User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 36

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

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

Toronto Star/Globe and Mail archives
FYI, there is a online database available through the Toronto Public Library website called Pages of the Past. It is free as long as you have a library card (which is also free). If you live outside Toronto, you should check your local library to see if they provide access. I was able to view the Patrick Lawlor obituary through this database from my home computer. Cheers. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank-you. I have access to a fair number of online resources with my library card, but possibly not that. I will have a look and see. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

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

DYK for Ramsay Heatley Traquair
Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

My review of your DYK nomination
Hello, Carcharoth, and thanks for your comments on my talk page, about my review of your recent DYK nomination. You seemed to be rather disappointed that I didn't do a more thorough evaluation and critique of your article. In fact you should be flattered that I didn't; it was clearly a well written, well sourced article that passed the basic requirements for DYK, and that was what I was looking for. Here's where I was coming from: I have submitted maybe a dozen DYK nominations over the past couple of years; it's not something I do often or stay in close touch with. And so when I came to the DYK page this month to submit a nomination, I was staggered by what seemed to be a new, massive increase in the requirements for reviewing someone else's nomination. I expressed my feelings about the new system at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, namely, that I was simply not going to submit my own nomination, rather than have to jump through all those hoops. You mentioned that your own review of someone else's nomination took an hour; that is exactly what I feared, and why I decided "the hell with it, I just won't submit my nomination". However, I looked again a day or so later and found that some reviews seemed to be going through under the "old system," in which we simply needed to verify the dates, article length, hook length, the fact that the hook facts were cited and the citation actually supported those facts, and the article in general seemed adequately sourced to Reliable Sources. I always found that much reviewing to be a reasonable demand, and when I saw your nomination without a template attached, I went ahead and reviewed it. It took about 10 minutes, which I think is reasonable to require us to do in order to submit a nomination of our own. I was pleased to see that the review I did was accepted and the article was promoted to the front page. If in the future a 10-minute review is no longer acceptable - if we are expected to do an hour-long multi-day evaluation - then I will not be submitting any more nominations. Meanwhile, of course it is perfectly OK that you cited my review in your comments elsewhere. Everything we do here on Wikipedia is public and is subject to being discussed elsewhere. No problem. --MelanieN (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. You put your finger on the fatal flaw in the new requirements: "Also, I took an hour because I was doing it for only the fifth time or so. If I did it regularly, it would get faster, I'm sure." What does this say about the effect of the process on a person like myself, who does not "do it regularly"? I can count on spending an hour plus, if I actually try to do it; more likely I will just say "forget it". The rules require me to do a review if I want to submit a nomination of my own, but I'm never going to do enough reviews to get good at it. The result will be that most of us casual nominators will simply stop submitting nominations; the stringent review process is prohibitive. Maybe the "regulars" don't see that as a problem; maybe they would rather keep the review process in the hands of people who specialize in it. In that case they should repeal the "nominate one, review one" requirement, because you are NEVER going to get the level of review you want from people like me. Or maybe they don't want to get nominations from non-specialists and are happy to see people like me removed from the nominating as well as the reviewing process. Whether intended or not (and I doubt it was intended), that will be the effect. So where does that leave DYK? Who is going to do the nominating, and who is going to do the reviewing? Are there enough DYK specialists to sustain the project? The new rules added to the time burden of reviewing but did not give any thought to where the additional manpower is going to come from. In fact, the opposite seems to be happening; I see from the DYK talk page that half a dozen people who used to do this kind of thing regularly have resigned from DYK work altogether. Just some things to think about - if people want Wikipedia to continue to have a DYK feature. Please feel free to quote me in any discussion about this. --MelanieN (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comments at ANI not appreciated
Over the top, out of context, in bad faith. I'll keep them in mind. And where were you when I was called "stupid" and "silly" by Rjanag at DYK a few days ago? It really does seem that there's one rule for admins and another rule for everyone else. Glad to see that you're supporting this dichotomy. Tony  (talk)  06:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And this is way out of line: "the community should also put others who argue incessantly at these pages (WT:TITLE and WP:MOS) on notice and topic ban them in short order as well, if things flare up again. Some of them have been topic banned in the past, so it would be easier to act in those cases". You seek to slur many people to bring all down to the same level? I say site-ban you for standing by and watching blatant breaches of civility by Rjanag at DYK. Tony   (talk)  06:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While I'm at it, I have serious concerns about some of your other assumptions, too. "While I can't condone Pmanderson's conduct here, I think that on balance his contributions still outweigh the negative aspects." So is this the kind of balance sheet you used in decision-making while an arbitrator? An editor is excused of wrongdoing on the basis of other contributions? Pity about Rlevse and many others I can think of. Perhaps this underlies your apparent support of the notion that admins can get away with breaching wp:civil. And there's yet more: "Unlike most of them, [Anderson] actually edits articles, with actual content and not just script-assisted fixing of MOS issues." Well, I just strayed onto your own contribs list, and it's not a pretty picture in those terms. Something back on 24/25 July on one article, and that's about it. Tony   (talk)  07:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony, thanks for the comments. As I've said to Ohconfucius below, I've been busy the past few days, so apologies for not being able to reply earlier. I need to catch up on what has been said in various places, but will respond at some point today to what you have said here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I've now got more time to respond here. Some of what I say here will repeat what I said to Ohconfucius. Firstly, I want to apologise for bringing up your WT:DYK edit at that ANI thread. I really shouldn't have done that, and I should have raised it on your talk page at the time (part of the reason I didn't was because I saw others telling you that the RfC result you were waving around wasn't a pass to do as you liked, and because I had hoped that you would focus on working with others, rather than against them). The case of Rjanag's comments is a good one, as I think you over-reacted there. There was no need there for any escalation by either of you. You are both quite capable of working together without demanding apologies for perceived slights. Your comment above of "I say site-ban you for standing by and watching blatant breaches of civility by Rjanag at DYK" is another classic over-reaction on your part. There are other examples of over-reactions I've seen from you in recent months. First the whole kurfuffle with Wehwalt that spilled into that excruciating thread at WT:FAC. And then the whole issue of what led to that recent block in your block log. I don't know what happened there, but getting into all these disputes suggests that you might be getting close to burnout, and I don't want to see that in you any more than I do in any other editor. It frustrates me that editors that clearly have useful things to say end up arguing with each other, making it more about personalities and emotions, than about calm and logical argument. When I see that happening, my advice is for people to take a deep breath, try and calm down, and consider whether a short break from Wikipedia might do some good. On your specific points, about balancing positives and negatives, I use those considerations for community ban discussions. For arbitration cases, this was less of a consideration as by the time something reaches arbitration editors should have had enough chances already. On your example of Rlevse, I was critical of what happened there, but more that he didn't stick around to face up to what he needed to do, and also because of the slow pace at which things happen at CCI. Rlevse exercising his right to vanish is something you can't stop, but I am happy to go on record that he shouldn't return or unvanish without picking up where he left off and responding to the concerns raised, and without helping to finish off the CCI, and having a robust discussion about what changes he needs to make to his editing based on whatever numbers of article are problematic at that CCI. And the final point is easier to respond to, the link you should be looking at is this one, and that shows you have your dates wrong above. And now, as I said to Ohconfucius, I'm going to respond to Pmanderson, and it will be a lot shorter than what I've said to the two of you. Carcharoth (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't see this, and responded in the thread below (some of which is relevant to your post here). "I say site-ban you for standing by and watching blatant breaches of civility by Rjanag at DYK"—yes, as a demonstration of your own over-reaction: do you remember that you'd just talked of banning other users (I presume I was one of your targets)? Perhaps I should have put an in there. And as for demanding apologies, you clearly do think it's fine for Rjanag to call me (my assumptions, my posts, whatever) "stupid" and "silly". Let me think about that carefully: have you said anything to him about it? No ... so why am I being lectured at? The Wehwalt issue was unforgivable on his part, and I retract none of what I said: he really did play the "admins are superior beings" line, which is very likely to be counterproductive (you might not remember back to when you were a normal editor?). Ellen of the Roads' incompetent, rushed, botched block is still a wound that needs to be resolved: did you give the matter more than a cursory glance? She breached the policy she accused me of breaching, refused to acknowledge this, in a very self-serving, frankly rude, post to me, and didn't even apologise to me directly for the botch (but in a response to Bishonen). It was an outrageous injustice, and the fact that you can't see that is a problem, IMO (I know it's a lot of text in a lot of places, but might you be leaping to conclusions?). If you're talking about the Adam Cuerden manipulates Sven Manguard to !@#$%^&* all over Tony incident (Sven has come clean on that), more research by you, please. Rlevse: really, he's paid a huge price, and should be allowed to move on if he returns. A sense of balance would be welcome. I'm concerned that you might be motivated in your judgement of situations by a relatively narrow set of moral imperatives, with the appearance of a certain inflexibility (did I really say that?). "my advice is for people to take a deep breath, try and calm down"—good advice. However, I'm not suffering from burn-out, and please be aware that recommending a break is sometimes taken as offensive, although I see it's in good faith here. Apologies about the wrong date: I viewed "all", not just "article only", but I don't know how I missed the Ramsy HT article even so. Tony  (talk)  13:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe "take a break" was bad advice, but "take a moment to pause and try and see the bigger picture" maybe? Some of what you say above is contradictory. You say Rlevse "should be allowed to move on" if he returns, and you then say that Elen of the Road's block of you is a "wound that needs to be resolved". The really annoying thing is that I agree in part with you on a lot of things, but you then take things to extremes. You had a point about copyediting of WP:TFA blurbs (and for what it is worth, I'd give you and some other non-admins, the tools in a heartbeat, you'd make far more use of them than I do), but you completely ruined that point by the aggressive way in which you reacted. Anyway, enough for now, I need to respond to a FAC I commented on, and then do some other things today. Carcharoth (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The one compensation for all this is that MOS is now so complex that not even Tony can find things in it, so it does no real harm. But if ArbCom were to consider such a case on its own motion, it would - on balance - be helpful to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw, my Wikipedia e-mail attachment works, and if you ever wish to contact me again, that would be preferable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since an issue was made of this, I should point out that you commented that you would have e-mailed both me and another editor, but you didn't have my e-mail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Having spent far too much time on this, I have only two things to say here to you: If there is an ArbCom case, I may have more to say, but that's it for now. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (1) You need to apologise to GTBacchus and others for what you said on his talk page.
 * (2) You are letting things get to you too much, and need to take a long break from Wikipedia.
 * I'm talking peaceably with GTBacchus about Trebizond, and have restated what I intended to say to him about crepes. I regret saying more than I intended, and he is welcome to any apology or reparation he sees fit to ask for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but make sure you tell him that, not just me. I wonder if it is possible to get a signature to display a random article each time? Ugh. Roseben Handicap is not something I would ask anyone to work on. Sorry, I'm rambling, see the point I made below about working on random articles with others. Carcharoth (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Already done; I suppose I should have included a link.


 * This random math article generator shows it can be done; talk to User:Jitse Niesen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If I may interpolate a point here:
 * "'Casliber called a draft consensus, when it reflected only a majority; on one point, the majority was 15-14.'"
 * A plain misrepresentation. Figures plucked so violently from their context as to be meaningless, with not the slightest concern for the facts of the matter. PMAnderson cites the same talismanic figures all over the place. Let him show the whole text surrounding these magic ciphers; and let him show my analysis as well.
 * N oetica Tea? 02:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's Noetica's own count; if he wants to change it, fine. I would have counted it somewhat differently myself. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's another misrepresentation above, so to inject a little balance into statements such as "MOS is following Tony's preferences, not reliable sources", please note that just the main MOS page alone has had over 7,500 edits in ten years by more than 2,100 distinct editors (and five times that many edits on the talk page). It is also worth noting that many of the current editors often debate Tony1 concerning suggested updates on the various MOS pages.
 * It is of course important that WP base article information on reliable sources, however please see my recent post that gives reasons why it is important for WP to have an in-house style manual that is sympathetic to its own peculiarities and needs (and how "reliable sources" are not always relevant for that). For other non-formatting issues, external guides are often consulted when formulating WP's in-house guide. In fact, the use of outside guides is deemed so important that a comprehensive list of their abbreviations has been included as an easy reference at the top of the MOS talk page.
 * Cheers, GFHandel &#9836; 02:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth, the 15-14 meme is coming from item 5b. "When prefixing an element containing a space" at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting. The 14 non-agree-ers are heterogeneous, and PMA is insisting on an artificial homogeneity to it. Some were opposing to avoid the construction altogether when the vote was actually on what we do if it is unavoidable (some supporters were keen to see it used as little as possible too). Anyway, take a look yourself and decide how you would have closed it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Both sides are heterogeneous; many of the 15 said nothing about requiring dashes; they merely agreed with the main proposal. But I am duly impressed with the argument that somebody who doesn't support using dashes at all is part of the consensus to make them mandatory. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha ha very funny. You know what I mean. I can see this isn't going anywhere so it remains to be seen what others think then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All I know is what Casliber says; if this is not what he means, he should try more detail, as GTBacchus has. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson
I just wanted to express my very big disappointment in you. Your tolerance of said editor's behaviour marks a very stark contrast to your intolerance of other editors' incivilities whenever you come across them. I furthermore note that you have still not replied to my two posts, at ANI or anywhere for that matter. Thank you for your attention. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I hadn't replied because I was out on Thursday night, and working late Friday night. Sometimes Wikipedia comes behind lots of other things. It's now Saturday morning and the weekend, so I'm going to be able to reply in various places. It may take a while, though, for me to catch up. If I'd known I'd not have a chance to reply for so long, I'd have said so, as I know how quickly things can move on Wikipedia and how some like quick replies, but that wasn't possible here, I'm afraid. Carcharoth (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I've now got more time to respond here. Firstly, I want to apologise again for bringing up your WT:DYK edit at that ANI thread. I really shouldn't have done that, and I should have raised it on your talk page at the time (part of the reason I didn't was because I thought Gatoclass closing the discussion had already sent that message that there was starting to be more heat than light). The reason I pointed it out was that your edit and Tony's edit were the closest examples I had to hand to show that others also interacting with Pmanderson also get frustrated when things don't go the way they want them to. Again, that doesn't excuse Pmanderson's behaviour (I will be coming to that when I reply to him above), but the whole history of MOS and TITLE and related pages is people who argue at and sometimes snap at each other, and often argue past each other as well. But I should have been more expansive with my argument, and in future I will endeavour to not tolerate anything like that when I see it. If you think I've tolerated something, it will be most likely because I either haven't seen it, or I don't think it is an uncivil comment (not everyone agrees on when the line is crossed). On the matter of script-assisted editing, my main frustration is not being able to see what content editing wiki-gnomes are doing. It sometimes feels that Wikipedia is splitting into overly specialised factions that sometimes argue unnecessarily. And there are other downsides as well, see what I said here. Some of the other comments I made around there as well might also help you realise why it frustrates me that editors that clearly have useful things to say end up arguing with each other, making it more about personalities and emotions, than about calm and logical argument. Carcharoth (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So why ambush people at ANI with such irrelevant claims? I feel affronted that you threw dirt all over me at ANI (so ... I used capital letters in a heading and I felt threatened and annoyed by a stalker who has a prior history of posting provocative messages on my talk page—and who has in one or two cases been abusive?). Do you realise how much this flinging around of accusations degrades ANI by reinforcing its reputation for damaging other people who dare post there, but who are not the subject of the complaint? Unfortunately, that phenomenon has been part of the downfall of Wikiquette, too. I must say that you're giving every sign of encouraging a morphing of scope to encompass other issues you may, in your mind, see as related. A disinterested observer might even suspect that you have a personal agenda, although I might doubt that myself. If you have problems with people's posts at DYK or MoS talk or anywhere else, why don't you raise them at the time rather than storing them up for what seems like a cynical purpose? I, for one, try to steer clear of Mr Anderson nowadays, so what is the purpose of trying to rope me and what would be a whole lot of other users who've had to endure his antics into a huge, unproductive ArbCom case? It beggars belief. And, to see it more broadly, it would waste Mr Anderson's time and cause him stress, too. As you've already noted, I didn't agree with the motion to indeff him from the site. I expect more good faith in the same environment than I think I'm receiving from you. Tony   (talk)  12:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to keep the discussions with you and Ohconfucius separate. I've said more above in the section where you originally posted. Maybe keep things there? Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that explanation. Do you know just how this comes across: And I say this as someone who has looked at his article space contributions and compared them to the other people that argue incessantly at WP:TITLE and WP:MOS pages. Unlike most of them, he actually edits articles, with actual content and not just script-assisted fixing of MOS issues? I am upset by your implication that I must be one of the people who is "arguing incessantly" at TITLE and MOS and "just script-assisted fixing of MOS issues". :-( So you examined Pmanderson's contribution list... There are others at ANI who have pointed out Pmanderson's editing patterns are not as simple as you seem to understand – that only one-third is "content work", but these edits are predominantly relating to style issues he insists on arguing (and warring) over. Speaking for myself, I feel that by ascribing those values to Pmanderson's work as you do in your statement, you are demeaning and being grossly unfair to me and many others who do the sort of work I do. You seem not to realise that my processing a large number of articles using scripts, is but a means to an ends of producing professional-quality articles. I also love creating content and would therefore take the opportunity to familiarise you with my contributions. You will find therein several articles that have been brought from creation to GA or FA by me. I agree that there are realms and fiefdoms in WIkipedia, and your assertion could be right from Pmanderson's narrow point of view. You seem to insinuate that the MOS is just a power base to some; in truth, the guideline is cobbled together mish-mash of styles, with built in opt-outs and exemptions so that harmony is best preserved. People who come and discuss style issues are welcomed as anywhere else. I have seen nothing in my years of hanging around MOS to indicate that he is committed to a 'house style'; quite the contrary, he seems to be hell bent on undermining and destroying it by allowing free use of external style guides. Rarely do MOS discussions get acrimonious when PMA is absent. Pmanderson has a rather unique viewpoint in that he is about the only editor who has chosen to hang around there whilst espousing the view that the MOS has no consensus and that he refuses to comply with it. Why should we carry on putting up with someone at MOS who wants to see the house torn down while everyone else wants to build it? You have already apologised for inappropriate citing the "SO SAD" part of my comment at DYK (and linking thereto). I hope you can see why I so strongly object to some of your other comments, and trust you will remedy the situation by withdrawing or otherwise striking the relevant parts. And finally, if you have further advice and comments on my script-based editing,  I look forward to hearing from you. Regards, -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, and the link to that contributions page in particular. Nicely set up and looks good. I will consider striking some of my comments, but for now I'll finish here by saying that I suspect that my theory about working on articles is correct. If two editors have an argument, it is sometimes possible for them to learn to work together if they both pick a random article and help each other out on it. What that requires, though, is the ability to put down the stick about the current issue, and to approach the new venue (the randomly chosen article) with an open mind. It has to be a random article, though, not something either editor is currently working on. Unfortunately, I clicked the random article link and got Ubbi... Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. I click on the 'random article' button regularly. Like you, I also find myself most often landing on stubs. ;-) -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please observe the distortion of my user-name. This piece of aggravation was, IIRC, invented by Tony; it marks the tone of MOS discussions (which are only temperate when a visiting editor either submits or leaves) that this is being employed here, on a note addressed to you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Physical Chemistry
Hello,

I saw that you are planning a major overhaul on the "Physical Chemistry" article, and I would be happy to help. I'm a student in a physical chemistry graduate program who's recently been outraged over the quality of Wikipedia in certain areas, and I'd really appreciate the chance to see how an experienced editor works and sets up articles before making major overhauls of my own on some other physical chemistry and chemical engineering articles. Would you like discussion left on the talk page for physical chemistry, or is there a better place for it? ChE Fundamentalist (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That was some time ago. I still have my notes, but don't have plans to go back to that article any time soon. It would probably be best to post at the article talk page and lay out ideas there for how to approach this (maybe using other article for guidance). Please ping me again if you do post there, and thanks for posting here to ask me about this. Also, maybe post at WikiProject Chemistry - I didn't get much response last time, but maybe some of the editors there have more time now than previously. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, and I'm sorry to hear you've reconsidered your rework. I'll see what I can do on my own, and I'll let you know when I start. ChE Fundamentalist (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom
The current situation with Pmanderson looks very similar to what has happened before with ChildofMidnight and Ottava rima. Both of those users made good contributions as editors, but there were conduct problems. The discussion on ANI has become chaotic, like the caucus race from Alice in Wonderland. I think an ArbCom case is probably now the only way to resolve these problems. I am not sure it would be any more orderly, but like OR and CoM, I would not partipate. (In OR I did briefly try to plead with him on the workshop page.) Mathsci (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you disregard the discussion posts of editors who give every sign of being hot-headed, it's not very hard for an uninvolved admin (a skilled one) to sift through and weigh up a simple remedy. This is what ANI is for; by contrast, the role of ArbCom is increasingly to take on the political nasties (Israeli–Palestinian matters, Climate Change, etc.). Mr Anderson's case is pretty cut-and-dried, and requires only a decision as to how to pitch the remedy for the protection of the project. ArbCom cases are extraordinarily disruptive and drawn-out socially and personally, and come with their own damage. ArbCom cases are vulnerable to scope-shopping and public defamation, and it's little wonder that good editors leave when faced with the prospect—particularly if they are forced into what resembles a public trial without good reason. This must be weighed up against whatever benefit is anticipated beyond an ANI resolution, and I can see none: convince me there's one, please. Really, if ANI can't sort this out, ANI needs to be reconceived. Tony   (talk)  02:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Scope of possible case
Carcharoth, hi. I hope it's okay if I crash this thread; I want to talk about ArbCom as well. Ever since first making noises about filing a case - which I'm putting on indefinite hold for now - I've received some interesting communications, from yourself and others, and I'm concerned about the community. The general scary stories don't bother me; that's just normal. I don't fear ArbCom because I have nothing to hide and little emotional attachment to any particular activity here. I'm proud of some work that I've done, and they can't take that away. It doesn't surprise me, though, that most people would rather have weekly root canals for two months. Court sucks, and I'm weird. What concerns me is that everyone assumes it will turn into a big MOS case, with lots of people getting topic bans and other such penalties. I guess the idea is: It's the long-term conflict that's making lots of people misbehave, so tag a bunch of them with scary penalties, and then the MOS quiets down considerably for a while, until a new group of people become the regulars, get over-entrenched, and fight for 14 months or so. However, for me, this isn't about the MOS at all. I'm collateral damage, and I'm collateral damage that doesn't have to happen if we don't have such a permissive atmosphere here regarding incredibly boorish and aggressive behavior. No "cabal", or over-entrenched group of well-meaning editors, or area of work that's "difficult", can make someone who truly cares about treating their fellow human beings with respect behave in the way Pma did at my talk page. That's a type of behavior that gets you thrown in jail in polite society, and here, we tolerate it. That's mean we enable it, which means we encourage it. Why do we do that? I don't want to take Pma to ArbCom and have it turn into the night of the long knives for everyone with a high profile in MOS! I want to know that the Wikipedia community says "no" to that type of behavior, period. Is it really the case that the ArbCom is going to claim that such extremes of anti-social behavior are mitigated by any kind of circumstances? Why don't we just make it clear that People Do Not Treat People That Way And Get Away With It Here? Why is this so complicated? It's not about MOS, it's about our permissiveness of behavior that would get you jailed - or at least beaten to a pulp - in a real-space environment. Why are we permissive of it? If we made it clear that such behavior was grounds for immediate goodbye, then yes, we'd lose a lot of editors who just can't avoid yelling at people. Then we'd refill all those spots promptly with the thoughtful and generous people who've been driven away by the fact that we let neighborhood bullies act like neighborhood bullies. We let them do it for years at a stretch, as a rule, and we wonder why we don't attract more contributors. I can imagine a much better Wikipedia, one that doesn't inspire independent and reliable sources to write about how rampant incivility is a problem poisoning the greatest project that H. sapiens has conceived in centuries. If I file a case with ArbCom, I want it to be about why this nature of behavior is tolerated at all, not about the "Manual of Style". What are your thoughts on this? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * First up, you wouldn't be collateral at all. As far as I can see, you have been completely blameless in all this. The fear I think many have is that any ArbCom case would be like the date delinking one, but if a case was accepted titled 'Pmanderson' it is in fact unlikely that the scope would go much beyond that editor, if at all. I might present evidence about the general atmosphere that prevails at WT:TITLE and WT:MOS (your description of 'boorish and aggressive behavior' sums up perfectly what I've been reading in the archives over there, mixed in with the more normal polite and civil threads, of course). But even then, it is unlikely that much would come of it, apart from a general finger-wagging, and the bulk of any sanctions would quite rightly be directed at Pmanderson. My view as to why Wikipedia has difficulty properly sanctioning editors who cross a line is that the line in question is not kept clear. i.e. People with boorish and aggressive behaviour brush up close to that line and so it is more difficult to see when someone crosses it. If everyone stays reasonably civil, it is easier to see those who are crossing the line. Also, you need to know the history sometimes. Little digs like "Manderson" aren't clear to those who don't know the history there. Another one was "Born2GoogleCount" (or something). And typing things in an online environment is very different to talking to people face-to-face. Edit summaries of "remove vomit" is a prime example (real life doesn't have edit summaries, of course). As to whether people really use phrases face-to-face such as "weapons-grade bullonium", I don't know. I've never tried that myself. Really, though, I suspect that ArbCom reviewing any case request would look at the current discussion and endorse the topic ban and reject the case request. If you want to tackle the issue of project-wide civility, regardless of venue, maybe start a village pump discussion, or look at the essays in Category:User essays on civility. That gives some perspective, and if some of this inspires another essay that might be in part a useful outcome. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a lot better pickings at Category:Wikipedia civility essays; I wrote at least one thing in there. So it's the village pump and the essay-sphere, is it? Sounds about right. Your prediction of the probable outcome of my filing a case is appreciated. I'll keep doing what I've been doing, a little wiser, and still quite patient. Thanks for your comments, indeed, throughout this brouhaha. Oh, regarding that line... I consider that brushing "up close to it" to be a way of crossing it. It's about the spirit, not the letter. The real litmus test comes in how quickly and clearly someone can say, "I was wrong", or do they take that to be a sign of weakness? Take care. I'll see you around. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, "remove vomit" seems to be becoming a mantra. I do not want that stalker on my talk page again. Why don't you stop him? Tony   (talk)  03:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Even so, I've written a brief apology on N-HH's talk page for the "vomit" comment. Tony   (talk)  08:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * People now know that being rude to another isn't even going to get you slap-wristed, let alone a block of any length. Wikiette is a completely ineffectual talking shop; ANI can be wildly unpredictable and duysfunctional. It's also taken years for editors like Mick MacNee banned for chronic abuse and bullying; finally, the community seems to have had enough of yet another member with an above average level of toxicity, yet still be totally reluctant to issue a block of appropriate length. I'd be glad to hear suggestions on how that culture can be banished, for the sake of our collective sanity. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerning your (Carcharoth's) comments on Noetica's talk page about the MoS: are you equating the animated debate on the talk page with instability on the actual MoS page? The two stand in stark contrast. The MoS went through major changes from 2006 to 2009 (at a rough guess), but has been pretty stable since then. I'm struggling to see much substantive change in recent years, but your focus seems to suggest that there has been a disorienting pace of change. The dash section is larger than it was, yes (I was critical of this); but the expansion is almost entirely in explanatory examples, not change in practice or concept. Can you point to a part of the MoS that has expanded or is unstable, and thus might leave editors feeling in a whirl? One of my main wishes is that it be shortened, but I'm not thinking of that in terms of substantive instability. The second query I have is the notion going around that there's a clique of editors at MoS that bulldozes changes through. I seem to be mentioned as some kind of owner of the page. This is so contrary to my experience that I have to raise it here. To win approval for anything but trivial and totally non-controversial changes at MoS requires a lot of legwork and more than likely a knock-back or significant compromise. This is a healthy situation, IMO, and I query why a few people are putting it about that there's some group of "MoS regulars" that has an iron grip on the page. Could you re-examine these people's assumptions, please? Tony   (talk)  08:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is stable because a small clique of editors revert war any changes they do not make; Tony's point here is that they also interfere with each other. This is also why it has so many contributors; how many contributors have actually had words that were not reverted within minutes or days? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a grumble, of course; but you will find by examining the page how nearly it is true. Please let me know if you are considering such a case. Also, you write that I should apologize for "severely criticizing a guideline." This surprises me; it is true, and regrettable, that I have turned to criticizing its authors too often; but its talk page (and the first proposal of the hyphen-dash case, back in May) are full of those who find it severely flawed. They are routinely pooh-poohed and they have no effect on the text; but this is a bug, not a feature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Noting here that I've read all the above and what happened elsewhere (after being far too busy at work during the week to even think of participating in the closing part of all this). Please don't respond to this, anyone who is reading this, as this thread is effectively closed now, but I hope everyone can move on now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

 * Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Canoe River
I've got the accident report. It is nothing earthshattering but will enable clarifying things.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, your concern about images should now be assuaged.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I had a quick look at the images and they are nice. Glad you managed to get those and a copy of the crash report. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * We aims to please. I think the article is very strong now and I'm thinking of nomming it for TFA next anniversary on November 21.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

My answer
Daniel Case (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll reply on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I always felt like statements like that were best kept private, but you do have more experience seeing how things like these play out so I will defer to your judgement and reiterate on the record:
 * Of my own volition, I will just not respond to anything Sandy says anymore regarding DYK reform, at least not directly, since I see her ability to assume good faith in the ability of the DYK regulars to address what I agree are legitimate concerns as completely absent. I do believe other reforme advocates, such as Tony1, are better able to deal with the DYK editors as equals, so I will continue to interact with them. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Going past “Halley's Comet”
And, again…

Halley's Comet
Giotto is mentioned in the main text.  Serendi pod ous  21:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Replied at your talk page and also posted at the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Forster
I'm sorry, but I'm terribly IRL busy these days. I will do some research and post at the talk page, but it will take some time. I'm certainly not opposed to discussing the name question in the article, but would prefer to keep the current title, at least for disambiguation reasons. But any substantial input from my side will have to wait for another week or three. Hope you don't mind too much, —Kusma (t·c) 09:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. No rush. I'll keep an eye out, but ping me if I seem to be not watching the page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Template discussion
This entry on the Templates for discussion page is about mnl which came up in discussion with you. BTW the next Cambridge meetup should be 8 October, and I'll probably post a page tomorrow. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Charles. I'll have a look at both of those. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Aliens and Graves
Thank you for your sensible contribution to this debate. I am replying here because I do not want to get involved in prolonging what has become, for me, a tedious argument. Mea culpa x 2. First I did not look to see if there were an article on enemy aliens; if I had, I would have linked it and maybe prevented all this. Then the reason I got involved in the discussion was because of the "little green men", and I took my eye off the ball. At least having a DYK brought the article to the attention of 1.9k readers, rather than the usual one or two. And now I've linked enemy aliens, so I hope we can all settle down. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not on Mars! :-) Seriously, thanks for the reply. Carcharoth (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY
Thanks for providing such carefully reasoned comments at the 9/11 RfC. I notice that you have been confronted by arguments based on WP:ONEWAY. Like you, I have noticed that such arguments confuse and conflate separate issues in an unhelpful way. But even at face value, arguments based on WP:ONEWAY are pretty feeble in this case: see Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2 for my critique. Geometry guy 01:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tom Skinner
I don't want to edit war over this, but this notice can be left at the nomination's talk page rather than in the nomination itself. The nomination has already been closed.

Personally I don't see the need for it. It should be common sense to know that there may be continuing discussion at the article's talk page. Likewise, as far as I know, we never update closed AfDs, FACs, etc., after the fact with messages saying "this article is being discussed more at its talk page". r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * At this stage, I think the nomination needs to be reopened. It says "unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page" - what constitutes consensus to reopen a DYK nomination? Epipelagic has been working on the article, and it would be good if you and Crisco could state whether your concerns have been met and whether this can now go forward for DYK or not. That is the cycle of review, discuss, improve that should be happening. Carcharoth (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Usually discussion about reopening a closed nomination happens at WT:DYK. In this case I suppose it may also be acceptable to work that out at the article talkpage (although it would probably still be best to post at WT:DYK saying something like "we cleaned up this article and decided [here] that it should be reopened, can someone un-archive the nom?"). I personally have no desire to be involved in this review further. The original editor told me a boldfaced lie about the sources he used and thus I will probably not be satisfied without a complete rewrite of the article (because I don't have any trust in what's there right now); since that is not going to happen and it's not really worth continuing to argue over I would prefer to recuse myself from any further reviews. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK. I may do that. The argument about the source and the accusations of lying are one reason why closure of nominations shouldn't be so rigid. That discussion clearly hadn't ended, even though Crisco rejected the nomination. There was no indication that the argument had moved to your talk page. People coming to that nomination only see half a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the kind words. I wouldn't have said the same myself (something more in the middle), as I still don't think I'm getting the balance in editing various areas quite where I'd like it to be (more time would help sometimes), but I appreciate the thoughts. Carcharoth (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)