User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Carcharoth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "unreferenced", "fact", "cleanup", "merge"etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 10:47 4 October 2007 (GMT).

Thanks. I was trying to remember how to link to the talk page discussion. This is how I've done it now. I did it for the other one, but forgot for this one. Hope that's OK now. Carcharoth 10:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Splendid, thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 11:14 4 October 2007 (GMT).

Yes, it does sound convincing. Sir Carchlock strikes again! A brilliant discovery about "Walke Pauls", I must say! And there was me trying to be all William Empson about it. What an odd place to go for news, though, a cathedral. Of course, churches were dens of iniquity in those days, now I come to think about it. Pepys used to go to different ones each week according to which woman he wanted to chat up, which he did during the sermon. It was almost the only chance there was to get a respectable lady at your mercy.

Catherine de' Medici was also very interested in comets, I've been finding out. She had this tower (right) built for her astronomers to study the sky from. Looks a bit puny now, doesn't it; but it was quite something in its day.qp10qp 17:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

A blast from the past! It seems like that message was from months ago, but the response was well worth waiting for! I might even get round to writing something on the comet that inspired James I. Confusingly, it seems there were three comets, which is why I went off the idea of that article. Carcharoth 19:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, dear Carcharoth, THREE comets should have aroused your interests further. I would have thought a detective like you would know that one murder in the village is mere jejunosity, whereas THREE........! Give the cat another goldfish.

On the subject of what pages I watch, I keep a fairly blank watchlist. My responses, like comets, appear somewhat randomly, I confess. But they are sure, like comets, to appear in the end, usually with their backsides on fire.qp10qp 20:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The cat liked the jejune goldfish. That's a word I never thought to see someone use in everyday conversation! If the comets work out, I'll let you know. Carcharoth 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Tolkien family was nominated for deletion, and it looks like it will get deleted. Maybe it should be merged into Category:Tolkien so that the articles don't fall out of the cat structure? (Category:Inklings is BTW also there.) Súrendil 14:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted indeed, as I feared. Sigh. Súrendil 18:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added former cat members to Category:J. R. R. Tolkien, but I'm not sure whether Simon Tolkien, Tim Tolkien and Baillie Tolkien should go there. BTW, maybe Eucatastrophe and Cellar door would be better placed in Category:Tolkien, as "after Tolkien"? Súrendil 13:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Category fashion comes and goes. It's not the end of the world. I felt Eucatastrophe and Cellar door were more personal to Tolkien, but maybe you are right. If we strictly limit the personal category to family and books about him, it will be more logical. I also feel that somewhere there should be a list (maybe in Wikipedia namespace) of articles related to Tolkien and Middle-earth, but not related enough to go in a category. This would generally be articles on the "what links here" lists for Tolkien and Middle-earth. Sometimes it is enough to link between two articles without having a category. Carcharoth 23:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged. Oops. Do you suppose we need a comment to keep people from "fixing" the ff?

Give the cat structure some more dried goldfish for me... Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was Ff, but then found her webpage. Comment to stop others correcting it? Maybe. If you think people will read it. Carcharoth 17:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments show up at the point of editing, and are therefore the last guard against know-it-alls. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I copied it here. 1of3 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, when i stated that "the police know everything". I did not really mean it, and my guess was that they went on wikipedia and found the incident and contacted Eliz that way, i do not think that it was a fake email. From experience the police handle these type of incidents quickly and efficiently. Cheers! Tiptoety 01:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

On 11 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Astronomische Nachrichten, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realise that DYK attracted the wrong sort of eyes too. I guess congratulations are in order, for putting Astronomische Nachrichten into the eyes of the vandals; lets hope they read a little of it before they poop on it. John Vandenberg 01:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If an page image are not kept on a system that I trust, I upload them onto Commons. This is normal procedure, and there is a special extension on Wikisource that allows side-by-side comparisions. See s:Page:Astronomische Nachrichten No. 44 - Herschel.png. With Astronomische Nachrichten, I have been using ADS, so I have not bothered to upload each page image onto Commons, as I trust ADS to be around for a while. Did you see that I added images to commons:Category:Astronomische Nachrichten. Those are all of the figures that are in the first two years. Not many. I think that Schumacher will only have added those images on issues that had important content, so it would be good to figure out which article they relate to. There is also a latin book that Schumacher included the cover and three pages of as an appendix to an issue. I intend to transcribe that as well :-)

I do try to OCR the text, but often that doesnt work, so I type them out by hand. It also means I take in more of the content. s:The Times/The Late Mr. Charles Babbage, F.R.S. needed to be typed by hand, but in my opinion it is far easier to type that obituary up than it is to do the equivalent amount of improvement to the Charles Babbage article. Some of the obit may be wrong, but once the errors have been noted, there is no further changes required. Finished uploads can also be protected.

Regarding linkage from Wikisource to Wiktionary and Wikipedia, that is normal practise, where the linkage improves the ease with which the reader can understand the text. I am always cautious about links, because if I have it wrong, it is not likely that someone else will correct it, as there are less people involved in WS. I left of a lot of links that I wasnt sure about because I was hoping to have some additional help with that. I was expecting the help from the people who watch Charles Babbage, but it looks like you have found cross-linkages that make me confident the linkage is correct.

Where linkage doesn't make sense, every page has a "notes" field in the header, which is free text for Wikisourcians to provide more general notes for the reader. It is also permitted to add editor footnotes on Wikisource, but with works that include its own footnotes, it can become confusing to the reader.

John Vandenberg 07:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Information regarding the source of the text is placed on the talk page. See s:Talk:Astronomische Nachrichten/Volume 72/Beobachiung der Sonnesfinsterniss am 18. August 1868 zu Windsor in New South Wales. (ignore the naming convention; they are in flux over there at the moment.

The Page: corresponds to the Image: (which is on commons and should have precise source information), and then multiple Page:'s are transcluded onto a mainspace article for the finished product. see here. btw, im going to be afk for an hour. John Vandenberg 07:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Your action seems completely reasonable. Zargulon 13:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

		With thanks!
		Thanks for participating in my RfA, which closed successfuly. I leave you with a picture of the real Blood Red Sandman! Note his 'mop' is slightly deadlier than mine! - - Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to know how many biographies don't have defaultsort, for example watchiing each article in each Category:XXXX births, searching "defaultsort" string. My bot run for 1700 births to 1830 putting some thousands defaultsort, but there are a small group of biographies (between 1700 births and 1830 births) that haven't got defaultsort (because they are special cases, althought it is possible to do a list for humans). When all (or almost all) biographies have got defaultsort, it is so easy to do a bot for to put defaultsort key into talk-page template WPBiographies, exactly "listas" parameter. Then, Category:Biography articles with listas parameter would show all (almost all) biographies in English Wikipedia sorted. --Emijrp 07:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What I am after is not a one-time search in a limited area, but a continuously updated category over the entire Wikipedia. A search will be out-of-date within a few days.

Also, I approached the problem by thinking that {{WPBiography}} would provide a more comprehensive list of biographical articles. It turns out that the transclusion list of that template also includes lots of musical groups articles, which cover the musicians in that group. This is rather unfortunate. This also excludes articles that don't yet have WPBiography on their talk page. Your approach of using the birth categories only works if the birth year is known (unless you include the unknown birth year categories as well), and, more importantly, you won't pick up the articles that haven't been put in a birth year category yet. But both approaches should get the majority of well-written articles.

One thing I would be careful with with DEFAULTSORT is that some naming conventions are difficult to understand. Chinese and many other languages sort names differently. Also, the defaultsort should no include special characters or accents, because those sort in a different way. I'm tempted though, to say that this can be sorted out later - and I think, from looking at the bot request, you are only copying what people have already put in the category sort key, so if the initial mistake is there, you are perpetuating it, but there is not much we can do about that.

But the main thing I am after is a rough idea of the ratio of articles with DEFAULTSORT to those without. ie. You added thousands, but how many already had it? And Is there a way to scan the entire list of articles with {{WPBiography}} on their talk page (warning: this is a large list of over 400,000 articles) and give a number for those without DEFAULTSORT? That is the key figure I've been after for many months. Carcharoth 07:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• You also said "it is possible to do a list for humans" (for the ones that the bot couldn't handle) - ooh, yes please! :-) Also, I think that all articles should have DEFAULTSORT, even when the title is the DEFAULTSORT. If this is not done, there is no way to distinguish a page with no DEFAULTSORT that doesn't need one, from a page with DEFAULTSORT that does need one, if you see what I mean Carcharoth 07:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm hoping I didn't go overboard in deciding to just create the nomination statement now and letting you get to it whenever you get to it. I'll be honest, I've never bothered someone about adminship this much, I just think you'd be that good of an admin. Hopefully you'll accept this, but if wish to wait then that's fine as well. If you're still deciding then sorry if I'm being too pushy, I'd just love to see you with the tools :) Wizardman 03:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm very flattered by that nomination statement! I think I will go ahead this time, as otherwise I will dither until the cows come home! I just want to do a few things first (less than I would in an ideal world, but I still feel these need to be done): (1) Tidy up my user pages a little bit (I've been putting this off, so this should provide the impetus for that); (2) Go back through my user talk page archives and find people who have previously suggested or offered nomination (would contacting them be considered canvassing? - I don't think so, but I know how touchy a subject that can be - I would ask them to co-nom, but I would prefer to avoid that - I'd ask them to support instead, but that does feel like canvassing!); (3) Think up some sensible answers to the questions (obviously!), especially what I would use the tools for (hopefully some of this reply will cover it); (4) A brief explanation of why I dithered for so long and why I'm biting the bullet this time (I must try and keep everything brief!); (5) Take the time to read the main administrator-related pages and update myself with what has changed - and say that I will re-read the subpages and other related pages before carrying out any actions covered by those pages; (6) Make clear that, if I am given the tools, I will take it slowly with them at first (just as I did with the ordinary editing tools); (7) Change my e-mail address and enable it; (8) Point people at User:Carcharoth/Contributions for a personal survey of some of my contributions; (9) Make clear that I will not change my attitude or behaviour after RfA - it will just be more of the same, but without having to do things like use {{editprotected}}; (10) Note that my edit count should be taken with a pinch of salt, as despite my best efforts to use the preview button more, I still end up correcting typos and mistakes in my initial edits.

Um, I think that covers it. Any more? I'd want a day or two to sort my thoughts out, though I'll keep that brief to avoid it looking like I'm soapboxing any particular wiki-philosophy, and leaving some to add to answers to the questions and answers to any further questions people add. I'd think I'd be ready by about Wednesday or so. Shall I drop a note off for you then, once I've done the "accept, sign, answer questions" bit?

One final thing, I wonder if I'm allowed to comment on the nomination statement and suggest a few changes? I'm impressed with the stuff you've found (it shows you really have picked around through my contributions - I had forgotten the World Cup talk page contributions), and I appreciate the examples you've chosen, but as I rummage through my memory, I can think of examples that might be better than the ones you've chosen. If I tweak stuff a bit and provide other examples, would that make me a co-nominator? :-) Image:IWMcV.jpg for example is really a duplicate of a pair of stereoscopic images - I'm sure some people (including me) might argue that we should only keep one of them, so a better example of me providing a source would be Image:EPChristy.jpg or Image:Mansfield Lovell.jpg. Also, if you are going to mention redirects, would you mind not mentioning the Middle-earth redirects? I ask because I only set that up - another user User:YLSS has done most of the work. If you do want to mention redirects, you could mention Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, something I help to shepherd from proposal to (reasonably well) accepted guideline. You could also mention that I turned many redlinks at Royal Medal and Willard Gibbs Medal blue, simply by searching for the articles and creating redirects. I should add some of this stuff to my contributions page, but maybe I'll do that later. Could you also link directly to the non-free content talk page? WT:NFC should do the trick. Oh, and you've mis-spelt my name at one point. :-) (Lots of people do this).

Some final thoughts: it might seem like I contribute in a lot of areas but Wikipedia is such a large place there are many areas I've never even looked at. I do no vandal fighting, for instance, and I could list many other interesting areas that I just haven't had time to participate in. Right, that's enough for now. I may add more later, but I have a long list of things to do to get ready for Wednesday! :-) Carcharoth 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. I'll get to modifying my nomination statement around Tuesday. Thanks for accepting. Wizardman 01:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by with an arbcom notice and saw this - I think you'd make a fine admin. Picaroon (t) 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Carcharoth 17:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• (2) 1st, 1a, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and (finally, I hope) the one above, 8th. Hmm. Eight times? I hadn't realised it had got that bad. More than eight people as well (for the record: User:jc37, User:Cbrown1023, User:Mirlen, User:Gurch, User:Durin, User:Guinnog, User:Radiant, User:Samuel Wantman, jc37 (2nd), User:Viridae, Sam(uel Wantman) (2nd), User:Wizardman, User:Pascal.Tesson, Wizardman (2nd), jc37 (3rd), Wizardman (3rd), User:Picaroon).
• (11) (new point) - important point to make that I have a great deal of sympathy with those who don't want to become admins and make a point about it, or who resign to devote more time to editing. I also think that it is important that people remember how things look when you aren't an administrator (mainly the differences in interface and the abilities to look at deleted revision in places like deletion review). This is similar to logging out every once in a while and reminding yourself what Wikipedia looks like to people without an account.
• More here later... (Wizardman, if you are reading, I may need an extra day to finish up, but don't worry, I'm definitely going for it this time - finding eight previous suggestions that I accept an RfA has made me realise I was being silly to dither for so long)! :-) Carcharoth 17:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• (1) is sort of done now, though the subpages are still a mess... Still need to do 3, 4, 5, and 7. Carcharoth 02:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright then. I fixed up the nomination so basically whenever you're ready just transclude it. :) Wizardman 02:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That's great, thanks. Apologies for the public ticking of notes off a list... :-) Will now aim for tomorrow. Carcharoth 02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

0. Acceptance statement (thank nom, find brief way to summarise some of my thoughts on why accepting now).

1. What admin work do you intend to take part in?

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Review past contributions to help answer this. Carcharoth 02:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

All the above done. Nearly ready to go! :-) Carcharoth 01:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Just to answer your couple questions, there's no rule about when to add the nominator support. I usually add it after it's transcluded myself, so I'll so remove it and readd it upon being put on the page. As for the mathbot links and edit summaries, those are added by others, you don't have to worry about them. I believe that's everything, if you have more questions feel fee to ask Wizardman 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(Visualise petulant look here) - No fair, no fair, no fair... I wanted to co-nom : (

(That said, great job on being bold, I personally think that it's about time. : ) - jc37 17:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You can still co-nom if you want, you got a bit of time.

Plus from when I wrote it up and he posted it as a couple days, you had time :P Wizardman 18:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I had thought about it, but I decided that between your text, my text, and his text, we'd swamp the page : )

So I just added a couple things from my nom that you both hadn't covered much as a part of my comments.

And I can't believe that I missed this going on! His talk page is one of the places that I usually keep an eye on. (I guess having over a thousand pages on my watchlist may cause such things to happen - looks like it's time to prune again : )

Anyway, again, great job. Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 18:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on breaking the 100 mark : ) - jc37 12:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! - Thanks for the congrats. I was going to wait until it was over to drop you a note, but I'll apologise now for not letting you know about the nomination, as I know you wanted to co-nom. It all started happening very quickly once I decided to accept Wizardman's nom, and I wanted to avoid lots of co-noms, but I think you were the first person to suggest a nomination, and I hope you found my link to that in my statement! Carcharoth 12:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did : )

And no worries about missing out on the co-nomination. I hope you caught on that I wasn't serious in my "petulency" : )

And as I mentioned above, I suppose I still could have, had I chosen to. But I felt that 2 verbose people in the intro was enough, you probably didn't need a third : ) - jc37 12:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

At the time I just noticed it was broken, which in the past has been why people start removing this template from articles. Someone took it out of Troll (Middle-earth), and I only saw why he did that after I reverted it. I didn't bother analyzing it at the time; I just wanted to fix it.

On looking it over, it was probably the space between the two cats, but that's just a guess. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Put the status on Wikipedia:Bot requests in case others are interested. It's coming along, but I've had less time than I thought I would so it will be a bit longer. -- JLaTondre 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note :)

I've fixed the name typo (too much wiki on my mind obviously), clarified the clarification issue, and noted the old AFD more. I ignored it since an AFD (which isn't even part of DR) and no formal warning visible, over 2 years ago, seemed rather poor grounds for a ban without warning unless something had happened in between. Other thoughts welcome - does this fix it for you? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

People hastily closed CSN because it was imperfect; now we have a worse situation at ANI. The mob effect is stronger there. I proposed creating Wikipedia:Disruptive editing/Noticeboard and that was shot down. Maybe you can create Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Noticeboard since you're so popular.  :-) It should be a rite of passage. New admin tries to make a change for the better, and gets hazed by the grizzly regulars.

We do need a better situation. Arbcom can't possibly handle all these cases themselves. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

01:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I won't have time until after the weekend to have a proper look at the tools, but I'd like to thank everyone who supported my RfA. I won't be dropping off thank-you notes to everyone, but I may respond to a few of the comments on individual talk pages. Carcharoth 17:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

147-0-0! Blimey. You won't need any advice from the likes of me, as I have no doubts you'll be absolutely awesome, but good luck! Neil ☎ 17:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats! You were definitely as deserving as I thought you were. You beat all my other (non-co-nom) nominations in supports, by like 80. And for good reason. Good luck, though you'll do fine. Wizardman 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, congratulations! I would've definitely voted for you if I knew you were running! —Mirlen 01:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Writing all those thank you notes will be quite a task. Congrats! - Jehochman ^Talk 01:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mazel tov! And good luck... HG | Talk 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Con-gwad-yew-washuns!! : ) - jc37 02:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As expected, congratulations on your wonderfully successful RfA! You deserve it, dear! Ariel♥Gold

Ariel♥Gold 03:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Middle-earth
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Arda
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor places in Beleriand
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gondor

Uthanc 08:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Carcharoth, Congratulations on becoming an administrator. Obviously, it is unlikely that you will know how to use the tools at first and mistakes are bound to happen, so if you would like to practice using them, with step by step guides to follow, in an environement that you can do no harm in, then why not pop down to the new admin school where we have pages on blocking, deleting and restoring pages, protecting and unprotecting pages and viewing deleted pages. Once again, congratulations and best of luck with the tools. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

In the discussion over at WP:Me S's talk page concerning balancing outside sources with primary ones - I think CBD has a good system set up that we could follow. Of course, there are exceptions needed in the system - as there should be - but it's a start, at least for the location articles. Once we establish some sort of system, we should get started on the merging drive as soon as possible. As you have said, we have about 150+ tagged articles on our hands questioning their notability, and while some are notable, I do think there are definitely some out there that could be merged. After we have a sufficient amount merged, we could focus on finding several sources independent of primary ones in order to establish "independent notability." What do you think? —Mirlen 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman referred me to you as someone aware of the Sadi Carnot case but not directly involved enough to have questions raised about impartiality. Tree Kittens has been working on the mess since the beginning of theHuman molecule afd and Gladyshev afd. In the Georgi Gladyshev afd, she discovered that Georgi, Lim Thibbs (Sadi Carnot in real life), and one Lin Shukun all were self published by the same publishing house, and were the only people published by that publishing house. Lin Shukun has been a quiet editor for a long time. Created Nov. 19, 2006, with one burst of edits between the 18th and the 25th of February. During the discussion of Sadi Carnot, Lin Shukun suddenly became quite prolific again, with [|250 edits] since the 24th of October. Kww 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I agree that this definitely needs looking into. I think you are asking me to take action with my admin hat on, but I'm new to the tools and would prefer to ease my way into that - I intend to start looking at CAT:CSD in a few days. Furthermore, as there is an active arbitration case on this matter, I think it is best if this gets as much scrutiny as possible. I'd would say for immediate action: (1) Talk to User:Linshukun; (2) If you are still concerned after the discussion, raise the matter at WP:ANI for guidance as to what should be done. For long-term action: (1) Notify User:Linshukun about the arbitration case; (2) Repost your concerns at the arbitration case talk page. Carcharoth 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you may have enough evidence, from the editing pattern alone, to request a checkuser. Carcharoth 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I left a note. Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith would tend to make that the norm, although my personal policy of not giving bad guys any time to defend themselves would tend to favor sneaking up on him unannounced.Kww 17:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

is the one, so it sorts to T. Johnbod 16:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I now think it should be sorted under Chretien. Chretien of Troyes. Troyes is just where he was from not his name. The article refers to him as Chretien, so 'C' is the one, I think. That was a bad example I used over at WP:CfD. Carcharoth 16:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that's probably right, although there is a rather later cross-over period when these were hardening into surnames. Johnbod 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh. That's inconvenient, isn't it! :-) Carcharoth 16:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you possibly have the time to check over the above article, which I've lobbed in for peer review here, for my sins? With your alternative way of looking at things, I'm sure you'd spot stuff that I've overlooked or sniff under a mandril or two that may be lurking in the verbiage. Of course, now that you're a sir-lord administrator blokey (curtseys), I daresay you're too busy these days chasing ne'er-do-wells up and down the corridors, clanging cymbals at them (or whatever it is that administrators do). If you do peer review this obscure article of mine, I promise to review one of yours in return, or to undertake some other useful function of your devising (preferably to do with arts, history, literature—in short, anything in the jejunosity line). Cheers.qp10qp 16:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll definitely have a look. From a quick glance it looks fine. Chasing ne'er-do-wells up and down the corridors? :-) Actually, I'm slowing reading up on the more obscure admin tools, and trying out a few practice things before I start using them. It would be great if you could review one of the articles I've taken an interest in, but I'd better head over and read Catherine de' Medici's building projects first. I'll put comments on the talk page (or the peer review) and make minor edits if I see any that need doing. Carcharoth 12:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, your honour; much appreciated. Just name the article (I'm having a few days reviewing/copyediting before plunging back into Catheriniana) and your wish is my command. I changed that Palazzo Madama thing a little, but haven't re-invented the egg. It was caused by one of those little semantic posers that occasionally furrow one's verbal brow, viz. that Catherine moved from the Medici palace in Florence to the Medici palace in Rome. Cheers, Cath. Neither link actually goes to a page called "Medici Palace", as such. Another link irritation of this sort was thrown up by Baptiste du Cerceau and Jacques Androuet du Cerceau, both of whom go to a muddled page called "Androuet du Cerceau". I've posted on the talk page my intention to split that article. Glad to see you are practising before you venture forth with the bird-scaring equipment. Very wise. Trust you to head straight for the "more obscure admin tools", though.qp10qp 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope to see you doing some good work. Loom91 16:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth. On ANI you said that you couldn't figure out how to view deleted images without restoring them. On a Special:Undelete page, the section below "Page history" is "File history"; the deleted files are linked to the dates in that section. Image undeletion wasn't enable until 2006 May, so files deleted before then can't be viewed or recovered. Congratulations and condolences on your adminship ×Meegs 18:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments on CdM's bps. It's so rewarding when someone bothers to read as closely as that. As usual, you've got me buzzing here and there like a blue fly.

I'd better warn you, though, that I'd rather hang-glide naked into a Borneo bat-cave than investigate the topic of monkey-testicle grafting. I have my limits.

I was intrigued by the prospect of the Basel earthquake, but for some reason I can't find anything historical or social about it—only science. So I'll take a look at that astronomy mag sometime. I've got two long and difficult copyedits and reviews to do for the next few days, and then I'll do a copyedit and review and see if I can add anything. I should warn you, though, that I am completely out of my depth with anything that happened after 1630—since when, in my opinion, civilisation has gone terribly downhill.qp10qp

Well, lets store the debt, then, and I'm there when you need me for a specific task.

Knox isn't mine. But I'm reviewing and copyediting. It's quite a challenge, because this is one of those articles that's "almost good", and those are the hardest to review.

The Darnley plot is on my list; but it's going to be down the line because once I started on Catherine, I realised I'd have to do satellite articles too, and so she is going to occupy me for months. There's no rush, though. It's nice to do things in depth. If you choose topics that fascinate you, you can never get bored.qp10qp —Preceding comment was added at 14:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm fairly new to this from the contributor side of things and didn't want to post this in the wrong spot on the discussion page for the Middle-earth universe, and since you seemed to be somewhat talkative in that area, I'm taking the shot you're in charge/know the person who is of the Middle-earth stuff. Anyhow, I was referencing the page on Gondolin today and noticed it's marked for possible deletion, and considering the history of it (both fictionally and when Tolkien created it and how it influenced other bits of things in Middle-earth), first I was just going to find out who I should bother to make sure it stayed. Then I started linking around and reading the pages on the guidelines and the project and such, so now I'm thinking, maybe instead of bugging someone else I should come over and help out. I've done a fair amount of research on Elven genealogies & presented a paper at this past Dragon*Con on it, as well as led a panel on The Children of Hurin, so I'm not just here because of the movies ;-) (I suppose Gondolin was a tip off to that, though...) So, although I'm an idiot when it comes to Hobbits, I can offer help with the Eldar. Also, I'm a librarian, so I get nitpicky about organization, which probably would be helpful in a project like this. I'm just really not so great when it comes to the coding portion of things, and I'm afraid I'd hit the wrong button and delete something important. So, I can help write stuff up, and probably with some practice know how to format/reformat things, but I wanted to touch base with someone before I just jumped in -- didn't want to step on toes or go edit something someone else was working on, y'know? Thanks for reading, and I hope to hear from you. Zhie 02:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhie (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Continuing here, since this is really off topic of the Merkin photo being or not being FA:

Don't underestimate the fan made photos. :-)

1. First, even a mediocre photo is better than no photo, as long as it isn't actually too blurry to be recognizable. Showing what a person or building or animal looks like usually has no substitute.
2. Second, they do show that it can be done, even if badly, which makes for a huge difference. Remember how Wikipedia came about? History of Wikipedia Nupedia had highly qualified contributors, peer reviewed articles ... and no one wrote it. It got 12 articles in a year and has been abandoned. Early Wikipedia was very low quality, almost every one of what they called "featured articles" ("brilliant prose") have been de-featured, and wouldn't be called a B-class article today. But it led to what we have today, Nupedia didn't.
3. Third, they have a non-obvious important effect in getting a better one from the subject. When we write the subject or manager and say that our article has no photo, a non-negligible number of people write back and say that photos are their stock in trade, they can't license them for free. When we write and say that our article has an unflattering blurry photo, but, unfortunately, it's the only freely licensed photo available ... a non-negligible number of people write back and say that photos are their stock in trade, they can't live with a poor quality image associated with them ... and freely license a professionally posed and shot image to replace it! Really, that has happened several times. VO can name them. :-)
4. Finally, even fan made photos can be quite good. VO has more, of course, but I humbly submit that a few even from my poor Flickr list are, while not FP quality, still passable.

Better at larger resolutions, of course, but few pictures aren't. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh sure, those photos are nice. Don't take too much notice of what I said there. Keep those pictures coming - your argument about how it will help things improve is a good one. I like the first pic (though it would be nicer if the sunlight had been brighter that day), and the third one (very artistic!). The fourth one is nearly OK, but the top of the head is cropped off and there is a mic sticking into the picture from below, and a water mark at bottom right. The triplets one has people in the background - which really spoils it for me. There you go - my impossibly high standards! :-) Carcharoth 17:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

See post I just made here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Targeted_sanctions_for_Gene_Nygaard.3F. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

As one of the administrators involved in the case and/or in its discussions, I think it would be useful if you could comment on the latest here and here. Thank you in advance, Mondegreen 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd happily declare a truce with Physchim62, although I would like to point out that his unblock is fair game for the arbitration, since it is an actual topic of the arbitration. My curt demeanor, while potentially a problem, is pretty distantly related.Kww 19:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My unblock is certainly "fair game" for the arbitration, as are the events which lead up to this dispute. Physchim62 (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know, I still think you're mistaken about the disruption--or lack thereof--caused by allowing Weber to blanket all self-noms with spurious opposes. As to Mikka, I'm one of the editors she accused (in VERY bad faith, I might add) of "bullying", "trolling", and worse, for simply calling her out for placing bad faith accusations (see "police force" quotes from that thread) in her opposes. Do you find this conduct disruptive? K. Scott Bailey 16:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think people should challenge statements they dispute, but they shouldn't attack the person making the statement. I very, very rarely have to resort to pointing out people's bad-faith accusations and civility, because I tend to ignore it (if it is there) and concentrate on the substance of what they are trying to say. It tends to work, funnily enough. Carcharoth 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth...Qst thought my reply to your post was rude. Maybe it was the all-caps edit summary. Anyhow, if you did take it amiss, I apologize. I should've written it a bit more carefully. --Ling.Nut —Preceding comment was added at 14:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I like it when people get excited - it shows they are passionate about what they are saying. I didn't take it amiss at all. Carcharoth 14:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. I'll write your username down on my "not too thin-skinned; add pepper" list. ;-) later --Ling.Nut 14:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lest We Forget.png

Remembrance Day

Ode of Remembrance

See Wikipedia talk:Article message boxes#Project-specific_templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't plan on pulling anything I've said, but I won't be adding anything more. I have to say that I am surprised that everyone wants to focus on the easy part (is Sadi Carnot dangerous? certainly, and there is only one voice disagreeing), and whether I'm polite (I am, but also quite curt), but shies away from what I think are the important issues of favoritism and meatpuppeting among admins. But, the more I want to talk about those things, the less likely I am to be heard, so I won't add anything more.Kww 13:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand. But I think tackling all that in one case is too much. Carcharoth 13:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- I've nominated Category:School massacres outside North America and Category:School massacres in North America for deletion, for reasons laid out at the nomination page. Dylan 17:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You either voted on the original list of the day proposal or the revised version. A more modest experimental proposal is now at issue at WP:LOTDP. Feel free to voice your opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you voted on the List of the Day proposal. A new one has been made and your comments are welcome. The Placebo Effect 01:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you got this a little awry -- see my reply on my talk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Carcharoth 15:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The link you provided doesn't actually provide a link, it's a snapshot of an edit. A link to the article would be appreciated.

Thanks!Ryoung122 17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the page, but to me the issue still remains: Wikipedia is NOT PAPER. The article should focus on, mainly, the group as a whole. Each Wikilink provides more information on the GRG, Stephen Coles, the Max Planck Institue, James Vaupel, Guinness World Records, etc. Even A Ross Eckler Jr. The only thing missing is: what did Louis Epstein and Robert Young do?

It therefore stands to reason to have a separate, Wikilinked article that gives background information on that. Due to COI 'issues,' it seems the majority of Wikipedians simply can't see that this was an organizational issue.

Fact: Louis Epstein almost single-handedly kept the 'tradition' alive when Guinness deleted the 'national longevity recordholders' after the 1991 edition. By 1998, through Louis's efforts at http://www.recordholders.org/en/list/oldest.html, the GRG decided to pick those up, and went from '2,000 hits'/year to 100,000+ hits a year. Let's face it, Dr. Coles and Epstein together made a more powerful team than alone. In 1999, I joined the team. I had been keeping my own private lists since 1988, and by 1999 I had my own, rival lists, which the GRG also posted (though it's not a complete rivalry: Louis keeps middle names, while I keep places of birth and death, and about 95% of the cases are on both lists, even though I have about 1100 and he is behind, at about 1000).

In 2000, a competing group, the Max Planck Institute in Germany, invited myself and Mr. Epstein to Rostock, Germany and started the FIRST International Conference on Supercentenarians. Thus we were there from the very beginning. How rapidly did things evolve? From that first meeting, the Social Security Administration decided to launch a study, and Jean-Marie Robine decided to start the International Database on Longevity. Notably, by 2002 the Epstein/Young lists were cited as 'the' lists by major, published works:

[PDF] Emergence of Supercentenarians in Low Mortality CountriesFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML The IDL database is complemented by an international list of supercentenarians gathered on. the internet by Louis Epstein with the help of Robert Young ... user.demogr.mpg.de/jwv/pdf/AmActJournal2002.pdf - Similar pages

Though critical of some demographic deficiencies, my lists have continued to grow. In 2002, I founded 'World's Oldest People' which, while just a Yahoo webgroup, has been cited on the Yahoo front page portal as a source for 'more information.'

Today, virtually all the scientific publications cite the Epstein or Young tables, even though there are two camps: more liberal, American, and 'anti-aging' are the GRG, Rejuvenation Research (with Aubrey de Grey), and the SRF. More mainstream/European and concerned with demography are the Max Planck Institute in Germany, the International Database on Longevity, INSERM (with Vaupel/Robine/etc). Recently the New England Centenarian Study has upped the ante:

http://www.bumc.bu.edu/Dept/Home.aspx?DepartmentID=505

Also, some have taken a less scientic, more popular-media approach. In 2002, the Earth's Elders Foundation hired me to help them put together a book on supercentenarians, which led to an exhibit at the United Nations:

http://www.nyc-plus.com/nyc18/oldold.html

http://www.amazon.com/Earths-Elders-Wisdom-Worlds-Oldest/dp/0976910802

Note also that Guinness World Records, aware of the Epstein/GRG connection, decided in the year 2000 to rely primarily on Mr Epstein and myself as consultants for the world's oldest person titles, which included oldest person, oldest man, oldest American, oldest twins, etc. They continued to do 'oldest British person' by themselves.

In 2001, I scored my first 'hit' with Marie Bremont, whom French researcher Jean-Marie Robine personally thanked me for getting her into the Guinness Book. Since 2001, every titleholder has come from either myself or Mr Epstein. In 2005, I was promoted to Senior Consultant for Gerontology for Guinness World Records. Hence, I now oversee claims from the entire world.

To User Brown-Haired Girl, this was simply an ego-trip. I note she claimed she had a 110-year-old aunt but refused to divulge who it was. Let's face it: if you don't like a program on TV, don't watch it. But don't interrupt everyone else's viewing.

Note that I'm the only person in the world who is involved in every organization primarily cited by the media or research articles concerning supercentenarians: the GRG, the Max Planck Insitute, the NECS, the SSA, GWR, and the SRF.

As such, I argued that I was 'notable' NOT based on the qualifications of an 'academic' but as an organizer. I note that this field is not yet taught in schools as courses, but it is beginning to 'seep' in. Ironically, in two of my classes material used by the professor included me in it. One student recognized me from the WOP book.

Yet I realize there's no use trying to climb uphill, but there must be a certain lower limit to this current 'bear run' against supers. I believe that removing the Wikipedia:AUTO and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issues will result in better treatment in the future. When the current hysteria, which has extended to even tagging William Thoms (is his article now suspect as well?), is quite ridiculous. Nothing short of a 'Nobel prize' will seem to placate these invidiuals, even though Wikipedia is chock full of articles on no-name drummers from some third-rate kids' band, or college football players who scored ONE career touchdown...like Keeley Dorsey.

Thus, it seems three things need to happen:

1. The use of a third-party, reputable editor who can 'filter' information, thus avoiding charges of COI or bias.

2. As time goes on, more material will prove me right and when the time comes, someone else will resurrect what was destroyed.

3. In the meantime, perhaps a paragraph or two in this article about the '1990's and the '2000's would give an opportunity for the above 'history' to be incorporated. Because, remember: I do hold a degree in World History.Ryoung122 18:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In the requested move at Eduardo Perez, I'd appreciate it if you would make your position clear. As nominator, you will probably be counted in support of the move if you say nothing (but even so, it is usually safest to make that clear). Otherwise, an Oppose as nominator, or Neutral as the case may be, would be appropriate.

Also note that User:Tulkolahten has improperly moved the article while the requested move is under consideration and unclosed. Your comments on that would also be appreciated. Gene Nygaard 22:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, well I usually do respect discussions, I do not move pages savagely. In this case I didn't notice a proposed survey, my fault. I don't agree with removing diacritics everywhere because I assume it as a part of knowledge. But anyway, I created a template which should be included in the main article on the top to avoid situations like happened to me. Check Eduardo Pérez page's top. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, Wikipedia:Requested moves states to notify people on the talk page. I think the idea is to avoid self-references for the reader, but then the clean-up tags already alert the reader to other things, so this seems OK. Do you want to ask about using this at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves? Carcharoth 14:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Notify who, who should notify whom? Accidental reader? I am here for a longer time and I know several policies and I made a mistake by moving a page without check if there is not a survey, sometimes something simply happens. Move is a discussion which is usually very well hidden, nobody knows, without checking the talk page. I put it here [1], I would be happy if you comment it there too. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of 'mentoring'. I do believe I can improve in certain areas, particularly formatting and personal relations. That said, I do feel like the current climate is 'patently unfair'. There are a number of issues:

1. Pooh-poohing the entire field:

We can start with calling the 'supercentenarian' word a 'neologism'. Completely unfounded. Wikipedia has embraced 'junk' like Nuyorican while pooh-poohing legitimately-sourced material. Others, such as BHG and MLA, have said the field is 'not notable'. Funny, the U.S. government is spending millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund research in this area. Simply because it may be unknown to the average person does not make it 'not notable' or, further, 'unimportant.'

Google hits: Results 1 - 10 of about 29,400 for supercentenarian. (0.17 seconds)

Ok, not a big subject, but a subject, nonetheless.

Attempts to raze every article from A Ross Eckler Jr, William Thoms, Habib Miyan, etc simply shows a pattern of 'witch-hunting.' True, part of the problem is that I have a tendency to use too much vinegar and not enough honey. But it's not my style to sell out. Those that get to know me, know I am a reasonable person WHEN TREATED FAIRLY.

However, the current climate has been far from fair.

2. Pooh-poohing me, and/or my research:

Both times my personal article was nominated for deletion, the nomination came as 'retribution' from a dispute involving other articles or categories, such as Mary Ramsey Wood and Category:supercentenarian trackers. I note that persons like BHG 'smoothly' canvass and campaign for their position. Questionable activities included:

A. Initially calling me names B. Making comments that suggested I was a liar, when the facts showed I was correct C. Listing the AFD in the inappropriate category D. Deleting my initial responses E. Collapsing additional responses into little boxes F. Not admitting mistakes when I found evidence that she was wrong G. Notifying the ANI and users such as KittyBrewster in such as way as to 'let people know' which way to 'not vote' H. Using the !vote commentary I. Surreptiously signing up for my group, with the ill-purpose of 'reporting' me on Wikipedia. J. Using a 'talk-down-to'tone

The current controversy really flared up when I told BHG that I was the 'world's leading expert,' an assertion that, while disputable to some, really stands up to scrutiny. True, some positives: I've done enough to be blocked already, which hasn't happened (yet). SOME attempts were made at conciliation. But, far too much, the current activities have included a tribalistic cabal.

The complete and utter irony of the whole thing is Wikipedia's 'virtual-reality world' that has a complete disdain for reality. A source no less respected than Time Magazine said this:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986874,00.html?iid=chix-sphere

PASSING THE TORCH The death of Jeanne Calment caused a stir among centenarians: Who would claim the title of world's oldest person? Calls inundated the offices of The Guinness Book of World Records, official arbiter of longevity. Herewith a few of the candidates in the vintage sweepstakes:

CHRISTIAN MORTENSEN, 114 PROOF: Danish birth registration. BRUSH WITH HISTORY: Sailed to Ellis Island in 1903 on a ship named the United States. VICE: A nice fat cigar. ODDS: Clearly the Establishment pick, but in this crowd he may be just a young 'un.

That was 1997, before I was formally with Guinness. Thus to claim "conflict of interest" in every situation is clearly ignoring reality. Is Time Magazine 'not a reliable source'?

Clearly, my message is correct; perhaps we need another messenger. So, if someone like yourself (and, please, get a few more backups as well) that BOTH understand Wikipedia AND understand supercentenarians, could help in this regard, it would be most appreciated.

I note that every major (Western) news source is on my side, from BBC, ABC, NBC, etc.

In this case, this seems, in reality, to be a battle of 'expertism' vs. 'mob rule.' In the same way that the Romans crucified Jesus and freed Barabbas the slave, so the masses say, that's what happens. It doesn't make it right, in the least. And often, when cultural/historical wrongs are made, future generations look upon them negatively (such as McCarthyism, Salem Witchcraft Trials, etc). Fortunately, Wikipedia is only 'virtual' reality. No one is really being killed here. But it does seem that what is supposed to be an encyclopedia has instead devolved into a social experiment, where what matters is NOT right or wrong, verifiability, sourcing, or the like: what matters is building power through User ID's, alliances, etc.

My 'downfall' seems to be engaging too many 'battles' at once. Like Harold II, who repelled the Vikings only to fall to the Normans. What to do now?

Now, already, the world's #2 expert on supercentenarians, Louis Epstein, dropped out of Wikipedia. Should I be next? Should we give this to the masses?

Here's what should happen:

1. A 'take-a-break' time. User BHG should take a break from nominating or tagging supercentenarian-related articles, at least for a week or two. So far she has been relentless, going through Category:supercentenarians, Robert Young, Louis Epstein, A Ross Eckler, Oldest living person by US state, William Thoms, Habib Miyan, etc. I also note that she has stated an aunt lived to 110 and wanted to maintain 'privacy'. Thus, there could be a personal interest/bias if she is an 'anonymist' and doesn't want information out in the public realm. True, one has the right to be anonymous, but don't impose your standards on everyone else.

Starting more fires won't solve anything. Let's wait until the current CFD, AFD disputes are resolved before starting more problems.

2. User BHG should apologize for some of her comments to me personally, and I would reciprocate. Comments such as it's 'increasingly hard to believe anything he says' are completely out of line. Claiming that reference links didn't mention me, when they clearly did, were flat-out falsehoods on her part. Deleting notations that showed she was wrong is both COI and questionable conduct. I realize, however, that since she has built up a powerful cadre of Wiki-friends, standing in the way of someone so powerful here may be pushing a rock uphill. Thus, a different strategy is needed. However, we need one that ensures that Wikipedia reflects what the greater world knowledge shows, not the other way around.

3. I realize there is a negotiation between article creation and deletion. A lot of 'supercentenarian fans' want to create articles such as this:

Marie-Rose Mueller which I agree is hard to defend. Maybe she is notable, but Wikipedia may not agree. Some articles, such as Sukesaburo Nakanishi, have already gone by the wayside. So, where do we draw the line? I have already suggested policies. A supercentenarian should be considered 'notable' if they are covered in multiple, independent sources, especially outside of their hometown. I generally favor those aged 112+ for inclusion and those under 112 as tossups, depending on how much coverage they received. No one would delete Henry Allingham, for example. So, clearly 'age' alone is not the issue, but 'charisma'. If that person is charismatic, they may make themselves notable.

4. Words by others, such as 'vanispamcruft', help no one. Given that, on closer inspection, the charges are false. SPAM involves mass-marketing. I have not done that. Vanity? The article, as I wrote my autobiography, was deemed 'fair' by several third-party persons, and it seems the current AFD didn't focus on that. Instead, the issue boiled down to WP:BIO. The bottom line: others claimed that my mentions in the news amounted to 'trivial' mention. I disagree. If someone cites you as the 'expert' or 'authority', that can hardly be said to be the same as interviewing a witness to a shooting. In addition, the argument for 'continuing' notability shows that my 1,000+ press mentions on all six inhabited continents came over a period of since at least 2001, hardly 'temporary' or 'one-time.'

Compromise: I like the 'extreme longevity tracking' as a compromise. Ironically, User BHG originally suggested a 'supercentenarian trackers' article, which I agreed would be a good idea, but that ultimately fails to satisfy if all you get is a 'list of trackers' without the historiography behind it. Explaining how the field grew from a backwater to what it is today, and where it is going, is important. However, I understand how the 'appearance' of COI can make it not a good idea for me to continue, so I would hope that a third-party editor such as yourself would take the Louis Epstein and Robert Young articles and make perhaps a one-paragraph mention, with the caption '1990's (for Louis) and '2000's (for myself).

Please note that I have personal connections with the very highest echelons in the scientific community. This includes more than a dozen persons who each warrant their own Wikipedia article: Leonard Hayflick, Aubrey de Grey, James Vaupel, Jean-Marie Robine, Stephen Coles, Greg Fahy, Preston Estep, Robert Bradbury, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Jay_Olshansky, etc. I have connections with MIT, Harvard, Cambridge, Boston University, etc.--not just GSU. Maybe, in the short term, I don't need my own article yet. But I am by far younger than any of my other 'friends'. I am personally involved in not just Guinness World Records but the GRG, the SRF, Max Planck Institute, NECS, SECS, SSA, etc. Yes, I'm 33 and 'still a grad student'. I've been quite busy putting the cart before the horse. Maybe I need to get back to finishing my degrees and, when the older generation, in their 60's and 50's, retires, I will be ready to take on the mantle.

But even as I have connections to the upper echelons and the previous generation, I also have connections to the lower-downs and the next-generations. Correspondents my own age in Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, the UK, the USA, etc...hardly 'local fame'. I am already involved in 'mentoring' the teens coming up. One kid believed that Ruby Muhummad was born in 1897 a year ago. A year later, he found evidence himself that she was born in 1906. Hence, I didn't just give a kid a fish; I taught a kid HOW to fish. Perhaps you can do the same. Can I be re-formed, not just as an editor on Wikipedia, but as someone who remembers those Kenny Rogers lines from the Gambler: "Know when to hold'em, know when to fold'em, know when to walk away, know when to run." That is, perhaps, my greatest problem.Ryoung122 00:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I would be happy to help you build up the article extreme longevity tracking to cover the field. As certain sections get bigger and are adequately sourced, we can spin them off to have their own articles. I'm not sure what approach to take for the supercentenarians themselves - how many are there in recorded history? Regarding your personal interactions, the first thing to address, and it may be hard, is the amount you write in discussions. In this case, I really think the maxim less is more applies. It took me a while to read the above, and some people (for better or worse) simply will not take the time to read all that you write. BrownHairedGirl (and others) can be hard to work with (I've clashed with her in the past), but if both sides work on keeping communications going, it should be possible to reach a compromise eventually. I think you both have valid points, so hopefully they can all be addressed eventually. Carcharoth 00:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I couldn't be bothered any more commenting on the long list of nonsense you allege, but this is the second place that I have seen a specific allegation from you that I have engaged in canvassing: I did not notify Kittybrewster or other editors, and a notification at ANI is not canassing. Please either lodge a complaint at WP:ANI listing the diffs which show evidence of canvassing, or stop making unfounded allegations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, would you mind putting this on his talk page? Carcharoth 09:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If the paragraphs of malicious allegations are removed, then I'm quite happy for my reply to be removed as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember me? I'll be starting up a fresh table in the next few days. Last time we shared data. Will you be following the ArbCom elections closely again this time? Jd2718 00:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Replied over there. Carcharoth 01:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice this earlier, but congrats on your sparkling new mop! >Radiant< 12:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - easy to miss this among all the other stuff. I think I'll take a look at the quieter housekeeping stuff. ANI is getting a bit manic at the moment. Carcharoth 12:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carcharoth,

Despite Admin BHG' selective amnesia that forgets she began the current dispute (nominating the 'category:supercentenarian trackers for deletion, then posting rude/brusque comments on my talk page), she has re-fashioned this dispute as if I were the villain. My latest crime? Attempting to talk to her on her talk page. But once again, I had offered 'mediation' and the response has been like this, basically targeting more than a year's worth of contributions by myself and other editors:

Current revision (12:44, 11 November 2007) (edit) (undo) BrownHairedGirl (Talk | contribs) (notability, refs, rm linkspam)

Line 1: Line 1:

 + {{notability|Biographies|date=November 2007}}
 + {{refimprove|date=November 2007}} 

Florence Homan (November 18, 1893 - August 13, 2006) was Ohio's oldest person since May 23, 2006, and was listed in Guinness World Records (2007 edition) as one of the top 15 world's oldest living people. Her ranking had been tied for 12th before she died at the age of 112 years and 268 days, which at the time was older than the current oldest living person in France (112), the United Kingdom (111) or Germany (110). Florence Homan (November 18, 1893 - August 13, 2006) was Ohio's oldest person since May 23, 2006, and was listed in Guinness World Records (2007 edition) as one of the top 15 world's oldest living people. Her ranking had been tied for 12th before she died at the age of 112 years and 268 days, which at the time was older than the current oldest living person in France (112), the United Kingdom (111) or Germany (110).

Line 6: Line 8:

* Oldest Ohio resident dies, 112  * Oldest Ohio resident dies, 112 

- * Gerontology Research Group

{{DEFAULTSORT:Homan, Florence}}  {{DEFAULTSORT:Homan, Florence}} 

13:02, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Elizabeth Kensley‎ (notability, refs) (top) 13:01, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Florrie Baldwin‎ (notability, refs) (top) 13:00, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Alberta Davis‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 12:59, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) James Birren‎ (notability, refs) (top) 12:58, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Paul Baltes‎ (notability, refs) (top) 12:57, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Charles Brunier‎ (notabilit) (top) 12:57, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) James Hard‎ (notability, refs; PROD) (top) 12:53, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Gerontology Research Group‎ (peacock terms, fact tags) (top) 12:50, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Anne Primout‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 12:45, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Denzo Ishisaki‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 12:45, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Flossie Page‎ (notability, refs) (top) 12:44, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Florence Homan‎ (notability, refs, rm linkspam) (top) 12:43, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Giulia Sani-Casagli‎ (notability, refs) (top) 12:41, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Grace Nelsen Jones‎ (notability, refs) (top) 12:41, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Lucie Péré-Pucheu‎ (notability, refs) (top) 12:40, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Mary MacIsaac‎ ({{refimprove}}) (top) 12:39, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Mary MacIsaac‎ (<nowiki>{{notability|Biographies|date=November 2007}}) 12:37, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Marion Higgins‎ ({{notability|Biographies|date=November 2007}}) (top) 12:33, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) Maggie Barnes‎ ({{dated prod|concern = {{{concern|no evidence of notability per WP:BIO}}}|month = November|day = 11|year = 2007|time = 13:06|timestamp = 20071111130653}} ) (top) 12:31, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) m Mary Bidwell‎ (Marked as unreferenced (see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and WP:RS). Please don't remove the {{unreferenced}} tag until references have been added.) (top) 12:28, 11 November 2007 (hist) (diff) E. Beatrice Riley‎ (prod) (top)

This unconsionable attack needs to be stopped. I propose a block on User:BHG until she calms down. If you could make a recommendation to ANI I'd appreciate it. Ryoung122 13:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty seeing what is going on here. I'll need to check the contribs lists. Carcharoth 23:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carcharoth,

I am the victim. I was doing fine for over a year when Brown-Haired Girl decided to shift her campaign from deleting articles on Fiction and Math to, now, Gerontology. I realize that I'm 'not supposed to' be logging in, but we see the rules not being applied fairly. For example, we see a false accusation below:

 + == Suspected sockpuppet == 
 + ==Sockpuppetry case== 
 + {| align="left" 
 + ||  
 + |} 
 + You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ryoung122 (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 

Not only is that NOT me (check the IP address...not the same state), but Maxim decided to add a block without waiting to hear from the accused (once again, NOT following Wiki-policy). Why is it that policy only must be followed in one direction? Why is this scorched-Earth campaign continuing? Also, block or no block, why was my 'talk' page blanked? Something is out of line. Wikipedia rules state that Wikipedia does not support 'original research,' and thus whatever is on Wikipedia should follow what is found in 'reliable sources'. The Western Media finds Guinness World Records to be the 'official arbiter' of longevity (so said Time Magazine).

The reason I nominated Brown-Haired-Girl for a block is that, ironically as AboutMovies states it:

Now, had I actually had a vendetta, I could email the large number of editors RY has ticked off to inform them of the AFD so we could all dance on his grave and start an offical anti-RY cabal. Additionally, I would have also become involved and voted for deletion of the category partially at issue. Then I would have gone around nominating all the other articles for AFD that RY has started. But I didn’t, and I would not. I have not with this or any other editors. I have several “enemies” if you will on Wikipedia that piss me off far more than RY, and I don’t go around nominating their articles for AFD or vote in AFD debates about articles they are involved in. Tempting as that may be, it is not inline with Wikipedia guidelines/policies and that is what is important to me, hence the strong policy based arguments (not random collateral issues like the meaning of the Wiki or Universe) I make whether it is in AFD, CFD, or just in general on talk pages like the Wood article or more recently on this article. This is not about RY, its about Wikipedia, despite rantings to the contrary. I will NOW TYPE in caps for emphasis, that makes my argument better. Oh wait, where’s the bolding and italics? Aboutmovies 19:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, she DID have a vendetta...virtually every article I created or was interested in was either nominated for deletion or tagged with 'notability' tags. Yet looking at her own list of articles created, most if not all would not survive the same standards, if the same standards were applied. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Craig_%28Irish_Professor%29

Do we see three multiple, independent sources? No. Fails WP:BIO. By the same standards, this and a lot of other articles would be deleted. Except no one would dare, would they? Because it's not what you do, it's who you are, that matters.

Ironically, Just Zis Guy originally commented for a Wiki-break, but BHG upped the ante by launching the biggest attack during the break. Note, if you check my 'talk' page, you'll see that I had basically 'thrown in the towel' and offered to work with BHG. Instead, she deleted my comments from her page, told me never to post to her page again, and then embarked on a campaign that user AboutMovies agrees would amount to a personal vendetta.

Of course, what should we expect from a woman who claims that Osama Bin Laden has nothing on her? 131.96.70.143 02:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I hardly consider copying/pasting 'spamming'. Formatting is not my strong suit, but if we employ the 'team' concept then one provides the content, another can worry about formatting. If someone wants to review, note I learned how to use : thus I have been improving.131.96.70.143 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

James Craig (Irish Professor) passes WP:BIO as an elected politician. Robert, take a wikibreak for your own sake. Posting in breach of block will not hasten an end to the block. - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've meticulously gone through the discussion and replied to everyone at Wikipedia talk:Contents. Hopefully the reasons underlying their opinions will turn up. We need to discern how these lists differ from other lists, because this issue will no doubt come up again with respect to other lists. Hope to see you there. The Transhumanist    23:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I must have forgotten to straighten out the links after that edit :( Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The links have now been fixed. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It could stink worse. SBHarris 04:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#Upmerge for Category:School massacres

I have responded on my talk page. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

On the deletion debate on Sun and Moon (Middle-earth), I would prefer if we kept the discussion focused on the merits of the article (or lack thereof) and its status in the eyes of Wikipedia policy, rather than on my personal motives for nominating the article for deletion. Thanks! - Chardish 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not your personal motives, but the general philosophy of tagging and nomination without discussion that I'm unhappy with. Please don't take it personally. I'll add a clarifying note, and I will stick to finding sources now. Carcharoth 06:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth whether a user is banned or indefinitely blocked are simply turns of phrases which mean exactly the same thing. At least in United Kingdom English anyway. The 11 article edits in question were simply restoring notices posted on these articles by BrownHairedGirl which were removed by the sock puppet account User talk:131.96.70.143 controlled by Ryoung122. What do you do when you come across vandalism? Just leave it be? Because that’s what it was, vandalism pure and simple. When I had finished these revisions I immediately went and informed the admin concerned of these edits and who could then take any further action concerning them that I simply did not have time to do.

I’m sorry that you feel I was wrong to have done these revisions Carcharoth but some of us have many other pressing commitments and checking each and every edit of a sock puppet account for something useful is not high on my list of priorities. I will bear in mind that American users are unhappy with the phrase banned and will in future use different phrasing when referring to sock puppet accounts. - Galloglass 12:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not from the USA. Please read WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. Being banned and being indefinitely blocked are not the same thing. The edit I pointed out quite clearly shows that you reverted the addition of a useful external link. I had to revert here. Please read [2] to see why I re-added the link. Sorry to have been rather brusque, but confusing blocks and bans and carrying out blind reversion of sockpuppet edits without checking them for useful content is something I think it is important to point out to people. Carcharoth 12:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, from WP:BLOCK: "If not one administrator will lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community. In less extreme cases, however, the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and – if unblocked – to refrain from the problematic conduct in future." - I'm still holding out a faint hope that Robert Young will become a productive contributor to Wikipedia if he learns from all this. I was actually discussing things with him on our talk pages and hoping that things would improve. When I got back, I found he had been blocked indefinitely. I still think a fairly long block of a month or so would have been more appropriate. Carcharoth 12:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth all the notice removals by User talk:131.96.70.143 that I checked had no additions on them. I'm very sorry if I missed the one which actually added something but I simply didn't see it. - Galloglass 12:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Honest mistake. No problems. Carcharoth 12:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of us have lives outside wikipeida! ;) - Galloglass 12:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your sterling work. It's a deeply tedious task, though; and I fear that the article will always deteriorate over this issue. I think a yearly spring-clean may be the best approach. I once read all the talk archives, and the same questions have arisen again and again, with precious few people grasping what is required for a short general biography or having read any general biographies of James themselves. No one seems to care about the unprofessional quality of the material in question, which has clearly been culled from inferior and marginal sources. What I always dislike about this matter is that in trying stand up for editing standards one may appear to be anti-gay in some way. qp10qp (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing I would add is that I wouldn't worry too much if we are ignored. Wikipedia is a big place and there are plenty of other articles to work on. I am a no-revert editor, so I won't be getting into any edit wars. But I would hate to see you getting too embattled. -- qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. I'm a battle-hardened wolf! :-) Seriously, thanks for the concern, and I'll try not to get too involved. Hopefully something can be worked out. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For grace under fire in the James I of England firestorm. And for taking the lead in getting to consensus on the highly contentious subject of his sexuality. I've learned from you. Also, congrats on your RfA. I can see why you made it though that process. Thank you — Becksguy (talk) 07:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at it again, and I think you are right. Selective upmerger is in order. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 22#School_massacres. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You indicated that you wished to be informed of the closure of the CFD nomination for Category:Tolkien. While I won't repeat everything I wrote there, suffice it to say that I've closed it as "merge", leaving a redirect from the old title. As I noted in the closure, the merger is without prejudice to any necessary and/or appropriate reorganisation. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do that later tonight, in about an hour or so. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your successful RFA. I was checking the results of the ones that I commented on and find that you have won! Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No- I only caught the last few minutes - thanks for pointing it out. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This might interest you on several counts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it, and I think it's excellent. Johnbod's a good man. I'm sorry I haven't got round to summarising the views in the biographies yet, but I will do. I despair of the personal relationships article which is more of a mess than most people realise. It's clear that it was compiled not by reading the sources, but by combining a few bits and pieces from biased websites and using their references (not the done thing). By a process of Chinese whispers, everything has gone slightly out of kilter, so that the version of particular events in that article no longer resembles the facts. I don't agree with you that there is anything convincing about either of the websites you pointed me to. Such websites are not necessary as sources when we have so many books and articles available. If you want some good material, I suggest having a look at John Kenney's quotations from the ODNB on one of the James archive pages. John is a PHD student in history (or has a PHD, I forget which). He is always on the money and speaks 100% sense. And what is good for the ODNB is good enough for us. Not only is it written by leading scholars in the field, but it has to confront the issue of brevity rather as we do, though its articles are longer than ours. qp10qp (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. It's gold dust: Talk:James I of England/Archive 2#For information's sake... qp10qp (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that these professional historians are only interested in questions of homosexuality insofar as they relate to James's career. They intertwine cautious mention of it with comments on his marriage and his style of government, and they monitor his performance as king against any signs that these men distorted his judgement and affected the government. I believe we should do the same in the James article. Apart from being good history, I think that this is sophisticated. We shouldn't judge people by their sexuality if it has no bearing on their performance. James was happy for Villiers to lead the government because he trusted his ability; but even for Villiers he would not abandon his determination not to go to war. At the end of James's life, Villiers wanted to declare war on Spain, but James stood firm. After James died, Villiers got his way, with appalling and disastrous consequences. For me, this shows that even if Villiers had a sexual relationship with James, which I doubt, it did not affect James's judgement on policy. Favourites notwithstanding, he remained till the end the king who would not go to war. qp10qp (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking through current nominations I am concerned that there is just not enough editors who would get votes and make good arbs. Judging from your RfA, you stand a good chance, I believe. Would you consider running? I understand all the cons and it is of course your decision. All I am saying is that I would like it if you would run and I think you have a good chance to pass and to be a good arb. Perhaps, you were asked about this before. I recently managed to minimize my involvement in wikipolitics pages (that IMO include talk pages of some editors too) and I might have missed that. Regards, --Irpen (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, but it's not something I'd ever really considered or would really be comfortable with. I'd want more experience as an admin first, and I'd have to have been following several arbcom cases for a few months to feel I really knew what was involved with being an arbitrator. I'm also not as pessimistic as you about the current candidates. I think there are several good candidates there, and remember that Jimbo still gets to make the final choice after the votes are in. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a pity you've declined to put yourself forward. You have shown that you have a fine, analytical mind and commendable patience when under attack.Alice.S 21:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sometimes my patience wears thin, and I don't agree with everyone by a long shot, but it's encouraging to hear things like that. My other main objection (apart from the lack of admin experience stated above - and I'm finding that life as an editor and admin is different from that as an editor and observer) is the three year term. That is too much of a commitment for me, quite frankly, unless the workload were dramatically less (ie. an expanded arbcom). I did see some people running on a reduced "one year" ticket, but that doesn't seem quite right either. For a similar thread, but far more humourous, see here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That really is a long commitment for such an arduous role.

I do appreciate you taking the time to answer me. I'm brand new here and I seem to have been rather unlucky and only engaged two types of person in (wiki)conversation: those who are erudite and responsive like yourself and those who are infallible and believe they should not explain their rationale to mere mortals like me. Alice.S 22:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Carcharoth, you and user:Tra were very helpful last year with Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table. Would you like to join in this this year again? — Sebastian 07:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I would, but unfortunately I'm not going to have time this week before voting starts. Possibly I'll have time in the evenings over the coming weekend, as that seems to be the period when the preparations are made for the voting stage. One thing I would suggest is advertising your intent to do this on the election talk pages to get feedback from the candidates, and to look at what the Signpost has done already (I think they are publishing interviews this week). Other than that, I think copying what was done last time would work well. Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that tomorrow. It seems Signpost isn't really focusing on people skills, which I already felt last year were underrepresented. I thinking of renaming the "examples" column to something like "conflict resolution portfolio" or so. Do you have a better idea? — Sebastian 02:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(re Giano's page) Not everyone seems to think so! Johnbod (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you closed down the page.[3] Who made the decision? How/why was it reached? (There's absolutely no indication in the record.) So, what's the deal? Am I still banned for a year? Am I not? Am I still not allowed to edit article main spaces? Am I still banned from Afrocentrism? If the RfC has been shut down because it's been recognized for the sham that it is, then where's the statement of such a determination? And where's my notification of the outcome -- whatever that outcome is? There's nothing on the RfC page that gives any clue whatsoever. Totally confusing/weird. Thanks. deeceevoice (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I put archive tags on that page because the original thread link was archived. If you want to carry on discussing this please contribute to the new thread I am about to start on AN. Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Index Lists, a complex issue which I've tried to summarize. It concerns unsourced pages in mainspace like List of timelines, List of basic mathematics topics, and List of film topics. Its scope is currently a few hundred pages, and potentially a few thousand pages. Feedback would be appreciated. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of Image:Tolkien Encyclopedia cover 2006.jpg‎. I got the 'bot message and I was completely stumped as to what was wrong with my Fair Use rationale. - PKM (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Lots of people are getting stumped by that. Please mention this to the bot owner. He really should say in the template that it could be anything from no link to a redirect not having been corrected, but the message sometimes takes a while to get through. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If you really must know... Manning (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)