Jump to content

User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25→Archive 30

Hello. I'm trying to popularize Category:Red list as a fairly informal way to track redlink lists here. Please consider so categorizing your lists this way. Charles Matthews 10:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Your lists are rather full of blue, do you want me to remove all the blue links? – Gurch 15:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No thanks - keeping blue links has several advantages. Charles Matthews 15:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Surnames

I noticed your work around surnames, and you are an experienced Wikipedian, so I figure you might have the answer to my questions.

I was doing a lot of work on the surname pages, by adding birth and death years and descriptive information. I followed WP:MOSDAB. But now I realize that WP:MOSDAB is not authority on surname pages because surnames are not DABS, they have different first names. So my question is, what authority is there for the information required on surname pages? Thanks, --Brewcrewer 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Common sense is good here. People aren't going to be hanging around to read the page - they will scan it and click. So, short descriptions only, and lightly wikified (because it is harder to read linked text). I don't suppose this is written down fully ... Charles Matthews 16:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, that's basically what I'm doing. One more question, however. On the surnames pages that have surnames that are dabs, there is ususally only a link to the dab page. For example, in Williams (surname) there is only link to the Steve Williams disambiguation page. Is that correct? Or should all the Steve Williams' be listed on the Willams page. I figure that only linking the dab page goes against WP implicit policy of people being redirected, and each Steve Willams should be listed on the Willams page. Am I correct? Thanks, --Brewcrewer 16:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
What I do in practice is often both:
Charles Matthews 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Robert Solomon

A tag has been placed on Robert Solomon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G12.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Forget that! Someone had created a page with the same name from a copyvio but the page seems to have been reverted now... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Diocese of Dijon

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Diocese of Dijon, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/d/dijon.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Public domain, whitelisting requested. Charles Matthews 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Irish kings

Hello Charles. In case you should wonder what on earth I am up to shuffling around Irish kings, I am trying to get everything standardised on "modern academic English" names, generally the ones from the Oxford DNB, Ó Cróinín's Early Medieval Ireland, or Frank Byrne's Irish kings and high kings. I've tried to limit us to two names rather than a whole screed of them, s either name+cognomen or name+patronym (or matronym, or grandfather-o-nym) or name+family name ("Mac whatever", "Ua whatever"), whichever seemed easiest at the time. Three kings - Brian mac Cennétig, Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair and Diarmait na nGall - I did not move. I'll probably do that when I get round to improving the articles, but not before. I suppose these will deserve a requested move. On the fine rule of everyone-else-has-one-too, I made a template, which is probably better than those misleadingly precise succession boxes, at {{Kings of Ireland}}. I don't know if that was a good idea or not, but it's done. Trust this all makes some sense. Any thoughts, even if they are on the lines of "are you serious?", please let me know. Best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds OK. Usually we should go with an academically-acceptable choice. The one point I'd make is about redirects. There should usually be plenty of those, and particularly if you are using a name with a diacritic/accent on it, the non-accented version should be a redirect to it. Basically no one types in characters with accents (and the onsite search is confused by them). Charles Matthews 16:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. I never type accents myself, so I need the unaccented {{R from title without diacritics}} versions as much as our readers do. I was rightly admonished early on for not making redirects, so now I make as many as I can think of, and dab pages too. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinking inside a citation template

Please don't wikilink inside a citation when that citation is being formatted using a citation template (i.e. don't do this or this). It breaks the machine-readable citation metadata. Instead, use the authorlink[1..4]= or editorlink[1..4]= parameters. Like so: last=Matthews | first=Charles | authorlink=Charles Matthews or editor-last=Matthews | editor-first=Charles | editorlink=Charles Matthews.
Thanks. -- Fullstop 13:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
ps: also, please don't convert last=|first= into author=. It breaks an article's {{harv...}} referencing links (in this case, the link from 'Geiger & Kuhn 2002' is now broken).

Well, OK, thanks for pointing out the fix. I have to say that I'm not a fan of citation templates in general, and I think Harvard referencing was invented about a century too early to adapt well to search engines. Wikilinking authors seems to me much more important for us. But I shall do my best not to get on anyone's nerves. Charles Matthews 15:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Troubles" RfAr

As previously mentioned, because some paragraphs of "The Troubles" decision passed and some did not, the decision as it would have gone out would have been very hard to follow. Fred Bauder has posted a revised version of the remedy that I prepared, which is intended to encapsulate in one place the decision that the committee reached. If you agree that this new proposal, Remedy 3.2, captures what was intended, could you kindly so indicate either by voting in favor or on a talkpage so that the case can be closed? Thank you. Newyorkbrad 18:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Voted. Charles Matthews 19:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry to have been a nag about this, but the decision needed editing before it was announced, and Fred apparently thought (and I agreed) that this was too much of a rewrite to count as ministerial corrections by the Clerk's office. Newyorkbrad 19:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Active Vandal

I know you know what you are doing. What can be done about this guy? User talk:69.148.78.129 -- SECisek 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Anything more, and I'll block him for a bit. Charles Matthews 19:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Somebody else already did. Thank you. -- SECisek 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

IP block due to suspected COI

Charles, on October 12 2007 Yamla blocked an IP range because of suspected COI at the Fellowship of Friends article. A discussion was started at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard but Yamla hasn't participated for almost 2 weeks. Meanwhile, the IP block is affecting 3 editors of the page. Could you help decide if the IP block is appropriate? I am one of the editor affected by the IP block and strongly feel that Yamla's action was too harsh. Thank you in advance. Mfantoni 07:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The page is protected, isn't it? That ought to be a reason to lift the block on the IP range, at present. Charles Matthews 08:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nawab of Kurnool - why redirection to Kurnool ?

Why do you think Nawab of Kurnool be redirected to Kurnool? Kurnool is a place, and the Nawab is a historical ruler of the place - they are not the same. I don't want to remove the redirection (I had - but you reverted it back), without your reply

Regards, --Shree 15:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, please write something about the Nawab. I was checking all the Nawabs I could. Probably I couldn't find information about the Nawab in this case. Charles Matthews 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


EDDY CROW PAGE

User:GravitaZ: He allowed us to edit his wiki-age, he told listeners of his radio show to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GravitaZ (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We'd sort of figured that out. Doesn't help this project any. Charles Matthews 18:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Diocese of Nantes

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Diocese of Nantes, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10681a.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 22:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It does understand if the article was properly attributed. When you created the article, it did not have the {{Catholic}} template on it yet. If you want to avoid the trouble of CSBot tagging, then make sure the {{Catholic}} tag is on it when you create it; the bot usually looks at an article less than 30 seconds after its creation. — Coren (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to have omitted the template on first creation. If you look at my recent list of article creations, you will see that I create dozens of CE articles, and in just a couple of instances recently I have forgotten to put the template on at creation. But I'm still not happy. Firstly, your bot is leaping in within about five seconds. And more importantly, others may well not understand that they must add the template, or risk deletion. Why should they understand that? The onus is still on you. As I say, the CE articles are all on Wikisource, and you should take the trouble at least to register that. Charles Matthews 06:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there is no risk of deletion in a case like this (especially when you had further sources). The 'bot doesn't tag for deletion, but for human attention. Articles so tagged are never deleted automatically. If you think the tags' wording could be clearer on that, don't hesitate to tweak them. — Coren (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've looked up who you are, and I think I can safely whitelist you personally.  :-) CSBot will leave you alone now. — Coren (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Information Request

User:A.Z. has been blocked indefinitely and his talk page locked. I would like to know:

  • Did the Arbitration Committee request these actions ?
  • If so, until what date or condition will these actions continue ?

Thank you,

StuRat 13:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The AC was kept fully informed of the blocking and the reasons for it, by the blocking admin. "Indefinite" means that: no end date set. The User himself has written to the AC. Charles Matthews 17:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
So, to clarify, those actions were neither requested nor endorsed by the Arbitration Committee ? StuRat 21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, it would be better if you took what I said quite literally. As you may know, the AC mailing list is completely confidential and private. The blocking admin is on the list. I'm obviously not going to "clarify" to the extent of saying what we discussed. Charles Matthews 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm simply trying to determine if the actions taken against User:A.Z. were at the request of the AC or not. Why are you unwilling to answer this simple question ? StuRat 03:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Your "Information Request" - as you are pressing it - would require me to break confidence. I have explained that once. All actions taken against apparent pedophilia activists come to the AC list for discussion, and that discussion is not made public. Why do you ask, anyway? Charles Matthews 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The Admin who blocked A.Z. claims he is acting on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, while A.Z. e-mailed me saying he has never been notified of any discussion or action taken against him by the Arbitration Committee. One of them must be lying, or the ArbComm is taking actions against people without even bothering to notify them, and I want to know which one it is. StuRat 06:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No, your formulation isn't great. I don't know what A.Z. actually said to you. You can argue about precise wording, but there is really no more to say. All matters relating to suspected pro-pedophile activism on enWP are handled by emails to the AC. There is nothing unusual here. Charles Matthews 09:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Q&A Page

Editors recognize that the Arbitrators do not have time to follow, in real time, all of the diffs on all of the pages of all of the arbitration cases. Editors recognize that questions that they would like to ask the Arbitrators would usually get no response, or a much delayed response, if asked in one of the several talk pages of the arbitration. In response to this, many editors will message Arbitrators directly on their talk pages, which garners a much faster response.

The problem with doing so is that, consequently, discussion relevant to the Arbitration is split from the remainder of the discussion. Those who haven't watchlisted Arbitrators' talk pages might not even be aware of the communication. I think that this is problematic, but I would like to suggest a solution.

I believe that a Question and Answer Page (by whatever title is appropriate) would be a useful addition to Arbitration. There, users could ask questions, and arbitrators could reply as needed. This resolves the current problems: it provides a clean space that arbitrators can readily keep track without getting lost in tens or hundreds of daily diffs, it allows users a place to ask a question and reasonably expect that an Arbitrator will see it, and it keeps all of the discussion within the Arbitration, instead of allowing it to get scattered across Userspace where some participants might not see it.

If you think this is reasonable, would it be possible to add it to the current Science Apologist and Martinphi Arbitration that is currently ongoing? Thank you for your consideration. Note: I am canvassing all active arbitrators on this issue because I feel that this is a neutral suggestion. Antelan talk 06:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Having had a number of unpleasant exchanges right here in relation to AC cases, I have stopped anticipating anything great from such exchanges. But I don't agree. If anyone has anything to say to me personally about Arbitration, it is better all round if they come here and ask. I don't really see the logic of centralizing such questions. That seems to assume that an Arbitration case has a "debate" around it, that needs to be on a page, but separate from all the other such pages. Well, if someone asks me a question just as a debating point, I'm certainly less interested in the whole business. Charles Matthews 09:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I understand your point re: debates. My goal is not to provide a new forum for debates, but to provide a place where editors feel they can ask a question and an Arbitrator might respond. I have updated the proposal with a suggestion by Kirill to have one single Q&A page, total (not one per Case). I've spoken with folks on both "sides" of the Paranormal and ScienceApologist-Martinphi Cases, for example, and they agreed that it would be beneficial to have one place where they felt their questions might be seen (aside from Arbitrator talk pages). However, if you prefer that these messages go to your talk page, I can certainly see the upside of that to you as an Arbitrator. Antelan talk 07:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

speedy

User:MastCell responded to User_talk:MastCell#Speedy on his own page, it looks like you may not have seen it. (I noticed it when he brought it up elsewhere) and it seems you hadn't responded. —Random832 18:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Make WP:VANDALISM less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort"

Would you comment on Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort", please? Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 22:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I commented some time ago about the reasons people always want more "definitions". But not in a good way. Charles Matthews 22:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean that there is no need for more definitions, and my proposal was made "not in good way" on the top of that, please? -70.18.5.219 03:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The general comment is this: most editors are happy with formulations that give them a simple idea of what site policy expects of them. An approach that is too "legal" doesn't improve the policy.Charles Matthews 07:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
"Not all vandalism is obvious" in the intro just invites abuse, because it also informs (and - so - suggests) that, if editor made vandalism not obvious, then the editor gets away with it! E.g., when editor maliciously deletes a reference, but also writes in the edit summary a fake (WITHOUT VALID REASON) excuse (e.g. "I haven't heart about it" or "it is not needed or important" or "it is better this way " or "I see it for the first time", "let's discuss it first", etc.) than - despite that it was just malicious - it is not vandalism per the intro's sentence "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is NOT vandalism.", because good-faith is not defined, so there is no distinction between faked and genuine good-faith and - so - fakes are excused too, if the editor was smart enough to put it in. Those excuses may suggest good-faith, but - in fact - can be cover-ups for a smart, but abusive, editor just looking for attention or to tease, or jealous of or not understand someone's edit, but not wanting to find out on his own (why trouble myself, when I can trouble somebody else), etc.
My point is, wouldn't be just better to add the above definitions of "deliberate" & "good-faith effort" to protect especially a weak minority of editors, who cannot defend their edits against such (sneaky) vandalism without such clear definitions (because they don't have time, or don't know how, or don't know Wikipedia well, etc.), please? It is like abolishing the slavery, which benefited the majority, but was utterly unfair for the minority (see the discussion).
-70.18.5.219 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Motion to close, please

Hi Charles. Your vote on Commodore Sloat-Biophys is the fifth vote. Since the majority is five, the case can now be closed. Could you please motion to close the case? Thanks. Picaroon (t) 23:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

improper integral

Hello. Maybe you can contribute at talk:improper integral. You'll notice that a certain user did some edits on improper integral that I reverted. Michael Hardy 23:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ÞÆÐ

Hi, why did you delete my page about ÞÆÐ? Gotmountains 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)gotmountains

Because that contribution didn't help us build the encyclopedia. Please feel free to contribute on other topics. Charles Matthews 21:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Liz vicious redirect

Hi, just to let you know Liz vicious is up for speedy deletion, as the page it redirects to no longer exists. Thanks, Jeodesic 03:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Slitherine Studios

I am new to the RC patrol and bow to your greater experience, but why did you not think Slitherine Studios qualified for a speedy? I would have thought that "mostly little-known ... have created a few games ... were due to ... but it was cancelled" is about as far from an assertion of notability as you could get. JohnCD 13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the policy doesn't say that assertions of non-notability mean that much. I simply don't know enough about the games involved to make a judgement. There are Google hits, so that it's not as if the prominence is impossibly low for us to have an article. Charles Matthews 14:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Gallia Sacra

The map we discussed is now at [1]. Maproom 14:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My thanks. Charles Matthews 19:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


User:Martinphi

Just a quick note that I've given him a one-week block for soapboxing and disruption over on Homeopathy, given he's already up for Arbcom over acting the same way on paranormal articles. I set it for a week as I didn't want to second-guess Arbcom rulings, adjust this as you see fit, and I'm also copying this to a couple other ArbCom members, so that I'm sure the committee knows and can judge on it. Adam Cuerden talk 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

1220

No reason, it just happened to exist already - it was the only medieval list created among all the modern ones (although I see there is now a short one for 1203 as well). As to why I actually started expanding it, well that is because I am insane. "Hmm, there couldn't possibly be that many religious leaders in 1220, could there?" Adam Bishop 14:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there could be. I prefer to wrestle with one diocese at a time. Charles Matthews 14:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There were 412 participants at the Fourth Lateran Council, and that didn't include everyone, so I'm guessing there are about 500 Roman Catholics. I also don't know how far down I should go - I could probably find lists of deans and parish priests if I looked hard enough. I haven't even begun to think about how I will include all the Eastern Orthodox leaders, or Muslims! Adam Bishop 14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Figures. You can reckon on nearly 100 from each of France and Italy. Charles Matthews 14:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Syed faiz ul hasan shah

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Syed faiz ul hasan shah, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding double work

Will you keep on working on the current word jumble that is Syed Faiz-ul Hassan Shah? It's rather hard to read, and I'd hate cleaning it up, only to see an edit conflict with someone who did the same. Martijn Hoekstra 22:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on it for a bit. Edit conflicts can be handled, you know. Charles Matthews 22:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Depends if you both clean up the same bit. It still can be handled, but you'll both have done the same work. Anyway, I'll keep an eye out on the article. I always much rather include articles like this, instead of deleting them, to minimise systematic bias. I though the [WP:DRAW|drawing board]] might be a good starting ground for this one. Martijn Hoekstra 22:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the systemic bias. Charles Matthews 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Old speedy deletion issue

I just noticed, on my monthly check of the wikipedia-en mailing list archives, that for the past week or so you've been holding up one of my speedy deletions as an example of administrative shortcoming, systemic bias, misuse of A7, etc. I suppose it's unreasonable to ask that you mention to me that you're slagging me on the mailing list, but a heads-up would still have been courteous, particularly as you seem to be alleging some sort of anti-Pakistani bias on my part.

What's more, your characterization of our on-wiki discussion ("MastCell is claiming I was mean to him") strikes me as both an oversimplification and incredibly condescending. It's also odd to say that "the buck stops with the deleting admin" as if I'd shirked accountability, when in fact I responded at length to your concerns on my talk page, after which you moved the discussion to the mailing list without mentioning it to me. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive here - I understand that you disagree with how A7 is applied, and I respect your long and productive history here. A7 can definitely be improved - if you think the policy should be changed, then I sincerely wish you success in improving it. I'm not claiming I know better than you what should stay and what should go, but I do feel a bit slighted by the manner in which you've handled this particular issue. MastCell Talk 19:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look up the page to the heading "speedy", you'll see why, actually. I was unaware that you were placing this old issue in a recent Administrators' Noticeboard discussion, until someone prompted me. If you look at the mails, you'll see that this was one aspect out of three I was highlighting; and there were certainly others who were defending what you did - which suggests to me that this was a reasonable, fair discussion. (Unlike the AN thread, therefore.) There is an actual problem, and the wikien thread has not been personalised to the extent you are implying. As a consequence of what JzG was claiming, I went to CAT:CSD to see what gives. And this has only reinforced my views on the small proportion of "salvage" cases that really do need everything done. While, as I said, no one can plausibly argue for an error-free system, it does seem to be the case that the "false negatives" - cases where CSD policy formally interpreted loses WP a title it should have - fall disproportionately in the way "systemic bias" would suggest. The debate is a proper one, and I don't imagine you are worse thought of for it.Charles Matthews 19:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. By the way, you're completely correct to bring up the AN thread - though I don't recall if I mentioned you by name, I had forgotten that I brought up the incident there, and you're quite right to suggest that, by my own argument above, I was discourteous in not notifying you. I certainly do think it's a reasonable discussion to have; I respect your well-informed viewpoint on the general matters at hand, and I'm sincere when I say that I hope you're successful in addressing them and improving A7. I apologize for being a bit huffy in my initial post. It's a bit disconcerting to see one's name on the mailing list in such a context, particularly as I only look at it every month or two. But I think your larger points are valid, the debate on the mailing list has been largely de-personalized, and, on reflection, this is probably a case of me being a bit too thin-skinned. I do take your point about the AN thread, and I apologize for bringing up the incident without mentioning to you that I had done so. MastCell Talk 20:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"(which are not always fallacious)"

Hi. I'm curious about something you said at the arbitration page, indicating that ad hominem arguments are not always fallacious. I think that's true in a certain sense, but I don't see how it applies to our dealings here. If you don't mind explaining, what would an example be of a situation here at Wikipedia where an ad hominem argument is appropriate? Perhaps I've mistaken your meaning, and that's not what you were saying, in which case: what were you saying? Thank you in advance. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In general terms, can one distinguish between an argument ad hominem, and a simple "personal attack" that is completely oblique to what is being discussed? I think so: one can say that an ex-con isn't a good choice as a security guard. Since I have myself used the argument that parties with a vested interest in a given policy should hold back from editing the policy page, I think this idea can have valid application here. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I can see your point, when it comes to an ex-con and a security guard job, but that doesn't directly apply to Wikipedia. As for someone refraining from editing a policy page, I'm unclear why their edits can't stand or fall on their own merits. If someone habitually makes non-constructive edits to a particular page, then I can see banning them from that page, but that's a behavior issue, which is separate from an intention issue.

The reason I care about this point is that I've been rather active and impassioned lately trying to encourage editors not to comment on what they imagine each others' motives to be. It's difficult persuading people to "comment on the content, not the contributor", and I oppose muddying the water regarding that point. While it may be the case that comments on the contributor are sometimes relevant, that doesn't mean they're helpful, or that they should be anything other than strongly discouraged.

Do you understand where I'm coming from? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The general thrust of site policy does agree with that: certainly when we are talking about articles. Policy pages are somewhat more sensitive areas. I'm not going to endorse anything that's actually been said or done; but I do see the logic of asking people closely affected by a policy to restrict themselves to making comments, rather than editing the policy directly. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose that does seem reasonable, in the light of our similar restrictions on people editing their own articles, or articles in which they've got a conflict of interest or have shown an inability to edit cooperatively. If the NPA case is accepted, it will be interesting to see whether the committee finds that such a principle applies there. Thanks for your time. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Vernon Scannell

Yes I did overdo the quotes a bit! so do feel free to trim them back a tad. I have posted a msg on the talk page as well. thanks & best wishes Peter morrell 19:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blofeld

There we go Charlie boy. See Guglielmo Massaia. We have a face to the guy ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's quick work! Charles Matthews (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note it is Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of Italy. PLease correct the mistakes inCategory:Roman Catholic dioceses in Italy. Thanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK. I'm used to France, which is "in". Charles Matthews (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I personally agree with you this should be the same. When we use "of" it is usually natural landforms such as rivers or mountains rather than this. You could suggest a Category for deletion and change it to in - but I wouldn't imagine you'd bother. I do think it should be consistent though17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Worth doing, as long as a bot changed everything. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK please leave which way you want to do it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 23. You know far more about dioceses than I do -either way its always important to be consisent. Your comments here are much needed. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd also propose moving Category:Roman Catholic dioceses of Piedmont to in or deleting that category depending on how many there are likely to be. Do you think a state category is necessary? -my feeling is that this also is a little awkward as haven't the boundaries of Piedmont changed over history? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you get historical there are other issues, of course. I think it's now uncommon to have dioceses in Europe that cross national boundaries; but you can't say that about the past dioceses wrt present boundaries. I don't care about the Piedmont thing yet. I don't really have a grasp of how many in Italy - 200? There would be a case for classifying them, but not yet, really. What I mainly care about is identifying the current ones, versus the "ancient" ones; e.g. in France around 50 were abolished after the French Revolution, and they justify a subcategory. Germany is more complicated. Italy - well, it's a mess currently. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If its only 200 best to delete the sub cat I think. Yes i've seen an awful amount of work needs doing on them. Good luck with that your're doing great. Best regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Charles do you think its possible to expand David Blondel a bit? I can't seem to find any mor einfo in him. Could you expand it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a bit to add from Jonathan Israel, Enlightenment Contested, that would clarify his role. Diderot credited him with starting to debunk some of the early modern forgeries. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice job Charles. You're not interested in Hungarian or European art by any chance are you?. I've got a whole List of Hungarian sculptors to go through. I've been adding articles like Fülöp Ö. Beck and Andras Beck and Zsigmond Kisfaludi Stróbl using the Fine Arts in Hungary website as a source - it has an A-Z of the biographies. Is this beyond your interest? I am aiming to fill in all the important gaps here. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 21:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know much about Hungarian anything (well, Erdös); the language is a bit hard to busk ... try me on some other art. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

i have a request. Could you start Ferdinand de Rohan-Guemene -Archbishop of Bordeaux? Or is this the same as Ferdinand Maximilien Mériadec de Rohan? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's the same guy: [2] Ferdinand-Maximilien-Mériadec de Rohan-Guémené; but some dates would be safer. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Archbishopric of Mainz

Hi Charles, thank you for caring about this theme. (+ Mombach) --Symposiarch (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a project about French bishops, which is nearly finished in a sense. I'll gradually go over German bishops. Thank you for the image. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hewitt

Could you look at Logical necessity of inconsistency and decide if any reaction is necessary--thanks. 75.62.4.229 (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Right, it does seem to be about and from Hewitt. I have applied a PROD template and a one-week block to the IP number of the main editor. I'm happy to repeat this on as many pages as necessary that fall into the same category. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Witter Bynner

I'm going to be working on this article, to fix it up, if you do not mind. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Once every three years is quite leisurely. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What case is that?

In this edit you refer to "the Carl Hewitt Arbitration" case. Having no idea what that case is, I can only find that comment incomprehensible. Could you provide a link to it? Michael Hardy (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt from nearly two years ago. But see the recent addition (October 2007) under "Remedies", called "Post-case clarification". Hewitt has been simply disregarding the ruling that he shouldn't promote his own recent work by writing it up on Wikipedia. I can give you more background if you need it. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Logical necessity of inconsistency is now on AFD. It might clarify things if you could comment, as an arbcom member, on the extent to which the arbitration case should influence the AFD. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You are third Wikipedian [3].

Since you are a veteran, I am curious to know what is your opinion on WP's implementation of 'nofollow' tag in external links in articles?

Personally, I support 'nofollow' on user and discussion pages, but not in article namespace.

(I found above statistics by doing some google searches about nofollow)

Lakinekaki (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the general use of "no follow". It reduces our overheads, by making spam postings of links less attractive. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Robin Flower

Hi Charles, I just changed 'Robin Flower' to Robin Flower (Bláithín) so I hope you have no objection to it. Great to see other people aware of him anyway. Captain Fearnought (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure why you did, though. And you're supposed to fix the double redirects. (Page created in my early days here, working over poetry anthologies.) Charles Matthews (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

History of logic programming

Hello. I don't know if it was your intention but you added a semi-protection tag with this edit but did not actually semi-protect the article. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't intentional, it was very dozy of me. Many thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

George Thomson (Seoirse Mac Tomáis)

I see you sorted the merge question. I was just dropping in and out of Wikipedia last night - late late last night - so I decided to leave the problem of which title to go for until tonight. (I don't merge after midnight :O)) Glad to see it's all sorted. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Merges can be left a little while - best not done in a rush. Thanks for spotting this one. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dining clubs

There is a one man campaign being waged against dining clubs one the grounds that they don't deserve articles. I see you've previously edited one such article, and was wondering if you'd care to lend your support at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dining_club ? Many thanks Grunners 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Go

When I saw this "Mostly I was in Uganda to teach go." on your User page - I thought you were speaking Yoda! Ho hum. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 20:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm obliged to you for the tip. As I say, I'm new(-ish). --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
My pleasure. I'm a newbie at bringing a case, as it happens. Charles Matthews 21:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
At least you've seen it before. Is there a cocktail party afterwards? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 21:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The real excess and debauchery happens on the email list, sadly. Charles Matthews 21:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Proposed deletion of Logical necessity of inconsistency

  1. The article was previously contested, but the proposed deletion template was re-added, in violation of our policy. This reason is sufficient by itself.
  2. As for the consequences of the Arbcom ruling in this case, I believe these are better decided by the community rather than unilateral editorial action. Spacepotato 20:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain that I'm an Arbitrator, acting in enforcement of the ruling, in direct consultation with the ArbCom. Let me also explain that I was also not in any way criticising your actions. I was explaining mine, placing them in context, and bringing a query to you. The removal of the prod template was being treated, by me, as gaming of a ruling now of two years's standing, by a throwaway account. Charles Matthews 20:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Side note: I shall continue to use the PROD method here, for reasons explained at the AfD and to you. This was a pilot, and sure enough the PROD was removed. According to the ruling made in the case, PROD+semiprotection may be used (any Hewitt-related page may be semi-protected for up to a month to prevent disruptive edits). This particular set of circumstances is unlikely to recur, now I've piloted it. Charles Matthews 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thought you should know..

As an arbitrator involved in the Privatemusings case, I thought you should know about a recent event. An IP address has been autoblocked because it had been used by Privatemusings in the past. I have posted the info on the log sheet here. Happy editing. Icestorm815 22:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Kherli

You were a member of the arb committee for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kehrli. Recent anon edits appear to be likely edits by the user formerly known as Kherli (Likely a sock thereof). The general ban (finding #1) has expired. Some of these edits if they are in fact Kherli are violating finding #2 "Kehrli is prohibited for two years from changing the notation m/z, wherever found, to any other notation." E.g. [4], [5]. In addition these edits are generally disruptive (as we determined with very challenging arb com case) and should therefore be prevented based solely on the broad basis of preventing disruption. I also believe that it was not the intention of the arb com to allow unmitigated disruption after the ban had passed but to give Kherli the opportunity to cool down and choose to become a productive editor. A new ban should be put in place if Kherli has not decided to change his/her ways as we have established an intention to disrupt wikipedia, however subtle the disruption may be. Subtle disruptions are in fact the hardest to catch and pose the greatest threat to the project through propagation of false or misleading but seemingly reasonable information. I request that you warn the anon user about disruptive behavior, investigate their identity and if disruption continues after a warning of the user is found to be Kherli then enforce an immediate ban either based on violating arb com findings or based on disruptive behavior after being warned.--Nick Y. 21:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a break from that case?

Moral pygmies? AN/I shower? I think you might be getting a bit overwrought. Why not take a break from that case, go edit some articles, and I'll try and sort something out. It seems you are getting more and more upset by the minute, and that's not good. Carcharoth 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles, I am a bit surprised at your language selection on the case pages. It seems to me to be beyond what is advisable as a case participant. And the community generally expects more decorum of Arbitrators than other editors, so it really feels wierd to me. Can you moderate the language and still make the same points effectively? GRBerry 23:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Moduli spaces

Hello! I noticed that a few months ago you made some edits to the article on Moduli spaces? I was wondering if it's possible to make that article more readable to a relative beginner (like me). For example, at http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ModuliSpace.html there's a much more readable introduction, but only an introduction. Perhaps it's possible to connect this introductory material with the more involved stuff in the Wikipedia article? Anyway, not sure if you're the one to ask, but I was just wondering... Kier07 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charles_Matthews/Archive_23&oldid=1246564959"