This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Thanks for that [1] - I'm almost frightened to comment in case someone else has something wrong with them - at least Tony sidaway sounds quite healthy! Giano 11:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• If it's to do with bricks and mortar I can probably help, or the odd biography if the subject is connected with an interesting building or is a boxer (which rather limits the scope). However I know a man who may kmow the answer User: Wetman is a sort of classical oracle and fund of knowledge on all educated subjects, suggest you try him. Giano 12:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Something could be done along the lines you describe, but the biggest problem is that any template based solution would require them to expend more effort that just adding the year would. A template could be set up something like '{{subst:dates|10|02}}' - with logic in the template to then display 'October 2' during 2006 or 'October 2, 2006' thereafter... but is anyone really going to type that out rather than '10-02-06' or somesuch? The user preferences include optional date formats, but 'exclude year if year=current' isn't one of the options. They could probably add it to the media-wiki logic, but that would still require the user to actually input the year. Surprisingly MOS:DATE doesn't have anything about this that I can see. The best course may just be to try to publicize the issue there / add it to the guidelines and get people thinking about the fact that yearless dates may be unclear in the future. -- CBD 11:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Still here. A bit distracted by non-Tolkien stuff at present, but still have getting Middle-earth back to FA status on my list. That's me and Jc37 so far. Anyone else want to join us? Carcharoth 10:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)" Carcharoth, I am interested in helping if you don't mind. I probably can't do major stuff, but I can help with smaller things. Just by looking at the article I can tell it needs touching up, but what specifically could I help you improve on it? -- Merond e 18:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what to do with this. I'm starting to lean towards simple deletion. See also: Fourth Age#later Ages, which I removed, and has subsequently been replaced. - jc37 20:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend you keep finding stuff like this and building up the page you have, with notes as to where you found the stuff. Then, when you have re-written a particular bit, to move it back to the article you copied it from. I agree with people who reverted your removal of stuff (where you didn't rewrite it or create a new article). Unless it is downright wrong, leave it there until you've rewritten it. If stuff really is wrong, then just remove it, but make sure you explain in the edit summary or on the talk page. Carcharoth 21:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of it is unsourced, rather blatant WP:OR. Can you look through the page and isolate what you feel would be useful, and yet is not just speculation? - jc37 21:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Done.

Let me know what you think. Carcharoth 22:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an excellent start. I "deintegrated" 2 lines, but other than that, as far as I am concerned, we can delete the "Unsuitable, excessive speculation" section entirely as rather clear WP:OR. After that we can start to scrutinise the rest. What do you think? (And feel free to continue editing that page, btw.) - jc37 22:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

You expressed some concern in the sidebar redesign that certain pages would get forgotten and not put up there when they were of sufficient quality. Well, I just expanded List of articles, an overview to be fairly comprehensive, and thought you might want to inspect it for quality assurance, gaps in coverage, etc. -- The Transhumanist 03:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent feedback, thanks. I've replied on my talk page. -- The Transhumanist 09:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See also: Help:Import

Basically, lets you bring in an article in its entirety (including all revisions by all users) via a previously downloaded XML file. Normally, when enabled, a user with either +sysop or +import would visit Special:Import and upload the XML file, adding its contents to the wiki. Not only is Import disabled on Wikipedia, but it's restricted to +import users. If you're interested in the various user rights and "who can do what" there's a very interesting table located at Wikipedia:User access levels.

(Posted due to comment at RFAR, it's an interesting feature.) ~Kylu ( u| t) 00:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Carcharoth- On Oct. 5 you edited the LOTR article, leaving this summary: "correct errors where <".> was replaced with <.">" By "correct errors", ("correct errors," <nudge, nudge>) did you mean "change punctuation style from American to British"? Earlier that evening, I'd changed all instances of <".> to <.">. Because I'd found both constructions in the article, and found the latter (American style) to be more prevalent, I made the whole text consistent with that style. I'm not married to either; I always found the British style to be more logical, but being American, it makes sense for me to acquiesce to my fellow colonials' style. Just wanted to let you know it wasn't an error, though some might consider it a mistake. - Eric ^(talk) 16:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I was changing from American to British style, but further, I believe that putting punctuation marks inside quotation marks makes the punctuation look like it is part of the quote. To my mind, that is just wrong. Maybe take this to Talk:The Lord of the Rings and see if others have opinions? Carcharoth 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said, logic would have me use the British style as well. In articles, it would matter more to me that the style is consistent, which may be a challenge to pull off. Yes, we could move this to the LOTR talk page, but I think it's more a general issue. I'm new here on Wikipedia; I'm guessing this must have been addressed in some Wikipedia style manual, but all I can find is an article. Maybe someone has established a protocol for editors to reach a concensus, article by article, whether to use Am or Br style? Hey, wait--I just checked my LOTR text, and it's in the Am style! It was printed here, though--probably for Am eyes only. I quoted you in case you want to move this somewhere. - Eric ^(talk) 16:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So, I'm curious: What do you think is going on with the RfArb? I participated heavily in workshop and it's hard for me to read the proposed decision and see a strong relationship. This leads me to wonder about the value of an open workshop page.

Thanks for your comments on my week ban; but please save your indignation for after it's carried out. My position on all such remedies is no big deal. It surely does me no harm to take a vacation from WP and split the time between getting more paid work done and resting. Hey, it's 6 am my time and I've been editing all night -- literally, for the last 6 hours, nonstop. Go ahead, ask me when I sleep. I think I got good work done, too; apart from a little carping on the RfArb, I finally managed to merge Wheel war. I've been working on this one policy initiative since February; I've earned a break.

I do understand that you're more concerned with the effect on the community of banning somebody who tried to call b'crats to account. I agree; it's a serious problem -- or rather, it is an indication of a far bigger problem. If you want to work on it with me, please let me know. I hardly know where to begin but I do have a few ideas.

I see you've got a comment here about Clerks. I'm curious to know your thinking about this class of editors. Please reply here, not on my talk; I'll be back. John  Reid 13:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a lot to say, really. I agree with some of the comments you have made in the past (I'd better not say which ones, right now), but the comments at the RfArb was just me wanting your ban to be discussed at least a bit, rather than not at all, as so much had been expended on Geogre. It's interesting to see how the focus of things like this changes, from Giano to Tony to Kelly to Geogre to you. I'll try and have a look at the other stuff you mention if I have time. About the Clerks, that was just me failing to find the history cos it was a transcluded template being used. I found the history at the history of the template. I was just momentarily idignant that the history was not being properly recorded, but it was a false alarm. Carcharoth 13:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you think you shouldn't say, you probably should. Not saying things is how we got here. If you want a private sidebar, you and me, I'm open to it. The wandering focus of RfArbs is a systemic problem. I still want to know what you're thinking about Clerks. Aaron Brenneman suggested that there was no need for this class of editor; I disagree but I was taken by his comment about "the fez and the tiny car" and created Image:Clerk-fez.png and derivatives. John  Reid 10:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I've reached the point where I need to consolidate my arguments and start writing stuff down. It's not all just about the issues you raise, so I hope you don't mind if I just cogitate for a bit and try and make it more coherent. Nag me if I seem to have forgotten. Carcharoth 10:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This RfArb has ripped the lid off of a lot of outdated ideas and unstated assumptions. This community and this project have staggered along for a long time on the strength of a lot of weak straws and as one goes, it takes the next in line. It's obvious that WP was founded in the early days by people with no political or organizational experience; more, by people actively hostile to proven techniques of management. In place of these, they substituted emphatic demands for good will and common sense. When those failed, they threw all sorts of ad hoc remedies into the breach; and like all who recapitulate development instead of studying their predecessors, they made the most basic mistakes and created some of the most brittle, oppressive, and opaque methods. Lacking leverage with which to enforce draconian standards, the whole effort degenerates into a pillow fight.

Assuming that we still want to build a project, we're going to have to reorganize. That effort begins in the morning, when the empty beer cans, spilled ashtrays, and butt prints in green ooze on the windows are cleaned up. But for now, it looks like the party is in full swing. John  Reid 07:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have worked with you on some articles and was wondering if you would head over to Wikipedia:Editor review and say what you think about my editing? I take criticism incredibly well, so don't be shy. Plus, if it is bad form to ask this, please let me know. Thank you. KaoB e ar ^(talk) 17:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You are putting in the extra requirments. You find the extra people. Geni 12:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that extra process would have stoped Improv's deletion spree. I didn't use instruction creep as an edit summery. As for your comments about new admins Improv has been here for as long as I have and has been an admin for nearly as long. Geni 12:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Normaly by asking more experenced admins but for the most part people find thier feet pretty fast (and the confirm delete page reminds you about the pointing in links issue). Geni 13:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Not instuction creep because everyone ignores it. See MediaWiki talk:Confirmdeletetext. Geni 13:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if you say so. -- Steel 16:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Afd that you voted on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter has been closed and relisted by an Admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Walter (second nomination). Before re-listing, the vote was 19 delete, 5 keep. Morton devonshire 22:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't notice the articles creator. (I had a few things to check up on, I have been pretty inactive lately). Thanks for userfying, Prodego ^talk 01:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed that with this edit you changed the date for the chess entry from 13 October to 12 October. In fact, 13 October was the correct date, as the tie-break session was played that day. Something to be careful about and check in future, to avoid misunderstandings. Also, I'm not sure why you changed the picture. Thanks. Carcharoth 09:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Carcharoth. Thanks for pointing that out. I must have misread the article yesterday. I've fixed the order on ITN. About the picture, well, I put Ban Ki-moon on top so I posted his pic there to go with the top line. Ban's pic is now a day old. If there is a better image available (e.g. the actual Currie Cup), we can use it instead. -- PFHLai 13:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I'm glad that this issue has been resolved. I didn't notice that the date had erroneously been changed.
In response to your question, I selected the chess entry for removal both to avoid having 50% sports entries and because the Orhan Pamuk entry (the other one labeled "October 12") was much shorter. Having looked ahead at the length of today's featured article blurb, I knew that the chess entry probably would be restored shortly after midnight UTC. — David Levy 13:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I've made changes to Template:Update after (it now links to Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating and As of), and made significant changes to the documentation at Template:Update_after (including documenting the built-in ability to add a comment, and a changes in where it's allowable to be used); please review, and provide comments at Template talk:Update after if you think any are appropriate. Thanks! -- Scott McNay 03:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

Do you mean to put |class=Cat or |class=Template when applicable? If you do, that won't work because the template doesn't support those fields. Cbrown1023 00:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work right now, but I can add that if you want. I was thinking about it but wasn't sure. Cbrown1023 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :). I added the two fields to the template, you add |class=Cat or |class=Template. Cbrown1023 00:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm done... I added the tag to about 523 articles, but it skipped like 900 (because they already had the tag). I don't know what to tell you about the template (importance) except that you won't have to change anything except the syntax on {{ ME-project}}... sorry... g'night! Cbrown1023 02:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No... I was the one who added the parameters to populate that category (and if you wanted to rename it, it would be Category:WikiProject Middle-earth categories, because talk places are the generic places for banners). But right now I'm in the middle of changing all the categories in Category:Tolkien categories that use the {{ ME-project}} to {{ ME-category}} as requested. I'm going to remove the Template and Cat fields. Cbrown1023 22:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? Cbrown1023 19:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't really need to have a category for template pages and template talk pages, that is a little redundant. We should just pick one or the other, propbably talk pages as there is less margin for error when added by other editors (such as putting {{ME-category}} instead of <noinclude>{{ME-category}}</noinclude>) and that is what is done for other pages (articles) and most other projects. Cbrown1023 02:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that they should be categorised on the template page. But when they are categorised that way, there is no banner, only a category surrounded by <noinlude></noinclude> tags. It is funny that you brought up Category:WikiProject Star Wars Templates because I populated that category myself when tagging articles and templates for WP:STARWARS. There is definately no point in creating a seperate banner as that category is not even needed, some people just find it useful (I don't know how). You shouldn't have a banner for the Wikipedia space and its subpages, that is what the NA rating is for. Cbrown1023 14:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You may want to check out Category:Class templates (they changed it) Category:Wikipedia editorial validation (for class templates), {{ Film}} (the template I work with most), and {{ Film Grading scheme}} to get more ideas... Cbrown1023 14:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems like it would be pretty helpful, but would also need complicated syntax (not necassarily, but hard for us who aren't good with it to do) and may be complicated for the users who put in effect. But, then again, if it is easier for you (and the other project participants) then do it. You should put it to a vote on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth (but I think you kinda already did). Cbrown1023 03:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You should combine Article with Overview and List with Timeline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Assessment#Page types. Cbrown1023 03:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the templates go slightly over the top now; how on earth is Sigelwara Land or the Lay of Aotrou and Itroun at all related to Middle-earth (short of the fact that they are from the pen of the same author), let alone of "mid importance" to it? dab (ᛏ) 10:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I explained on your talk page that WikiProject Middle-earth (despite the name) is about more than just Middle-earth. There was a debate a few months ago about changing the name to include "Tolkien", but it was decided not to change the name. The other argument is that this WikiProject is probably the best place to find people willing to improve and maintain the articles. If you can find other WikiProjects willing to do this, by all means add them in as well. I put mid-importance, because anything published by Tolkien should be of more than low-importance, IMO. Another argument is that some people could see the non-Middle-earth Tolkien articles as being more encyclopedic than, say, Soronto. Carcharoth 10:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You may want to consider archiving your talk page. Cbrown1023 14:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Done! :-) Carcharoth 16:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me! And it's fine if you change the wording. Wikipedia is about being bold, right? :) — Mir l e n 23:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Being bold, but also trying lots of different wordings until we (and others) are happy with the wording. Have you had a chance to look over the importance assessments I've been doing? Carcharoth 23:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if you would be interested in being nominated for adminship? I'll watch for a response here : ) - jc37 03:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you were, I'd definately support you. Cbrown1023 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much to both of you. I'm very flattered by this. As you may have noticed from my archiving my talk page and putting the notice at the top and at the top of my user page, I'm trying to get slightly more organised about my activities here. I'm even trying to use my watchlist more, and trying to get used to hiding my edits (on the watchlist) and selecting "Talk" (on the watchlist) to spot where people have replied to my posts on their talk pages. I don't feel I'm quite organised enough yet, so I hope you don't mind if I turn this offer for nomination down at this moment. I'm also going to be a bit busy outside Wikipedia for a bit, so I'd want to find the time to consider why I'd want the admin tools, and to follow any RfA that did happen, and also, incidentially, to learn a bit more about some important areas of Wikipedia I've not looked at in any detail yet, and (possibly) to assess where I've got to and where I want to end up (in terms of the areas I've edited in and want to carry on editing in). Thanks again. Carcharoth 18:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, Carcharoth, if you run for RfA, I'd be honored to nominate you alongside Cbrown1023 and jc37. :) Whenever you feel ready though.

Anyway, you have a point on how infoboxes aren't sufficient enough to cover the names and titles in details, which is why I wrote some exceptions in the usage:

"The field Other names and Titles should not be used for characters whose aliases and titles exceed at least (respectively) five in quantity, such as Aragorn, Túrin Turambar, and Gandalf. Instead, information regarding other names should be elaborated in a seperate section Names and titles after Characteristics (see the layout for character articles)."

Characters such as Maglor or Fingon don't really a seperate section to explain their names in elaborate details as it is needed for Aragorn or Gandalf or Túrin, which is why I felt it was okay to use the infobox in Maglor or Fingon's case. (Plus, I can't take credit for this idea because it was CBD who thought of it first.) On a random note, I'll get back to you on the Assessment and the lists later, I have to go for now (got a little sidetracked with the discussion about validity of names). — Mir l e n 00:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for reminding me of that bit on the Standards page. And thanks for the vote of confidence, and thanks for adding a new section so not everyone has to read the previous section. LOL! Carcharoth 00:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) For Assessment, do you want to compare lists on the talk page of Me:A and see what happens from there? — Mir l e n 23:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll start with the Top importance articles you listed in your list:

Top

Page type	Article(s)	Comments
Author	J. R. R. Tolkien
Place	Middle-earth
Book	The Hobbit
Book	The Lord of the Rings
Book	The Fellowship of the Ring
Book	The Two Towers
Book	The Return of the King
Book	The Silmarillion
Book	The Silmarillion
Book	The Silmarillion
Books	The History of Middle-earth
Book	On Fairy-Stories
Character	Beren	– I'm wobbling between high and top importance though
Character	Bilbo Baggins
Character	Eärendil
Character	Fëanor
Character	Frodo Baggins
Character	Lúthien
Character	Morgoth
Character	Samwise Gamgee
Character	Túrin Turambar	– before The Children of Húrin, I would've placed him on high, but the arrival of that book has changed my mind

No, X-marks yet ^^. I'll start on High importance tomorrow, it seems to be a rather lengthy list. Oh, and I hope the table satisfied your desire for tables. ;) — Mir l e n 04:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. The sad thing was, that one was added by hand for some reason. AWB is better than me sometimes, it checks the whole page to make sure the tag is not there. I just check the top, thinking an editor would put it there and I must have been in a hurry grading articles.

Funny you should ask me to post a note on his talk page, as I did write after I clicked on the link.

On a more personal note, you really seem to be getting busy lately with all the stuff you are doing for WP:Me. You are doing some good work and thanks for the future input on my edior review! Cbrown1023 20:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be placed on the talk page or the user page and does anything other than [[Category:Middle-earth redirects]] need to be placed on the page? Cbrown1023 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just on the article page. I think it needs to go on a new line after the redirect bit, as putting on the same line might mess up the redirect. Nothing should go on the talk page. I've been removing any template I find on the talk page of redirects, as having the template there puts them in "non rated" categories for the assessment bit. Not very helpful, as redirects don't need assessing. Just the category will be enough to keep track of redirects, at least for now! Carcharoth 02:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, WP:AWB does not allow the posting of messages (it is considered a message) on non-talk pages... I wish I could have done it. :( :'( ... Cbrown1023 02:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ooh... I thought of a savy way of doing it. It will will probably only work for some, but if they all redirect to List of Hobbits, then we can put it as find and replace... it would find:

#REDIRECT 
List of Hobbits

and replace it with:

#REDIRECT 
List of Hobbits

Category:Middle-earth redirects

I hope it works... 02:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but...

• If you are using AWB you could probably ask User:Kingboyk or post your question at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser.
• If it is just a regular list... for something like List of Hobbits, you can click on the What links here button and in the Address bar add the following to the URL to get a list of 5000 pages (or change that number to get whatever you want)

&limit=5000&from=0

which should give you a listing of 5,000 or less pages that link to that page. Then, in whatever internet browser you have, access the find tool (on internet explorer it is Ctrl F) and type in redirect. This will give highlight the pages that redirect to the certain page and the pages that link to that below them... does that kinda make sense?

I probably won't respond that soon as I have classess tomorrow and am going to bed, so sorry in advance for my lack of promptness in responding to your next post (if there is one). Cbrown1023 02:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, final total was 238. I'm glad to see that you asked Kingboyk, he is a very good editor and helper and is works very well with the technology behind Wikipedia. Cbrown1023 03:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yay! You are back. I hope you had a good and fun weekend. Cbrown1023 01:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean about getting side-tracked... you click an interesting link and suddenly it is an hour later and you haven't done any of the things you were planning to. :] I like the philosophy. I've thought about writing up something similar myself. There is a phrase I run around in my head alot, 'Block when you find that you have to, not when you feel that you can.' The same is true of alot of the 'warnings' which inherently contain an element of 'threat'. I see alot of cases where conflict is created or escalated over a minor issue that could have just been ignored. Everything really comes down to 'civility'... but that's a much wider issue than generally considered. -- CBD 12:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied on my page. -- kingboyk 15:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, bah... I see somebody gave you the same tip as me up above. Well, that's how I do it too. Sorry! I don't think AWB can currently distinguish between an incoming link and an incoming redirect. You'll have to ask Martin to add the feature. The only thing is that I vaguely recall asking him to add it before, and there might have been a technical reason why it couldn't be done (to do with the QueryAPI which AWB uses to get it's lists). Anyway, ask him... -- kingboyk 15:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. If there's any other bits from User:Hillman's user pages that you'd like re-published, please ask. It was clearly licensed by the copyright holder under the GFDL, so (as I understand it) republishing it is legal; I'll certainly remove it from Wikimedia servers on request, of course. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you created a system to delete "Magnum opus" from an artist's info box. I read the related discussion, but was wondering if there is consensus about this. I ask because in a peer review of an article I wrote, I was asked why the author's Magnum opus was not listed, and that was considered a flaw in the article. Clarification on this point would be appreciated. Thanks. Jeffpw 11:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You might be better off asking the other person involved in that discussion. I agreed with him that magnum opus was difficult to define. My view is that if it is unclear what is the magnum opus, or whether the author has a magnum opus, then don't fill in the field. I prefer the broader term "major works", which allows several works to be listed, or a link to a full bibliography of that author's works. What is most definitely clear is that this is not a field that should be filled in because it is there. It should be used selectively and sparingly, if at all. As for the removal of the field from the template, that was not my doing. Someone else did that, and I don't fully agree with it, though I do understand why it was done. Carcharoth 11:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

Well, one might always just copy the line from the deletion log and stick it in the search box -- that has the same result as clicking on a link, you know. I think the folks who make clickable deletion log entries have a nice little code in their config preferences that make that happen automatically -- I'm not so techno-saavy, so I've never done that. I could try just inserting brackets, I guess, but I suspect I'd muck that up a fair share of time. Anyway, whenever you encounter a plain text log entry like mine, cutting-and-pasting into the search box will work. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 01:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your Annotated Hobbit nag! ;-) JackyR | Talk 17:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Carcharoth, could you give your comments considering this issue here? (I'll even hand out free chocolate! ;) Surely you can't resist that...^^) It's about standardizing terminology usage in Tolkien articles, so it's crucial and a consensus is needed. Thanks! — Mir l e n 05:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

As promised. Thanks for replying Carcharoth! :) — Mir l e n 05:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. A redirect how though? Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 17:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mini Talkpage Template/Check this out for example. Carcharoth 17:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This OK? Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 18:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It was deleted by an admin who refused to accept that WP:NPOV specifically states it applies only to the article namespace, which I have never disputed, and absolutely agree with. I never wanted to join a politics Wikiproject because I wanted to be honest about why I was editing Conservative party-related pages. I edit articles run by the Wikiproject Islam, which are shockingly written and biased, but go unnoticed because people believe that the project is neutral because it welcomes non-Muslims. If you look at it, it is actually mainly run by the Muslim Guild, who are rampantly biased. What I was trying to do was openly admit my bias upfront, but emphasise the fact I believed in NPOV articles. I offered people the chance to act as an NPOV checker, if there were concerns over my true intention. However, they refused to listen to me (this seems to be becoming a habit) and deleted it illegally. But what can I do? I'm not an admin. I may know my Wikipedian policies inside out, I may constantly back up my points with actual policy quotes, but I can't argue with an admin who's convinced he's right. It's highly unfair and I gave up on it. So I write FA articles on my own instead. Which is, of course, now being derailed as well, and instead of being helped I am told I am blowing things out of proportion. *sigh* Dev920 ( check out this proposal) 19:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the discussion page of this article. I have some real concerns. Thanks Jeffpw 22:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Or maybe I turned the tide. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:The Lord of the Rings music is used for music for the Jackson films. It's a subcategory of Category: Middle-earth music, which contains all other Tolkien-related music, and of Category:Film soundtracks and Category:Film scores. I think the category should contain film soundtracks from the other films. Also, judging by the title Donald Swann's The Road Goes Ever On song cycle should be here, though its not film-related. It should be renamed Category:The Lord of the Rings film music (any other wording? Category:Music of The Lord of the Rings films?) for clarity, adaptation-neutrality and to keep it within its parent categories. What do you say? (check Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 4; also putting this notice on the Wikiproject talk page.) Uthanc 14:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for voting. Uthanc 05:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that a certain editor is getting up to be a real problem; he has followers. He's gone past simple policycruft and persists in trying to ram wacky proposals into policy. Between followers marching to his off-key tune and the way that his proposals act as worksinks, I see real disruption here. I can ignore the personal attacks but not the bad actions.

I dislike feuds. What to do? John  Reid 00:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my cutting in, but how about you tell people who might agree with you what wacky proposals you are talking about, and those who are so minded will express their views for or against them? After all, any editor has the right to be heard on a policy proposal, yes? And you and I have already agreed on at least one thing this weekend, which is one more than usual. :) Newyorkbrad 00:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, please cut in all you like. I'm afraid John's comment is too cryptic for me to understand at the moment. I can think of two or three people he might be referring to! But that probably just means I'm getting too involved in various disputes. Carcharoth 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the cryptography, gentlemen. This is not a policy issue; it's a user conduct issue. Sleuthing my contribs will reveal the identity of the gangster but I'm actually pleased if it's not obvious. I wish to be able to give freely of my opinion of this editor without fending off accusations of "personal attacks". So for the time being, let us call this a hypothetical.

The editor in question has gathered a small gang in support of his bias and is engaging in edit wars and personal attacks -- not merely verbal attacks but threats to block those who disagree. This really crosses the line when his sparewheels actually do block to defend him from criticism. I see no value in RfC pre-packed with his gang. Even an RfArb is perilous; can you imagine the quantity of wordsmog dumped into the case?

What worries me particularly is a mis-aimed blow that takes out the head gangster but not his sparewheels -- or the other way around. We want to break up this kind of thing, not just stir up the nest. The first order of business is to draw up a list of membership -- and that will be open to question.

So, keeping the situation hypothetical, what to do? It seems to me that I need to recruit at least one or two friends to help dredge up evidence and make a solid case before going to any forum with the issue. But I really don't know. This is certainly bigger than me alone. John  Reid  ° 21:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Can it wait until after the ArbCom elections? Or do you want to try and resolve before the beginning of December? In general, I find this cryptic sort of accusation and proposed evidence gathering rather unseemly. If it is a user issue, gathering evidence of someone using and implementing threats of blocking to smooth the passage of their policy proposals shouldn't be too difficult. I would say, just hang in there and allow all sides to have their say, and get more eyeballs looking at the case if you think a small group is coming up with a 'consensus', when the consensus really needs more people contributing. Make a fuss if you are incorrectly accused of personal attacks and threatened with blocks. I'm also tempted to say that any really major change is unlikely to be slipped through on the quiet. Are you sure you aren't overestimating the threat? Carcharoth 00:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's just it; I don't know what to do. I don't have any real way to measure the problem to determine if it's an emergency without going into exactly the sort of flashlight-by-midnight digging through history you mention. That will all have to happen if the case goes up before ArbCom -- but, ha ha, if I'm elected, I'll have to recuse and I don't think I'd feel comfortable bringing the case, either.

You're probably right that if I subtract the personal element, this ring of questionable editors may break up on their own. I wish we didn't have to spend so much time bailing out boats made leaky by people drilling holes in the bottom, though. *Sigh.* John  Reid  ° 10:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your logic but thats kinda why we have times/dates in our sigs. I just thought as many of the comments cited that fact it appeared as policy placing it at the top may allow them to see that had been rectified. Anyway, done now Glen 12:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed place a notice on the template's talk page stating that the AfD had failed. I did so on 17 August, and the template's talk page was deleted 6 November. I hope this clears everything up, but if not, feel free to contact me on my talk page at any time with subsequent questions. Best regards, RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 17:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you liked them. Frankly, I was kind of nervous there were too many or they were too controversial. But then I thought that the arbcom really should be able to deal with that sort of thing, even more than admins. So far only one response though, so there's still time for the others to complain! AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

for the advice. I stand corrected - I needn't panic about the server. I'll alter my comments at the MfD - but good lord those pages are so darn otiose. It's not so bad if they're attached to a Wikiproject, but in PROJECT SPACE?? This is maybe the worst stuff on Wikipedia. Anyway, rant over. See you round! Cheers, Moreschi 15:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what the people who create these things don't realise is that not only do they waste their Wikitime, they also waste the time of the editors who have to nominate them for deletion - which involves fiddling around with tabs and copy-and-pasting about 30 different page names - hey, new cure for insomnia! Cheers, Moreschi 15:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Haven't seen your comments yet at the Virtual classroom, and there are more examples to compare with now. What do you use? I'm interested in comparing.   The Transhumanist   22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I noticed at the deletion discussion for the Virtual Classroom set up by The Transhumanist, you said the following: "Comments like this also worry me.". Do you mind if I ask you why my comments worry you, and what relevance my comments had to the deletion discussion? Carcharoth 18:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth,

Thanks for your note. The comments worry me for several reasons. On that talk page, you have proposed adding several levels of trust for Admin Candidates, like a system of graduation. I view this as instruction creep, with something that was originally supposed to be simple and informal (Admin coaching) evolving into something needlessly complex. As an active Admin coach, such a proposal does worry me. Wikipedia is supposed to be about building an encyclopedia. Proposing adding rules about coaching levels or whatnot doesn't really fit into the scope of an encyclopedia. Same goes for all these 'virtual school'/'admin school' proposals. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester

Thanks for the response. I've effectively withdrawn my "levels" proposal, as I now agree that this is needlessly complicated. I still have worries about the name of the program, for which, see the talk page over there. Carcharoth 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem at the moment. One of the major objections against the admin school and crash course was that they looked official but weren't sanctioned by the community. Now that they're in userspace they don't look official any more, but more like a user's personal project (which, indeed, they seem to be). HTH! ( Radiant) 09:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Source grading and comment on talk, please. John  Reid  ° 02:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please look at WP:0WW. I pled on Pump for people to come over so it would have wider input but instead I got a certain special fellow who is busy razing it.

I agree that on first blush the shorter policy always looks better. But there are distinct and deep reasons for breaking wheel warring into violations of a bright-line rule and violations of a balancing test. Worse, these late edits demote bright-line policy to some sort of nut. One more edit like this and everything that 20 different thoughtful editors has put together over the last year will be rubble.

If you don't have time to dig through all the history at Wikipedia talk:Wheel war/Archive, I understand. You can start here or take my word for it that the page has gone through a great deal of careful evolution.

Before merge, both pages were guidelines; I tagged the merge as guideline, too; there it stood for a month. Major changes should be discussed on talk. Our friend first tagged it down to proposed, then brought in the bulldozer. Sneaky or not, it's not okay. These rules -- call them whatever you will -- have already been cited in ArbCom decisions; perhaps I should have been bold and tagged the page policy from the merge. I've had a lot of input on this page already and I want you in there now -- if you'll be so kind. Thank you. John  Reid  ° 07:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's fine, you were along the same route that I closed on anyway. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope, no Paddington reference intended; although I do love the bear from Deepest Darkest Peru. I joined Wikipedia intending to browse about and edit articles at random, thus "Editor at Large" (I unleashed myself on the Wikipedia community! >: )

Tolkien fan here, no question where your username came from! What made you choose it, if you don't mind my asking? — E ditor at Large ^(speak) 12:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your message on Cyde's talk page. I responded partially there, but wanted to let you know here that I really appreciate your kind words. I will certainly keep your advice in mind, and try to follow it! ... I never intended anything like this to happen; I really have to remember that people see that stuff... — E ditor at Large ^(speak) 12:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm in a quandry. And I'm looking for an objective "third-party" opinion. Based on what I've witnessed of your contributions to discussion, and my own experiences with you, I think you're a good choice for it.

I'm "hoping" you're not too busy and can take some time to read over the [Wizard (fantasy)] talk page. The whole thing. Consider it an editor review, if you like : )

I won't offer any opinion (there's plenty upon the talk page). And I have no expectation of your responses. But I would like to know how your opinion on the discussions, both for tone and content. And then, following that, if you have any opinions about the content yourself.

(Note: This isn't a spammed request, I've only left this request upon your talk page.)

If it turns out that you feel that you're too busy to do so, just leave a comment here, and I'll be happy to look elsewhere.

Thank you for your time, either way. : ) - jc37 12:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

While I promised not to send out thank you's following my RfA, I decided to make an exception for my nominator and the people that asked the excellent questions. I appreciate you asking the question regarding death threats. I'm don't know how you think I did on answering it, but it was thought provoking to answer. Thanks again, — Doug Bell  ^talk 19:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that Radiant had a significant (7 month) absence from Wikipedia. Is there a way of learning if any of the other candidates took breaks? (Other than running edit counts and observing months with 0 edits) Jd2718 20:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would actually just ask them all. It is a reasonable questions to ask, and some have been asked this already. Something along the lines of "Have you taken long breaks from Wikipedia in the past, and would you anticipate doing so in the future, given that this election is for a three year term?" If you want to check this, the Wannabe Kate edit counter does give a graph showing edits per month, so that will help. Or you could just scan the candidates contributions list. If that is too much for one person to do, you could make a new column in a table, and then ask the candidates to fill it in, and/or ask others to pick a candidate and find out. I do think, though, that if we can't make a simple link demonstrating the information is correct, we should just ask the candidates in the form of a question. Carcharoth 20:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll ask directly. Running the tools has been a problem. Jd2718 20:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Yes, that's fine. - Will Beback · † · 21:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the amazing effort! It was a pleasure helping out, even if I only did a small portion of the work. Jd2718 22:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's OK. I was pleased to see lots of other people pitching in to help, and (hopefully) not too many arguments over what to include. It's not finished of course, but I think the general idea is there. Carcharoth 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Your !vote was along the same line as the rest of the emerging consensus anyway :) — xaosflux ^Talk 13:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for bringing up the date slip in my talk. I've fixed it. It was a time zone thing: it was still the 27th where I am at the time when I edited the RfA... gah. Cheers, Redux 13:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

replied over there. Carcharoth 13:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't apologize, you did nothing wrong. What precisely is the question that I have not yet answered? - crz crztalk 13:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying I don't have to apologise! :-) The bit about clarification on 'campaigning' is where AuburnPilot said I wasn't assuming good faith. I think that meant I should have treated your "why hasn't this RfA been closed" as something separate from your activity on the RfA itself. I saw it as part of the overall 'supporting your nominee' thing. That's what I wanted clarified, but to be honest, if you don't have a problem with what I said, then don't worry about it. I suppose what I am asking is if you would handle things differently when you nominate someone else in future? Carcharoth 13:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Err... I asked for a closure. Closure is important - it gives us all closure. :) I didn't do anything wrong. - crz crztalk 14:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me at RFA (your comment about meeting my own standards made me smile), and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers, and try not to eat any shiny red jewels! -- nae' blis 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I found the answer to your question at the help desk... it's kind interesting, especially seeing the users' pages... Cbrown1023 23:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the humanity! I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. I guess I'm just a magnet for controversy! Anyway, thanks for your support and for the time you spent on the related discussions. I hope I'll still have your confidence if and when I go for a third try. Kafziel Talk 14:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What about user talk pages/Rfc's? I have a fair use image that was being compared and dicussed to a free image that was removed from a Rfc Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chowbok page because it "no longer linked to any page". Thank you. Tvccs 16:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth. I've answered your questions. Thanks for asking. Paul August ☎ 19:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Samuel's idea has merit; it worked fine for tagging cats as "self-reference" and such. I've created Wikipedia:Category structure for central discussion on the topic; please participate. Yours, ( Radiant) 16:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)