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)