User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Charles Matthews. 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 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Just to confirm, are you aware of the motions made by MariusM, and the request for a temporary injunction made by Dmcdevit? David Mestel^(Talk) 18:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly I'm offline at present - this is from CB1. Charles Matthews 10:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh - found any good books? David Mestel^(Talk) 13:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen my place ...? All the books are good. But NTL is back on now. Charles Matthews 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure all the books there are good, but one of them might have told you that Edward Trollope was only a suffragan bishop of Nottingham, so your comment "please don't tell me bishops of major churches aren't notable" isn't actually relevant in this specific case. Although I do actually think he probably was notable as a published antiquarian and as the author of The Family of Trollope, but not for being a suffragan bishop (now if he had been Lord Bishop of Nottingham, that would be different, as I'm sure one of your good books would have told you). Eleanorcastle 21:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Eleanorcastle

Well, OK. You are correct that he is a notable author. Charles Matthews 01:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You appear to be the main contributor, so I thought I'd tell you directly, I plan on merging all the "List of Enid Blyton books" pages into a single (or 2) articles. Mostly to make it easier to browse, but partly to make it easier to watchlist/protect-from-vandalism. If you have any objections, please let me know at Talk:Enid Blyton#Merge bibliography subpages. Thanks :) --Quiddity 21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, why? It isn't easy to scroll a page with a huge number of titles. It isn't easier to maintain, either. Charles Matthews 10:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't really think you'd object!

I believe it's easier to scroll down a semi-long page, than it is to constantly scroll to the bottom and click a link to go to the next year's list. It also makes it easier to "Search within page" from a webbrowser.

For reference, I'll point you towards examples such as List of works by Kurt Vonnegut, List of books by G. K. Chesterton, and List of books by Martin Luther, and everything else in Category:Bibliographies by author; separate bibliography pages are also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works)#Necessity of forking bibliography from main article currently. Lastly, it's the only way it could ever potentially become a Featured List (criteria).

Make sense? I'll make an example page, without redirecting the originals, and you can see what I mean. Thanks :) --Quiddity 18:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Example page at List of books by Enid Blyton. See first revision for alternate styling (all years as subheaders). This is all 28 (!) articles merged into one. The other benefit, is if the info were tabulated, the columns could be dynamically reordered to group by year/title/series/illustrator.

Enid Blyton's single novels should probably get merged to there and/or Enid Blyton#Most popular works too, as it appears to be redundant duplication.

All sound good? :) --Quiddity 20:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I compiled the Chesterton list (and the Belloc). At around 150 titles they are manageable. Blyton has more titles by a factor of around four; and is constantly being reprinted, so that a more complete bibliography would be huge. Charles Matthews 19:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So the page you have made is 40K, with minimal publication information about most titles. Also you are wrong to say it is in any sense complete. Charles Matthews 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The lack of publication info to be merged isn't my fault! I've removed the word "complete", and noted that it is incomplete and unreferenced (as are all the source pages...).

The size guideline points out that the 32k limit "apply somewhat less to lists or disambiguation pages". Having it all on one page also helps readers realize the extent of Blyton's work. See also List of books by Barbara Cartland.

(I'm guessing you're not a mergist, but, if I may quote that page briefly: "Mergists believe that while much information may warrant inclusion somewhere, very little of it probably warrants its own article.")

If you still object, I guess my next step would be to add merge tags to all 28 stub/sub-articles, and start a full discussion at either Talk:Enid Blyton or Talk:List of books by Enid Blyton. Suggestions welcome. Thanks again. --Quiddity 20:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be enough of a mergist not to expect any objections to a merge, and then to go ahead, dismissing such objections retrospectively. This is not exactly how business is usually transacted here. I'm not in the slightest interested in whether or not people realize the extent of Blyton's work. I created the articles because Blyton is incredibly popular (outside the USA), and it is good for the site to have articles about the lady's works. (I'm not a fan.) An article on what Blyton published in a given year 1940 to 1960 is warranted. Charles Matthews 20:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please try to assume good faith. I was being overtly polite by even asking you in the first place, after asking at talk:Enid Blyton days ago, instead of being bold and just merging.

I don't understand what your assertion of 'lack of interest' in the readers being able to glean additional information, is meant to imply. You seem to be antagonistic towards my merging your (28 seperate stub) articles, but I don't understand why, so I keep pointing out potential benefits and trying to answer your objections, which is an attempt to reach consensus, which is "how business is usually transacted here". Now, do you have an actual reason for believing Enid Blyton requires twenty eight list articles for her bibliography, or did you just get out bed on the wrong side this morning? --Quiddity 23:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you finally asked why I saw fit to split up the bibliography, which is what I was waiting for. I was not questioning your good faith, rather your style in assuming you had all the answers. As is commonly said, Blyton wrote over 600 titles. Therefore a single article is not the answer. I have just been consulting Children's Fiction 1900-1950 by John and Jonathan Cooper. The Blyton titles from the 1940s alone take up five closely-printed pages in two columns in that.

You are wrong about the etiquette, by the way. If you propose to merge a page, you should put a notice on that page, not somewhere else. 'Days ago' hardly covers it. I happen to have been involuntarily offline; but where's the big rush? Charles Matthews 09:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of being oblique, and "waiting for" me to come up with the right phrasing, why didn't you just answer my original request for objection/comment in the spirit it was intended? And, more to the point, why have you still not explained a rationale for requiring 28 separate stub articles?

The first 2 pages in that series ({{Blyton bibliography}}) already span multiple years, and 1934 includes more books than 1941, yet doesn't require its own page? You haven't suggested the obvious compromise of making just 2 lists, e.g. 1922-1952 and 1953-1975. As far as I can tell, 28 stubs is pointless article-count inflation, and they are never going to grow as individual articles beyond where they are now.

Barbara Cartland wrote 657 books, which are all listed happily on one page. The only lists split into more than one in Category:Bibliographies by author, are those concerning novels vs. short stories (for J. R. R. Tolkien, P. G. Wodehouse, and Isaac Asimov). Your stance seems to implicitly suggest that all those bibliographies in the category ought to be split into multiple stubs too? The recently Featured lists, List of birds of Belize and 2001 NFL Draft, are just as long page-wise.

I don't understand why you're being so unhelpful. If you just have a personal dislike for long pages, I'm sorry, but that's not a valid objection to a merge.

My intent in asking at Talk:Enid Blyton was to actually get some feedback, as I'd guessed that very few people watchlist the 28 separate articles, plus the merge tag that's already there has been undiscussed since it was added in mid-April. As we seem to be having communication problems (something about the style/voice of my writing irks you? I try to be as concise as possible, but I have no control over the intonation that readers ascribe to the words...), I will do the full official process, and add merge tags to all the articles. There is no rush, I'm just trying to improve/fix things as I find them. --Quiddity 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the film 2 days ago, having read the book a few years ago. I wish we were getting along better, that I might ask you irrelevant but socially-gluing questions (how was he at go?), or for any Erdős anecdotes. C'est la vie. --Quiddity 18:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

28 separate stub articles? You don't actually know the definition of stub then. It is not defined by length; it is defined by being essentially incomplete with respect to the topic. There is the old saying: Wikipedia is not paper. The number of articles on an area is not really the issue. I spent time today fleshing out the page for 1949. With the external links, around two dozen, it comes to a healthy page (for which stub would be a gross misdescription). Scaling up, there would be a Blyton bibliography page with some hundreds of inline links. You don't actually know that these pages aren't going to grow, either. I have started to put in something about the reprint information, but not yet the publishers. One of the external links is a page that claims to be a fairly complete list (lying, of course); it's a big, unwieldy page with not much more than titles, and I think we can do much better. Another major site does it year-by-year. I still prefer my original idea on this.

I'm quite happy to talk about Erdős as go player. He was around 2 kyu, and had probably played quite a bit. He didn't understand about shape or high strategy, but was reasonably sharp. Charles Matthews 18:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I have recently come under rather harsh scrutiny by one of the Wikipedia administrators, Kafziel for what he calls uncivil behavior and making comments towards users. There is already a dialogue on his talk page that references this:

(Copied and pasted from User talk:Signaleer)

Please refrain from attacking other users as you did here. Editing Wikipedia can be frustrating, but it's important to keep a cool head. Labelling other editors trolls is counterproductive, and behavior like that can get you blocked if it keeps up. There's no need to get bent out of shape so quickly; if something seems unfair or improper to you, take the time to find out the other person's reasoning. They might know something you don't. Kafziel ^Talk 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, it's okay for other users to attack me on their "talk history page" but it's not okay for them to do the same [1][2], I strongly encourage you to look into problems before you start making accusations or threats. Furthermore, the user RJHall demonstrated to me Troll like behavior therefore I did accuse him of being a troll, I also highly encourage you to look at the discussion that was on my talk page and the bavhior he displayed on his. I have also observed that you have demonstrated to exercise your blocking power as an administrator quite frequently, sometimes without any warnings. Please collect all your G-2 before making such accusations in the future. -Signaleer 06:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Flying off the handle for no reason. I didn't make any threats; I gave you a warning. Behavior like that can get you blocked if it keeps up. See your little "sometimes without warnings" comment? Well, that was your warning.

I actually exercise my "blocking power" quite less frequently than most. People often get pissed at me for not blocking the editors they want me to, and I spend most of my time working on speedy deletions, not anti-vandalism. I just wanted to encourage you to try harder when interacting with others. Kafziel ^Talk 12:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of thing I warned you about. First of all, he's absolutely right - you're not allowed to change other people's comments in discussions for any reason. Secondly, if you don't like what someone writes on your talk page, you can remove their comments without calling them "absurd" and "asinine". Now, you can overreact to what I'm saying here and call it a threat (which will get you nowhere) or you can take it for what it's worth: one last friendly warning before things start to get unpleasant. I could leave you some stupid {{npa3}} template warning instead, but I prefer to talk things out like human beings whenever possible. You seem to have the potential to be a good editor, but I will not sit by and let you abuse others while I wait for that good editor to evolve. Kafziel ^Talk 04:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

For your information, it is not uncivil to say that the words "absurd" and "asinine", on the contrary they are very civil and I would imagine that most would find it okay to say these words describing someones actions. 1.) I did not make any personal attacks, I was descring the nature of the behavior. 2.) I find it rather civil considering the other options that I have at my disposal. 3.) I particullarly find your "observations" of my page rather scrutinizingly rediculous and your manner in which you "talk" to me is by nature very cantankerous. If anything, I would contest that as an administrator, you are abusing the right for me to edit things on my own talk page without some Wikipedia administrator discussing the do's and don'ts on what I say on my edit line is crossing the line. -Signaleer 06:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is clear that you have not looked into the comments made by RJHall from observing his comments which me hade on his talk page in reference to me. This can be seen http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RJHall&action=history]. This proves that you as an administrator are harrassing me and looking for a conflict. If you think you are unbias and dealing fair treatment on Wikipedia, then you are terribly mistaken. -Signaleer 06:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would ask as a member of the Arbitration community, you please review this matter with your peers and please come to a speedy resolution. Thank you. -Signaleer 06:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility is not negotiable. You may delete comments of others on your own User talk page, but nowhere else. Anything more? Charles Matthews 19:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on François-Etienne Caulet, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because François-Etienne Caulet is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting François-Etienne Caulet, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Charles, I have been working on expanding the article Bruhat-Tits building, but wanted to move it to building (mathematics), since the Bruhat-Tits building is only a special case. However, as that page was a redirect, I wasn't able to accomplish the move, even after removing the link. Can you, please, help? I think that the comments subpage for rating project has to be moved manually as well. If possible, please, do not create a redirect at Bruhat-Tits building, as we may to post a more specialized article there eventually, or at least a stub temporarily. Thank you, Arcfrk 05:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. There is no choice about the redirect, but you can edit it without problems. Charles Matthews 13:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Franz Wedekind, by Kolja21, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Franz Wedekind fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Franz Wedekind, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Franz Wedekind itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Marco Mortara, by Cyberoidx, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Marco Mortara seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Marco Mortara, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Marco Mortara itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Handel (surname), by Shoeofdeath, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Handel (surname) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Handel (surname), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Handel (surname) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 22:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for that, its just i was going through the New pages category, and thought it must have been some new user :) Its just that the source you have mentioned is having some trouble with its server, and maybe you could fix the external link 60.254.7.225 03:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC) My apologies for the CSD, and i forgot to sign in :) CyberoidX 03:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles Matthews, you have voted in the proposed decision page both versions of remedies, like voting both topical ban version and general ban version. Please clarify which one is the first choice and which is second. Thanks! Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 19:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a 'whatever'. I'll come back to it if it matters. Charles Matthews 19:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have begun going through your math contributions and tagging some for merging or deletion. No hard feelings, but several of the ones I've looked at are either completely contained in other pages or would do better to be such. Myrkkyhammas 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at several of these, and you were wrong in every case. In particular the speedy deletion tag on solvable Lie algebra is not at all justified. There is huge scope for expansion at real algebraic geometry. Charles Matthews 19:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I came here by accident and noticed this. The few suggestions I have seen for mergers or deletions are mostly ill-conceived in my view, and I have commented as appropriate on the given pages. Geometry guy 01:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

I've noticed 7 arbiters voted for User:MariusM and User:EvilAlex banning on the grounding:

"As a disruptive single-purpose account with a history of edit-warring and tendentious editing, MariusM (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned"(from the project or from making any contributions related to Transnistria.)

I don't think being a single-purpose account is wrong. If so, it means a variety of edits is required just to be in the project; and I think this opposes to the anyone can edit concept.

Regarding edit-warring, I think Mauco provoked them, either directly, or by his unfair edits, and I will add here only some of the examples in which I was involved:

1. my first edit on this subject was reverted by Mauco under the edit summary:rv rubbish
2. Mauco removed the disputes-templates I've added under the edit summary: rv POV hijack
3. Mauco and Pernambuco made changes depsite the oposal of the majority and asked us consensus before reverting them
4. "they" also reverted the edits they said they agree with, to force us introduce them gradually. [3]

I think it is relevat here to say Mauco refused mediation[4]

I wonder would Wikipedia have ever solved Mauco problem if MariusM and EvilAlex had been afraid to get involved in disputes? (there was a request for checkuser on Pernambuco and Mauco in November 2006, but it was rejected. The first step in unmasking Mauco was made in a war-edit, in which "Pernambuco" used User:Kertu3 to revert MariusM.)

Dl.goe 06:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As it says at WP:SPA, a single-purpose account is not necessarily bad. It depends on the user behaviour. Charles Matthews 06:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand being a single-purpose account is not bad on its own, but, if you are involved in a dispute, it is an aggravating circumstance. I just feel accusing somebody of being a single-purpose account is like accusing of having an extremely narrow area of interest.Dl.goe 08:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is where the problem lies. Editors should be here as encyclopedists, implying a broad view. We don't like 'obsessive editing', we don't like specialists if they have a one-sided POV, we don't like other signs indicating 'conflict of interest' in the broad sense (caring more about getting publicity for certain views than about the overall mission to be an informative reference site). The ArbCom uses these concepts to get a clearer formulation of editor behaviour. Anyone can become involved in edit wars; but those coming here and warring from a narrow base of edits are at risk in Arbitration of being found not to care too much about 99.99% of the site. Charles Matthews 08:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but, on this criterion, an editor who has suffered from certain authorities abuses, or who has seen suffering from abuses, or a human rights activist, or, whatever motivations he might have, if he wants to clean articles of propaganda for abusive authorities, than he is still a single purpose account, and could even be considered a one sided POV.
Second, not editing other articles doesn't mean not caring about them; I hope one can't be accused of not caring about any of the volunteer projects he didn't take part in.
Many editors do not want to get involved in disputes which tend to use much of their time, but, if no editor had gotten involved in the dispute with Mauco, Mauco would have never been caught, and we would still have a highly POV article, kept so by a now proven bad faith editor.Dl.goe 09:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The point of Arbitration is to take everything into account. Detailed explanations are given; that is because the community wishes to understand the reasoning. There are many principles used in Arbitration, and those are not always stated. One very obvious one, for those with experience of Wikipedia, is that the bad behaviour of other editors is not to be used as a reason to behave badly. The AC looks most closely at editor behaviour. Often people misjudge what it is they should do, in order to keep articles neutral. The only correct way is a very steady, reasonable, long term approach based on full discussion of the material, using reliable sources. Charles Matthews 10:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the main argument for banning MariusM and EvilAlex the creation of the page Heaven of Transnistria and image [5]? If no, please tell me examples of his bad behaviour.Dl.goe 13:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi isn't the wording "is interesting intrinsically" POV? for the encyclopedia. LOL you have appear to have an incredible knowledge of rabbis!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe - reword if you like. I have no knowledge of rabbis as such: Google is my friend in this matter. Charles Matthews 10:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That Jewish encyclopedia looks good - its a shame it currently doesn't seem to be operating. The site on my computer came up as a dead link. Again keep up the good work on the medieval Jewish articles. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 10:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I get the Google cached versions; presumably they'll fix the server some time. The JE is good in the sense of coherence; it seems that it was written by a smaller group of scholars than the 1911 EB or the CE. I'm just fitting some of it together via wikilinks. The only skill is finding the name variants. Charles Matthews 10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. I just started the article John McGarvie -there are so many missing encyclopedia articles!!! I started articles such as Wildlife of Pakistan, History of Exploration in Tibet, Ernest Chinnery and Tiger hunting not long ago - these are major articles that were missing I was amazed they didn't exist!!!! I am currently trying to create a wildlife series by country in Africa. You'd expect an encyclopedia to have such articles anyway such as Wildlife of Kenya especially one of of this size!!! Can I just ask how you came about lecturing on wikipedia in Kampala? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was visiting Kampala YMCA, for the second time, to teach go; and managed to get an invitation out of an IT networking society; which laid on a room in a hotel for the talk. Quite well attended, in fact. Charles Matthews 11:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow great stuff! Hopefully more and more people can get Internet access in the poorer regions of the world and beat poverty. All the best ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 11:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just opened an RfC on myself for my conduct in a dispute that you were involved with concerning the Gary Weiss article. You took part in the AfD discussion on the article. The RfC is located here and I welcome your comments or questions. CLA 21:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles, your input would be appreciated regarding whether COI should be policy, rather than a guideline. Discussion here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on CR Avery, by Closenplay, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because CR Avery fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting CR Avery, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate CR Avery itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering the controversy surrounding Leo Strauss and the fact that the word "Straussian" is used pejoritively by critics of neoconservatism and the War in Iraq, I was surprised to see these edits [6] [7] [8] [9] that you added to the Clifford Orwin article. Unless I missed something, I do not see how these sources justify labeling Clifford Orwin a "Staussian" when he has not self identified as such. I am particular concerned about this rationale offered in one of the references: "Orwin is concerned to argue against identification of Strauss as a neoconservative, and other positions." What does this mean, exactly? That his concern that Strauss not be identified with neoconservatism is evidence that Orwin should be identified with Strauss? Just because someone studied under Bloom and Mansfield does not mean they are part of a Straussian secret society. To me, this kind of labeling should follow the same sort of guidelines as calling someone Jewish, for example. Having said that, I just reviewed the biographies of living persons guideline, and I can't find the part about "the subject of the article self identifying with the belief in question." I would have sworn it was there. Perhaps the guideline has changed, but I thought it was a good policy. I have removed the reference to Strauss from the article pending your explanation. Regards, MoodyGroove 20:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

You are in the wrong here, in fact, in removing relevant sources. When it said that he is often called a Straussian by others, is that not true? If some call him a Straussian and others deny that, then we have a controversy, and NPOV says we report both sides. I am reverting your cut of sources for all of this. Please feel free to improve the article, by adducing aother sources, or finding better ways to express the point. But you are not improving it by simply cutting out sources. Charles Matthews 06:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

With respect, CM, saying I am in the wrong does not make it so. You disagree with me, which is different. So allow me to make the case. I am questioning the relevance of your sources. The only one that indicts Clifford Orwin as a "Struassian" (and make no mistake, it is an indictment) is the last one, written by Paul Gottfried in reply to a critique by Grant Havers titled "Strauss versus the Straussians: A Reply to Professor Gottfried" which criticizes Gottfriend:

As if associating Strauss with neoconservatism is not enough, Gottfried blames his students (and thus Strauss) for subjecting "the morally impoverished American right" to the "warmed-over rhetoric of Saint-Juste and Trotsky," which then explains the Straussian objective to transform the world in a violent "neo-Jacobin" manner [...] In short, the Straussians are left-wing versions of a pseudo-Right. Yet it is simply mind-boggling that Strauss, whose life’s work systematically critiqued the foundations of the historicism which shaped the various schools of Marxism in the 20th century, could ever be associated with these historicist revolutionaries.

In his reply to this "courteous critic", Gottfried says:

Should we not generalize about a Straussian-neocon connection in view of such exemplary figures as Allan Bloom, the Kristol family, Paul Wolfowitz, Harvey Mansfield, Richard Perle, John Podhoretz, Thomas Pangle, David Frum, Clifford Orwin, etc., etc.? The one qualification that might be in order is that while Straussians are usually neocon intellectuals, not all neocons are Straussians."

So a critic of 'Straussians' and 'neoconservatism' thinks of Orwin as a 'Straussian' (and not in a nice way, which is typical). So the article labels Orwin as a 'Straussian' with whatever emotive content the reader brings with him to the article, whether it fairly represents Orwin's views or not.

The other sources you claim to be relevant do not support your contention at all. Orwin's essay "Reading Leo Strauss" proves only that Orwin wrote about Strauss. He says "Although Smith is too young to have known Strauss, he did study with Straussians (as Strauss's students tend to be called).." Hence Orwin is a Straussian? That's dubious.

And last we have Geoff Bakewell's book review of Orwin's The Humanity of Thucydides which contains a footnote that reads "O[rwin] acknowledges a profound debt to Leo Strauss' The City and Man." Hence Orwin is a Straussian? Original research. At worst, it is an attempt to stigmatize a living person by labeling him a Straussian. Make no mistake, the term "Straussian" is used pejoritively by critics of Strauss, neoconservatives, and those who would link together Strauss and the War in Iraq. If Gottfried's statements aren't enough, look at the G-hits for the search terms ["Leo Strauss" War Iraq].

Here is another difficulty to consider. From the Marxism article: "The term "Classical Marxism" is often used to distinguish between "Marxism" as it is broadly understood and "what Marx believed", which is not necessarily the same thing." So apparently Karl Marx may not have been, strictly speaking, a Marxist! Or maybe, Marxism (as generally understood) is not really Marxism (as understood by Marx). This is a good example of why I'm not crazy about the term "Straussian." Unless, of course, the subject of the article considers himself a Straussian.

Relevant Wikipedia editing guidelines:

Presumption of privacy – “Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.”

Biased or malicious content – “Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.”

Burden of evidence – “The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. Quotations should also be attributed.”

Your last comment "Please feel free to improve the article, by adducing aother sources, or finding better ways to express the point. But you are not improving it by simply cutting out sources" seems to go against the burden of evidence. Citing sources is not the same as citing reliable sources. The burden is on me to make sure your edits conform to a neutral point of view? How did labeling Orwin a Straussian improve the article? In my opinion, when you remove biased and poorly sourced material from the Wikipedia, you improve both the quality of the article and protect the integrity of the Wikipedia. MoodyGroove 15:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Slow down, there. Where you say make no mistake, it is an indictment about being a Straussian, you are leaping ahead to the conclusion. Our article on Leo Strauss says simply enough that some followers of Strauss self-identify as that. Now, are you really saying that 'Straussian' is more than 'follower of Strauss'? If so, perhaps the Leo Strauss article is more worthy of your attention; so that Straussian becomes more than a redirect there, and whatever the point is can be made much more explicit.

I'm not also not contending much on my own behalf. I added some sources quickly while the article was subject to an AfD. There may well be better sources, and an improved way to express the point; I was being quite sincere there. Since it was at AfD, my point was to establish notability of Orwin. If you just cut the whole business of where he is in his interest as a political theorist/historian of political thought, whatever, you undermine the notability again. Charles Matthews 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean you, CM. I meant Gottfried. He was not using the term affectionately. Historically, many students of Strauss referred to themselves as Straussian, that's true. But since then, conspiracy theorists and critics of war (including the LaRouche movement) have decided that Leo Strauss was somehow responsible for some kind of illiberal teaching that corrupted a neoconservative cabal of "Straussians" to take control of American foreign policy and launch a war for American empire under false pretenses. The term "Straussian" has been hijacked by these critics and conspiracy theorists, applied to conservative members of academia, the media, or goverment who have any relation to Strauss (and having studied under a student of Strauss is more than enough evidence), and used as a means of identifying the guilty members of this alleged secret society. So yes, to be a Straussian in this day and age carries a lot of baggage, whether it is deserved or not, and whether it's true or not. To create a separate article for "Straussianism" (whatever that means) would only encourage more of these fringe theories to be promoted on the Wikipedia. I appreciate knowing that you were adding sources to help establish notability for the article, and that your edits did not intend to stigmatize or brand Clifford Orwin in any way. That's been happening a lot, but usually the edits are added by random IP addresses, single purpose accounts, sock puppets, far left critics of the Bush administration, or editors promoting the 9/11 Truth Movement. That's why I was shocked to see that such an established Wikipedia editor had added these edits to the Clifford Orwin article. I can see now that I was wrong to assume that you were engaging in labelism or POV pushing, and apologize for not assuming good faith on your part. I'll see if I can find some way to improve the article and maintain its notability while still being fair to the political thought of Clifford Orwin. Thanks for your time! MoodyGroove 18:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Please do work on the article. Charles Matthews 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I was just curious as to what User:Charles Matthews/McCrea is. I noticed the name "Kenneth Schellhase" in it. He is my uncle, so I am wondering what it is about. --Mschel 19:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a list of names taken from a book by Arianna McCrea. Your uncle is a historian? Charles Matthews 19:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

O! :-( My uncle is a somewhat famous doctor. Different guys. But I am a distant relative of the historian. I will check our genealogy. --Mschel

My apologies for mistakenly marking Konstantin von Höfler for speedy deletion. It was an honest mistake with no malicious intent. I'm relatively new here and am still on the learning curve. --Sanfranman59 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding old encyclopedia topics by the hundred (literally), and I obviously don't want to be fighting just to keep them on the site. Charles Matthews 19:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to express my surprise concerning the probable outcome of the Transnistrian arbitration.

On one side you have an astroturfing network, proved media manipulation, and sockpuppet farms. On the other, you have guys that uncovered this large-scale manipulation and are now calm and reasonable (once the main manipulators are gone, that is). And what this ArbCom does is to inflict similar bans on both sides.

How is this ethical? Do you mean that fighting manipulation attempts is punishable? The only way of bringing down a manipulator being to accept the same punishment? And how about balancing punishment with evidence? Dpotop 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it ok to have in the User:Tobias Conradi page the following

---

The orginal version of this page contained admin right abuse listing and was deleted. The deletion is not shown in the deletion log.

This user thinks Wikipedia should be more tranparent with respect to admin actions. All users should be allowed to have annotated listings of admin actions, e.g. listings of admin right abuses.

Unfortunatly the ArbCom ruled that "Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances." and referring here to a simple listing of annotated diffs. User_talk:Tobias Conradi/RfA

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi/Proposed_decision#Laundry_lists_of_grievances

So User:Tobias Conradi is denied the right to collect evidences of admin right abuses.

It reminds me on people committing crime and when the victim wants to change things by making the crime public he is additionally abused by being censored.

http://transparency.org

---

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably not. And can't you find a more sensible way to make your point, whatever it is? WP is quite entitled to ask people to use space here for the project, and not as personal web space. That's not censorship. Charles Matthews 12:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How would this way look like? I once created a project for that, but this got out of policy deleted. I use the space for the project, it is to keep it clean and policy conform. I was very astonished that ArbCom made a ruling that would deny to one special user the right to collect policy violations. Shouldn't the ArbCom support the policies, support people that stand up for their proper enactment? If what the ArbCom ruled, namely deleting project related material is not censorship in your eyes, you should maybe help to rewrite the WP article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not censorship to say that the User namespace is for certain things and not for other things. You seem to have pressed the point, and now there is a judgement you don't like. That's how it happens: disputes are resolved at ArbCom level this way. Charles Matthews 14:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP: Censorship is defined as the removal and withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. That is what the ArbCom ruling supports. All my evidence collections of admin right abuses got deleted. As said above I also did it in the project space, but there it got out of policy deleted too. Where would you collect facts about admin right abuses? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not making sense. If we wanted you not to have the right to complain about admin abuse, we would have ruled that you couldn't bring an RfC. You can. That was not what this was about. You can use the mechanisms we have. Charles Matthews 21:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are not getting sense out of it.

• Please tell me a page where I could collect evidences of admin right abuses.
• Please tell me why colleting such is prohibited.

in the first place I do not want "comments" from others (request for comments), but I want to collect the facts of admin right abuses. Why is this denied? Why is collecting facts denied? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't want you to do that. Wikipedia is a working environment, not a political playground. Collecting up 'accusations', on this site, is harmful to the Wikipedia mission. This is what you are being told. If you are in dispute with an admin or anyone else, use dispute resolution; which has the basic feature that people can reply to you. No one can stop you collecting facts for your own use in your own space somewhere, but we have clearly ruled that this is a negative for Wikipedia, when you do it in your User space. If you have to do this, find some web space and do it there. WP:NOT#USER contains some basic remarks; your user page is not yours, and it exists to make collaboration easier. We are telling you that your user space is not yours, and your use of it is making collaboration harder. See also 'WP is not a battleground', 'WP is not a soapbox', and other fundamental comments on how Wikipedia is run. Charles Matthews 16:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does dispute resolution allow collecting facts? You say collecting facts on admin right abuses is harmful, do you think the abuses itself could be more harmful? WP:NOT#USER - interesting that this is enforced so much on a page that mentions admin right abuses, not so on pages where admins promote physical violence!! Why can admins maintain lists of false facts/defamation about people while I am not allowed to maintain lists of annotated diffs? Why do you think cesorship on abuse reporting helps WP? Why do you suggest that the abuse evidence collectors should work offsite which is really much harder to do, since it will probably miss wiki technology and will miss all the easy back and forth linking when the collecting work is done in the same wiki where the abuses take place? Why does the ArbCom not collect their evidences offsite? Why are the people that call me vandal are not forced to work offsite? If WP is a working environment - why are admin right abuses are allowed kind of "work" and the evidence collecting "work" not? Without the admins abusing their rights it would be a much better working environment. I would like to see certain things changed, but this needs collecting evidences. In how far are the ArbComs pages not political while a little listing of annotated diffs is? Why do you call this laundry list? Why don't you help getting the laundry washed insted of censoring reports of the mere existence of laundry? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm here to work, not be a policeman. How about you? You are not making any new point. You are simply expressing a view that you have some rights, and you have been told, completely clearly, that you do not have such rights. Charles Matthews 06:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol, now you get aggressive? Funny. I was here to work too. I am still here to work. But you help the mobbers, stalkers, admin right abusers etc. I tell you what : you are a corruption supporter, a big censorship man. Great. ArbCom 1RR per week - why???? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's how to go about resolving any disputes you have with administrators or anyone else: Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes. As listed on this page there are channels available where you can list alleged abuses with the aim of seeking a resolution. Kutabi 20:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Your name recently popped up repeatedly on my watchlist. Thanks for your tireless efforts to improve the "Against Heresies" links, etc. Jonathan Tweet 13:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey I am editor LoveMonkey and I was hoping to create and article on Professor Charles E Hill and was hoping to ask you for help. LoveMonkey 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have details such as date of birth, middle name? Charles Matthews 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Karen Leigh King, by Javit, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Karen Leigh King seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Karen Leigh King, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Karen Leigh King itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please check the text I drafted in Talk:Malik_Ghazi_Danishmend. I suggest we change the page title to just Danishmend Gazi (and not Ghazi, since it is the Arabic spelling), with links from all other variants of course, as I saw that you had done. If you go to Google Books to this link, and register for a view of Clifford Edmund Bosworth's book cited in the article, in page 215, you will see a well-arranged geneaology for the dynasty, since it could be confusing for anyone. Regards. Cretanforever 19:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the page. I'm sure you know more about him than I do; I was quite surprised at the scrappy details in the sources I tried. Go ahead and paste in your draft. Charles Matthews 08:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I added categories as requested. If there are no other issues, I'll remove the template you placed. Richiar 06:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not me. Charles Matthews 08:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

HI just seen your newest articles on the back log of the new pages. I added or corrected a few categories to your German articles. Note Category:German philologists and Category:German Roman Catholic bishops exist. Keep up the new articles, Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Charles Matthews 09:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have a moment, please take a look at this, which I have just extricated from entanglement with the likes of Richard Dawkins and Björn Ulvaeus of ABBA. Plenty of articles need adding, I'm sure, and probably some need pruning. The same goes for the list at Renaissance Humanism - Donatello didn't make the cut. Many of the articles have links to humanist or humanism also. I have added a redirect for Renaissance humanist to the -ism. Pass it on if you know anyone else with an interest. Thanks, Johnbod 21:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to know when you would start working on the Paranormal arbitration. I also wanted to request that when you do, you add [[10]] and [[11]] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area [[12]]. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for. Also please add [[13]] and [[14]]. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You can participate directly in the Workshop page for the case. Charles Matthews 11:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about the "Proposed decisions" area found here [[15]]. This area is for arbitrators to enter proposed decisions, Specifically Proposed remedies. I wanted to make sure that specific remedies were not forgotten to be added concerning Martinphi and Davkal since they are the main reasons this arbitration got started in the first place and the most amount of evidence is weighted against them. You can just copy it from the workshop into the "Proposed remedies" area for the arbitrators to vote on.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. Your use of the word 'overlooked' suggested a lack of familiarity. A selection of proposals from the Workshop are brought forward by the Arbitrator who writes up the case. I or any other Arbitrator can indeed add proposals. I would need to know more about why you think the case now in Voting is deficient. It seems to be one of the more complex cases, indeed, with a number of editors named as involved. Charles Matthews 11:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration was initiated by Minderbinder due in most part to the bias and disruptive editing by Martinphi. Much more evidence exists implicating Davkal as well. For Minderbinder's evidence please see [[16]]. There is a lot of evidence that he gathered up concerning the actions of Martinphi and so far there is no vote for the arbitrators to take actions against either Martinphi or Davkal. The editors involved in the arbitration agree almost unanimously on banning Martinphi from articles related to the Paranormal (or from Wikipedia all together) as well as Davkal. See [[17]] and [[18]] to see what I mean. There is mountains of evidence (In the evidence area) implication both of them specially in disruptive and bias edits but as of yet there is nowhere for the arbitrators to vote in the "Proposed decision" area on proposed remedies.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll see this is discussed (offline). Charles Matthews 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Offline"? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On the ArbCom mailing list. Charles Matthews 06:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. You could also add them yourself.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 11:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobias_Conradi&diff=137852540&oldid=137846299 - like this? They now block me just for fun. No laundry list cited. But they go around and say: "laundry list - you are blocked." Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Tobias_Conradi_%282nd_nomination%29

how come the result is blank? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

how come that admins can violate vote results ? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

why did you vote for putting me on 1RR per week? I never even violated 3RR. Even if one admin claimed so in the block log - my first block I received. And the first in a long row of false blocks. Pls tell what I did you think to cure with 1RR per week. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you return to constructive editing of the site. This is your best argument, and my best advice. Charles Matthews 06:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you answer my question: why did you vote for putting me on 1RR? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you were adding descriptions to the list of people with that surname at Wishart. I corrected your description of Welsh for Bridget Wishart, but wondered if it was worth mentioning she is the grand daughter of John Wishart (statistician) and how this should be represented in the list (or on their articles)?— Rod ^talk 18:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, right, thanks for the correction. It needn't go in the list: descriptions there are supposed to be adequate to the task of finding the article you want, and no more. It can go in the article about Bridget, in a section 'family' at the end; providing that is you have a good source. Charles Matthews 18:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

...that does not have to respond to questions regarding your decisions as a member of ArbCom? Do you think you can "rule" against written policies, because ArbCom is not responsible to anyone but Jimbo? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you tell me why you think you should have an answer in under three minutes, at a weekend? I normally give one or two answers in relation to ArbCom cases, but when people simply repeat themselves, I think my obligation ends there. I have explained the policy thinking. I have given you the only correct advice (and it is good advice). Charles Matthews 12:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not think that. I asked you 13 June and you gave a response at 14 June which did not answer the question. As ArbCom member you voted for putting me on 1RR per week, I simply would like to know why. How coe that ArbCom does not need to explain every single rule they impose? Why 1RR per week? The ruling reminds me on dictatorship - no policy cited - just plain 1RR per week. I did not ask for advice - I did ask why 1RR. And this you did not answer. Yes I repeat myself. And again: Why did you vote for putting User:Tobias Conradi on 1RR per week? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

can you have a look at my block log and tell me, which of the blocks I received is the first that is justified by WP written policies? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 12:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

If your intention is to post here once every few minutes, then you are being disruptive. Charles Matthews 12:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

it was not my intention and also did not do this. Have a look at minute and the history of that page. I put the stuff in seperate sections because that are seperate issues. I would really like an answer to this block log question. You should also think about how your ArbCom vote causes disruption in the Wikipedia. And yes: I am disruptive. I want to disrupt all the bad blocks and the out of policy admin actions. We need an analysis for that. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:POINT, disrupting Wikipedia at all to make a point is a breach of policy. You should use the proper channels. If you want clarification of ArbCom decisions, the proper channel is the section on WP:RFAR for that. You are not actually entitled to a second 'trial' on the pages of Arbitrators. If that were the way, no one would ever serve on the ArbCom. If the ArbCom decides 1RR is a good remedy, that is basically it - decided. You can ask for clarification, you can appeal to Jimmy Wales. Charles Matthews 13:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

but that is exactly what I do: I aks for clarification. I don't know what you mean by "2nd trial" .. what would be the first? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Chop-logic now. Use the 'clarification' on WP:RFAR. The ArbCom procedure is judicial enough for most people. I suppose most normal folk reading this might not be surprised that you don't engage much sympathy. Charles Matthews 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

On 17 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Apostomus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Nice article :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I can only claim a small addition to the JE text. Still, fitting these things into the 'pedia is worth it. Charles Matthews 20:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

HI Charles I have a request. I have seen the Synod of Prague red linked and am intigued to learn about it. Is there enough info available to stub it? Hope you are well, ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 09:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is more than one. 1389, but also one in the eleventh century, one after the Council of Trent ... Charles Matthews 10:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question: there do seem to be enough sources. However it is probably quite confusing: quite a number of provincial synods in a short space of time. Charles Matthews 10:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi.

I noticed that you created a link to the page entitled "Lyons". This page is a disambiguation page. There are many people, places and companies called "Lyons". To which did you mean to refer? In general, disambiguation pages should not be linked to. For more information, please see WP:DPL. Please change your link, replacing it with the name of whichever page is appropriate. Dontdoit 23:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Lyon, naturally - French bishop. It is actually inevitable that in wikifying old encyclopedia articles, like the one on Jandel, links to dab pages are created. Since I spend time also on clearing up by avoiding dab pages, I think I can be permitted to create a few. Charles Matthews 05:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Zanyar (Possible sockpuppets)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Diyako (Diyako is stale)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/71.222.81.30 (Diyako is still stale so no check was made to compare him)

You are receiving this because your username either appears on the checkuser list or you were one of the arbitrators that participated in the relevant Arbcom case (User:Dmcdevit, User:Jdforrester, User:The Epopt, User:Charles Matthews, User:Sam Korn, User:Fred Bauder, User:Jayjg, User:Morven, User:Neutrality).

Currently User:Diyako/User:Xebat is at a stale state for not editing over a month. User hasn't edited for slightly over a year due to an arbcom sanctioned ban. I have a reason to believe ([19], [20], [21]) there may be a connection as the edit pattern seems similar in many ways. Diyako's wikipedia ban has recently expired but if he is continuing a similar behavior as User:D.Kurdistani, there needs to be a further consideration either by ARBCOM or Community Sanction board (latter seems more appropriate IMHO). A successful checkuser would be very helpful in the decision making process on this issue.

This inquiry is to request if you have "personal logs" of Diyako/Xebat's IP's to compare with User:D.Kurdistani and possible other socks. This is NOT a request for the logs themselves but on weather or not you have them. Please reply on my talk page to confirm if you have the logs or not. User:Mackensen appears to be the only person to have preformed a successful checkuser but others may also have this info.

-- Cat ^chi? 10:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't have CheckUser powers. Charles Matthews 16:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see my User talk:68.110.8.21 and User_talk:Akhilleus#WP:POINT.2C_WP:HOAX.2C_WP:PN.2C_WP:BIAS. Wikipedia seriously needs your help Charles. Thanks. 68.110.8.21 03:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You must be more specific, rather than making generalised charges. For example, if you think statements in articles are not supported by references, add a {{fact}} template. Charles Matthews 06:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles are weighted in favour of homosexual activist spin on Greek history. Just see the references and the user pages of such editors as User:Haiduc. He blatantly declares his mission to cast a homosexual shadow all over Wikipedia. Pardon me, but an activist agenda just isn't what Wikipedia is for. Equalizing opinions on a matter is of prime importance, but they consider any and all non-homosexual (or hetereosexual) takes on these Greek articles as akin to Holocaust denial-level bigotry. They defame the Greeks by caricature, like Paddy the drunk and brawling Irishman. How is it that mass media ethnic stereotypes are glorified here? 68.110.8.21 09:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I know what Wikipedia is for: I have been here four years. Instead of ranting at me, why don't you do as I say? All statements here must be referred to reliable sources. You can help by pointing out any statements that are not. Charles Matthews 09:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that the articles were unsourced, but that the editors are one-sided. Why don't they magnanimously reach out to balance edits (I have little patience for legwork), so these are NPOV articles? It is obvious how homosexual treatment of Greek articles is too large, begging a question of undue weight with regards to content in proportion to Greek studies in general--at Wikipedia. It is precisely such an issue that enflames protest and litigation from the Greek community. Greece once recieved anthropological tourism, but homosexuality has supplanted that focus. That's shameful to a country that is not a "gay village", but a high-brow and seriously important beacon of European culture. 68.110.8.21 09:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, obviously undue weight is an issue of concern within single articles: it comes under NPOV policy. Since there is no imposed limit of detail of treatment of any topic (based on good sources), the balance of articles as a whole is determined by what others are writing on other topics. The standard attitude is to encourage the writing of more about other topics, not to impose some quota. Charles Matthews 10:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Does one have to take charge of the situation by making changes to POV-imbalanced articles, in order for something to be done? I can't act high-handed and I know it would become an edit war, because of the controversial nature innate to the subject. That's why I made my complaints known to people I "know" are absolutely able to do "something" about it. I am a little afraid of taking something like this into my own hands, choosing the path of least resistance. All I meant to do, was make a complaint and there would hopefully be something done to redress a grievance. I was essentially mocked by the first admin (User:Akhilleus), who blasted in my presence by calling the complaint "trolling" and deleting the case I laid forth on relevant article talk pages. After talking down to me, he has gone off to do other things. Now, I have already been engaged in the losing side of a convincing debate with User:AnonEMouse to see if he is not also going to think the situation is unimportant to worry about. Everybody needs the respect, but I fear that certain groups are not willing to share in this reciprocal concept with the Greeks. Those are namely; the Enlightenment disparagement of Greeks as homsexual degenerate Ottoman slaves, Turkish control of Constantinople, genocide of Armenians, invasion of Cyprus and furthermore, the ancient and salted wound of the Fourth Crusade. These are all hot-buttons for Greeks, albeit irrelevant for most Westerners. I am not Greek, so I am trying to share my empathy for their causes and hopefully, something good will come of it here. Please see User_talk:AnonEMouse#Greco_Report. 68.110.8.21 10:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have some misconceptions. It would be very useful, indeed, if issues of 'systemic bias' could be solved (a) without 'legwork', (b) with no engagement of those who perceive it, and (c) by some central mechanism. To take, for example, the Fourth Crusade. We want to have a neutral treatment, in line with good contemporary scholarship. Someone has to research and write that. I have come across some such treatments here, but they needed work. Always work. I don't know how anyone can really believe a major encyclopedia can be written without work. Charles Matthews 10:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Another example of Greeks being discriminated against, is the Aryan ideology of some like Arthur Kemp--who is lauded by Stormfront, like a British Israelist who says modern Greeks are frauds without rightful claim to their ancestors' glory, but that it belongs to other people Kemp finds more noble. I presented an example of a plaintiff in the matter to AnonEMouse, Hellenic scholar Dienekes Pontikos. Since Pontikos is in defence of his own people, AnonEMouse would consider him an "activist"--loaded with suspect as regards his positions. Of course, he sees no conflict of interest when homosexuals speak for their own movement. This double-standard is exactly how he dealt with "Greco Report" dot com, so I am obviously having no voice with which to help the Greeks have a voice here. The shouts aren't loud enough, even though the major news outlets reported the outrage of Greek nationals resorting to ligitation over Oliver Stone's cinematic portrayal of Alexander the Great:

I was offended at the burglar who stole my friend's car and complained to the constable, who then handed me the keys to his wagon--but not his pistol, yet telling me to do his job.

The roguery of the administration, is really just shirking watchdog status and blaming victims. I would not want to be mistaken for an Admin due to this apparently widespread disorder of Wikipedia.

68.110.8.21 10:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

To repeat, you must be more specific, rather than making generalised charges. I have no idea how Stormfront got into this discussion. I'm quite clear that simply making accusations is not going to change anything. Charles Matthews 10:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is in the edits, in the statements of editors involved and their blatant disregard for NPOV through these activist words of their manifesto agendas. It's all about seeing the forest for the trees, which happens to be better than pedantics. Anybody can compare a version of one article with how it might be, given a bit more balance. That is a common enough issue for veterans such as yourself. I don't exactly contest their championed sources and end of the POV spectrum, but I would hope for NPOV and honesty on their parts. If they assume the responsibility of editing an article, then they MUST BE NPOV at the outset and own up to only taking one side as an unprofessional faux pas. I never edit an article with only one side in mind. These guys obviously don't know how to do that, but I am not an Admin and so it is not my responsibility to spank their bottoms for academic misbehaviour. 68.110.8.21 10:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. If there is a NPOV issue with an individual article, there is good policy to handle that. You simply didn't answer what I said about the Fourth Crusade. If you have some difficulty sticking to a narrow point and discussing this, then, yes, it makes it harder to engage in editorial work here. But that is not Wikipedia's fault. Charles Matthews 10:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not a point-for-point/tit-for-tat, tedious debater on academic tidbits. I leave that up for the professionals, because I know damned well that I am an amateur. I only contribute to a subject if I find something out unexpectedly, or by chance discovery. On this matter, I simply called impropriety how I saw it in the dedicated article versions of a few editors, rather than textual criticism. Their hands are in the cookie jar, but you unwittingly want to unnecessarily complicate the issue. Or, you could be deliberately trying to tire me into submission--out of lackadaisical disinterest in what's at stake. 68.110.8.21 11:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How about addressing the fact that the admin who reverted my complaints on relevant talk pages, also threatened to block me? He is dedicated to the status quo of the articles, so abusing his authority. That is the second impropriety I witnessed, but it was ad hominem and condescending in nature. Where is your concern about Admin image? Yours may suffer for ignoring his debaseful attitude. 68.110.8.21 11:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page: The practice of posting similar messages to more than a few users' talk pages, for example to solicit a certain action - is very strongly discouraged. Charles Matthews 11:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for instructing me how to behave, but all I was lobbying about, was empathy for the Greeks--hardly a crime, or is it? 68.110.8.21 11:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This a voluntary, working community. There are some basic norms and approaches. Charles Matthews 11:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a witchhunt or smackdown, but a bit more sensitivity when it comes to stereotypes of national identity. This is actually an issue that comes up all the time with the Holy Land, so my behaviour should come as no surprise. You should be proud I picked you, a decent apple out of the barrel. So, I am not soliciting a Political Action Committee, for example. I was going to file an RFC, but I'm not really technologically hip with all the formatting and like. 68.110.8.21 11:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

An RfC is an aspect of dispute resolution, and serves mainly to define more clearly the issues under dispute. You may not need an RfC; but it seems to me that you do need the clarification. Charles Matthews 11:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Clarification; there we go... I'm not certain how this problem could be handled, other than my referencing to some admins that certain policies have been violated with regard to how some editors have been defiantly creating self-opinionated articles and likewise weaseling versions of articles that suit their own POV best, on extremely controversial and touchy subjects. If this were the old days, it would be a duel. Systemic bias that defames entire nations can cause lots of violence. Just look at Islamist violence. At least Greeks are more civil and so am I. 68.110.8.21 11:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Haiduc is guilty of WP:TE and WP:SOAP, in addition to the other serious charges I already laid out earlier. Do I have to Wikilink to WP:NPOV, because repeating the allegation so many times otherwise would have no effect? 68.110.8.21 11:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you claim advocacy, and (as you say) you don't want a witchhunt, we are left with defining some basis for improvement, that could be implemented. Articles can be fixed up. Charles Matthews 11:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to see a warning given to Haiduc of the transgressions he has done to Wikipolicy, because I am certain he would laugh in my face and dismiss me as a bigot without addressing his own behaviour that negatively affects other people. Furthermore, there should be something of a caveat for the articles in question. There are wikilinks about "NPOV" and such, in sections or tops of article pages. Unfortunately, I'm a little winded from being bashed by the first Admin to come my way (and the similar dismissive comments made by others in his wake, as I came to the subject with caritas in my heart, not malice or vengeance--but I am Christian and know God's words on being persecuted for doing in His Name). I would like him to be talked to as well. I am not requesting a limitation of editing privileges, block, ban or otherwise punitive consequence for their actions to the Greeks on the one hand and to myself, on the other. 68.110.8.21 11:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are not logged in. IP number editors have few rights. You have been told (justifiably) that you are spamming User talk pages. The way it works is that those who operate within policy, as logged-in users, can expect greater protection. I, or anyone else, who discussed this matter with User:Haiduc would be talking to a colleague, rather than issuing a warning or otherwise trying to make a point based on some sort of hierarchy here. That is not how it works. Charles Matthews 11:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucracy seems to be a favoured arm-rest and filibuster for Wikipedians. Are you not your brothers' keeper? I think I have said enough. The rest, I leave in the memories of at least 5 Admins who have blown me off with some legalistic contrived excuse to shun and dismiss their human brothers. Thanks a lot for the lessons learnt about appointed authority here, including displays of invested integrity. 68.110.8.21 12:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Shrug. I wonder how you think a project managing 1800000 web pages that anyone online can edit could possibly operate without some framework. It is mininal bureaucracy, in fact. Charles Matthews 12:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sorry for what I was saying and doing a few weeks ago. I stopped taking my various medicines for a time and, well, you saw the result. I'm usually much less confrontational and... crazy. My apologies. Myrkkyhammas 08:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Charles Matthews 08:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Charles, I was wondering if you could take a look at the Effective results in number theory article, it seems to be in quite a state. Alternatively, you could point me in the direction of a good resource for this topic. Either way, I think the article deserves to be more than it is now. Cheers--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've worked on it. I came across this posting [22] from Harvey Friedman which seems pretty interesting in getting the logicians' POV on this. At the back of my mind were some things Georg Kreisel was saying about prof unwinding, the Skewes number and what Littlewood thought. The difficulty of course is finding intelligible things written down. There is also Shafarevich's 'joke': something like showing the Mordell-Weil group cannot be effectively computable, and so showing Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer must be unprovable ... now Manin did write that down in the mid-1960s in Russian Mathematical Surveys. Charles Matthews 20:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the speedy edits, the article is very much improved.(Now if something could be done about those redlinks. :) I will add them to my list o' things to do. Be warned that Diophantine equations are not even remotely my specialty, but with JSTOR it is hard to go wrong.) In an unrelated note, thank you for copyediting the articles I have created recently, it is good to know that someone (You and Michael Hardy as far as I can tell) monitors the new math articles. Cheers and thanks again. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Headwaters Incorporated, by Vegaswikian (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Headwaters Incorporated is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Headwaters Incorporated, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Headwaters Incorporated itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help on Res divina. I saw your edits at Jerzy Liderski's page. I see this man has done some work on Res divina. I need help here.WHEELER 04:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find anything to add. Charles Matthews 19:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

seeing this article as a result of a request for speedy, it seemed to me --talking now as a non-admin--that they articles may not have been adequately merged, or that there was consensus to merge, so I restored your version. Good luck with it. DGG 18:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it seems that User:Bart Versieck has been making a right mess of things. At Melchizedek priesthood (Mormonism), Melchizedek Priesthood (Mormonism), Melchizedek priesthood (Christianity). Charles Matthews 19:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not just Bart. Fixed up now - quite a tangle. Charles Matthews 19:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for disentangling all that -- I had talked to User:Ryoung122 about putting in a requested move to fix the damage he had done, and was going to do it myself if he didn't, but you got it all fixed up already! :) Pinball22 20:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just no one start all that again ... :) Charles Matthews 20:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you ever heard of accountability? Do you think you can arbitrarily make decsions and than not be accountable for them? Why did you vote for putting me on 1RR? And yes: disrupting abuses and corruption is good! Reveal the truth! Be transparent with respect to admin actions! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course I have heard of accountability, you tiresome person. We have dispute resolution precisely so that admin actions can be scrutinised, just as any other actions on Wikipedia. You seem to think you can have a parallel system of your own, and just reject the system there is. Well, there is nothing there. Charles Matthews 13:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Its obvious you have a long history of persistent tendentious and disruptive editing editing, your repetitive comments here being the latest example. There are quite a few examples of revert wars you have entered into to make some form of disruptive point. How is it not an appropriate remedy to place you on 1RR to curb your behavior? 71.102.126.107 14:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you might be interested in User:Alastair Haines attempts to push a Protestant POV at Template:Books of the Old Testament, see for example [23]. 75.14.208.224 19:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Mellon (saint), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Wikipedia's own Termiy 10:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Contested at Talk:Mellon (saint). No way is this a speedy, and you are wasting my time. Perfectly valid stub article; see CSD 1. Charles Matthews 10:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just reading this section of an arbitration case, and failed to translate a Latin phrase you used ("nil de mortuis nisi bonum"). However... I searched for it and eventually found: De mortuis nil nisi bonum. I was wondering if your word order makes the meaning different, or whether the Wikipedia article has the more correct word order, and whether you might consider either translating the phrase or wikilinking it? :-) Carcharoth 12:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin word order is relatively flexible (18 Google hits for mine). But I did think this was quite well known: 'do not speak ill of the dead', but the Latin is more apt. Charles Matthews 12:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I got the general thrust of what you were saying there, but I thought you might be interested in the article, and I thought others (who might not know Latin) might be interested as well. Carcharoth 12:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Interesting" that the article points out that lawyers take this in a way diametrically opposite to ordinary folk. Charles Matthews 12:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I stuck something on the talk page over at the case, though as the case is about to close soon, probably only a few people will see it. Maybe I should hurry over to WT:BLP? Carcharoth 12:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. As my comments show, I'm not in favour of 'mission creep' on BLP. There are surely some points that go beyond the living. But it is so much better and more portable to have them in separate policies, rather than having BLP push at its boundaries. Charles Matthews 12:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Hmmm... My understanding of Latin has always been that the is a preferred order by preofessors, but that because there is so much redundancy built into the language that order does not actually matter (excepting de mortuis).--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 13:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that can only be some subset. In poetry the inflections mean the order is much freer than for English. It is more like Russian, in that way. Charles Matthews 13:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you edited on this article recently and I would like to ask that the comments I edited out of the article [24] be sourced. I was hoping you could provide a source to the persecution and suppressio comments which if not sourced are POV. LoveMonkey 15:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

PS I was also trying to address this issue here [25] as well. LoveMonkey 15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The first book I looked in said that Celsus had the Ophite Diagram, as well as Origen. So the comment looks not quite right. Charles Matthews 15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have had a great deal of difficulty tracking down where historically allogations of suppression and abuse can be shown. One exception is the Paulines. But they caused a civil war so??? Also are the any real number on how many Cathars where killed? LoveMonkey 15:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a comment from Bentley Layton: "Most of their scripture comes down to us in an obviously Christianized form". This is from The Gnostic Scriptures, p. xv, and 'they ' are the Sethians - Barbeloites - Barbelognostics - Ophians - Ophites. So this is an inclusive, reasonable statement. Charles Matthews 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Where the suppression? Where are the comments on suppression? Where is the historical data? LoveMonkey 12:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying something slightly different. This appears to be one of those cases where the wording is not easily supported; but another kind of wording makes a related point, more comfortably. Charles Matthews 13:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article J. Redwood Anderson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the 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. Futurano 14:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Charles,

Thanks for your interest in the filling area conjecture page. I notice that there is an apparent bug in the software. Namely, the \pi appears in \scriptstyle as a superscript. How can one fix that? Katzmik 08:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually an expert in TeX! I would use some very simple notation such as π, because you don't need complex formulae. Charles Matthews 09:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You might want to ask Michael Hardy, I think he knows a fair bit about TeX.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 08:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, My name is Ravi. I am a new Wikipedian. My nickname is ‘Sam’. I made few changes in articles like Purdue University and Indiana as an anonymous user. My e-mail address is Ravi-141@hotmail.com. User:Hemlock Martinis is abusing his power as an administrator. On 9 June 2007, My friend User:Devraj5000 was introducing me to the policies of the Wikipedia. Devraj5000 accidentally violated 3RR. User:Hemlock Martinis, who is an administrator blocked Devraj5000 for 24 hours. Then, Devraj5000 asked me to create an account. I created an account User:R-1441 and I made some comments on the behalf of Devraj5000. Then, Devraj5000 left the computer. After that, User:Hemlock Martinus accused Devraj5000 of sockpuppetry and blocked him for a week. He also blocked IP address: 202.52.234.194 and User:R-1441. Sir, User:R-1441 is my account. I created this new account because User:Hemlock Martinis blocked my account without informing me. It is totally wrong for an administrator to block so many people from editing. User:Hemlock Martinis is an arrogant human being and he is abusing his power as an administrator. He should be blocked from the Wikipedia. Thank you. Ravi. RaviJames 07:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if your friend understands the policies, he will also understand why this has happened. A 24 hour ban for violation of 3RR is normal, though a warning may also be given. Attempts to get round such a ban are treated quite severely.

You should not call someone 'arrogant' simply because he is an admin applying standard policies. That gives the sitatuation an unpleasant personal tone. and there is no abuse of power here.

Charles Matthews 07:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem also to have complained to half-a-dozen people on this matter. Your account is being used to get round a ban, I think. This will not improve your situation here; most likely it will make it worse. Charles Matthews 07:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now looked at the edits by User:Devraj5000, which had him blocked, and my advice is: find a better Wikipedia teacher. Charles Matthews 07:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise. I am new to the Wikipedia. Can you tell me about the policies of the Wikipedia? In the past, I made few changes in articles like Purdue University and Indiana as an anonymous user. Hemlock Martinis blocked IP address: 202.52.234.194 and my account User:R-1441. That is unfair. He should have only blocked the account of Devraj5000. RaviJames 08:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You are still attacking an admin applying our rules. You should apply to the admin by email. Charles Matthews 08:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

But, how to do that? RaviJames 08:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at his userpage, you can contact him using AIM or some equivalent messenger. He is probably asleep right now though.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 09:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Charles will probably elaborate on the E-mail bit--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 09:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't have an email address set. I have noted that on User talk:Hemlock Martinis. Charles Matthews 09:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My e-mail address is ravi-141@hotmail.com. RaviJames 11:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

One, any such article should have a separate section listing the items referenced, which this does not. So, in effect, lack of a reference section can be seen as making it "unreferenced." The "Notes" section, which I did see, does not make up for the lack of a specific "References" section. Also, it would help if the items in the "Notes" section more closely corresponded to the standard of Wikipedia:Footnotes. I know that these could both be seen as comparatively small points, and probably are, but they would be enough to keep the article from ever reaching GA status. Also, I am in the process of tagging all the articles relevant to Eastern Orthodoxy, of which this is one, and am adding some sort of explanatory banner to any articles which get placed in the Category:Eastern Orthodoxy articles needing attention, so that anyone who comes across them will be able to see rather quickly what the apparent weakness of the article is. However, that doesn't mean that all of them are really immediate problems, just problems that would inhibit the article reaching a higher assessment grade. John Carter 13:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, try {{cleanup-restructure}}. The template {{unreferenced}} is really for articles that are suspect because of a basic lack of sourcing. Charles Matthews 14:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You can come here to discuss. Kingjeff 17:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See category:Wikipedians with Erdős number 4, you might wand to do the cat sort thing so you are not listed under "U" for "User".Billlion 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article DUM, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the 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. Marašmusïne_Talk 12:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That's strange, though not entirely unexpected. Charles created DUM in August 2005 as a redirect to Komidashi (a term used in the board game Go). In February 2006, someone turned it into a four word stub on the gaming definition. Might need a disambiguation page, if both subjects end up being kept in Wikipedia. Carcharoth 13:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dum is just a Korean synonym. It is not much used by English speakers, so I can let this go. Charles Matthews 14:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Damon Boyd, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the 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. KenWalker | Talk 03:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice you signed up as an early proponent for the creation of WikiProject Logic. Since then, the proposed project has been moved to it's own space and you have been listed as a Charter Member. Thank you for paving the way for the creation of this project. This is an invitation for your continued and perhaps renewed participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 03:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Charles,

At some point you expressed an interest in supporting Wikimedia UK. We're now ready to begin receiving applications from prospective members. If you would like to join, application forms and further information can be found at: http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/join. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions, either via my user page at the English Wikipedia or by email (andrew.walker@wikimedia.org.uk).

Thanks, Andreww 19:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(Membership officer, Wikimedia UK)

Fulorian Keeps editing in a band to this that hs nothing to do with Gohtic Metal. If you could help me in letting me know who to go to. He has given no proof and does not even give a reason as to why he eidts the band Nightwish into there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gothic_metal_bands Truemetalfan

An article that you have been involved in editing, William A. Stein, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William A. Stein. Thank you. -- mms 00:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets not go jumping to conclusions. This was a part of a mass-page move by Koavf who made over 3,500 page moves or so, and that sheer fact alone was reason to revert him. At the time, for those page moves, he was blocked for a week (later unblocked so he could help revert them back or at least discuss them). While most cases the intial spacing is correct, it is clearly not the case every time, as some are distinctly without a space. It was not a wise move by Koavf to assume that that all of the spacing applied every time when clearly it doesn't. I have no opinion on where the final location is to be in regards to any of the articles, I simply responded to a series of controversial page moves. I also gave notification I was doing these series of page moves to many admins, who approved this action as well. — Moe ε 11:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you say 'clearly it doesn't'. Clear to whom? Let's be absolutely clear that a space where (for some unusual reason) it doesn't belong between initials does little harm to Wikipedia while it is there. Really. I think, where there is no showbiz reason, reverting such moves is plain wrong. Charles Matthews 11:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not clear to whom, clear to every situation. There are articles that don't have the intial spacing and mass-page moving to reflect that change is wrong any which way you put it. Mass page moves are bad, and granted, reverting them isn't much better, but at least I was given permission by adminsitrators to make these moves. Koavf decided to make 3,500+ page moves, get a series of angry complaints about the page moves, is blocked for it, and your saying it's not controversial? — Moe ε 12:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that. Thank you for giving me the context. I am saying that the antidote to a bunch of indiscriminate page moves isn't a bunch of indiscriminate page moves back. OK, you have courteously answered the point of my original query, which was to see what kind of war we have here over the spacing convention. I'd prefer to see a Talk page note for any case of a move back against convention. Charles Matthews 12:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Like this [26] when I was making the page moves? — Moe ε 12:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

SOME QUESTION MORE: Did you analise the very first block Tobias Conradi received and how this was out of policy? And when he complained he got out of policy blocked again? And then he got blocked for moving a town article to the correct name, but the admin without any grasp of the topic thought this was vandalism and blocked Tobias, protected even his talk? Did you see this?

Actually, the duties of an Arbitrator are concerned with remedies. This creates a problem, when dealing with individuals, such as Conradi, who seem to have no conception of fixing up problems, rather than making them worse and worse. By the way, it is polite to sign on Talk pages. Charles Matthews 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I recently created a disambiguation page at Joseph Spence and was looking through the "what links here" list at Special:Whatlinkshere/Joseph Spence. I noticed that page is now linked from the following: User:Charles Matthews/Mythographers; User:Charles Matthews/Abrams; User:Charles Matthews/Jack. I can't remember if you like those links disambiguated (well, you'd have to do that, as I don't know what books you took those lists from or which Spences are being referred to), or whether it is best to leave them. I also noted J. Spence at the latter page, which I redirected to Spence. I think having J. Spence as a redirect is probably useless though, unless you intend it to point (via a piped link) at whatever Spence is meant for that list. Carcharoth 15:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is Joseph Spence (literary scholar). Thanks for asking, but you don't have to trouble over this. Charles Matthews 16:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Though I'm still curious as to where these lists came from. :-) I find ones like Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/English Lit Bio Dict easier to understand. My only experience with creating a list like that is at Talk:Royal Medal, which I periodically check to see if any of the links have turned blue. How helpful do you find the lists you have, and do you know how other people use them? Carcharoth 16:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Still thinking on this topic, and I realised while checking "what links here" for some redlinks, is that what would be useful is seeing how many times a redlink is linked to in article space. That gives some indication that people are putting information about that person in Wikipedia, and creating a stub will turn those redlinks blue. I vaguely remember something like this might already exist, but can't remember. Do you know of such a "this redlink appears 20 times in Wikipedia" tool? Carcharoth 16:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, for example, the Abrams list is compiled from two classic books on Romanticism, by M. H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp and Natural Supernaturalism. I'd like to see more complete coverage in that area, so I monitor, add redirects, and occasionally add an article. The Mythographers comes from several books, and I've made more of an effort to complete it. Worth it: for example, I started Maud Bodkin, and some expert came and added to it. The Jack list is from a book on eighteenth century literature, which I went through and got rid of (I have a leetle space problem). Anyway, an article that occurs on several lists usually looks like a good candidate to create, so having many lists is a plus. I suppose in general terms my approach to WP coverage in the humanities is via a large number of surveys, none of which I'm completely committed to. Charles Matthews 16:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As for popular redlinks, there is Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. Charles Matthews 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That was it! Thanks. Carcharoth 16:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I see you have an article on this guy on your Freud todo list. I was recently in Vienna, and snapped a shot (albeit not the best) of his bust in the gardens of the Vienna City Hall. I think the copyright status is ok, but since it was created between world wars, it may be a borderline case. Anyway, if and when you get around to doing the article, and if the image is usable, you may be interested in Image:Popper_Lynkeus.jpg.

Actually de:Josef Popper-Lynkeus exists. And has a couple of images. He's certainly worth an article. Charles Matthews 12:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Yes, I saw that it exists, and it has a couple of images (rather than just one) because I just added the other one. I dropped this message here because he's somewhat outside my normal sphere of knowledge and interest, and you did seem interested. Maybe I'll find the time over the next few weeks, however. -Kieran 17:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is some connection to Karl Popper as well as Freud. I should look that up - can't remember the details. Charles Matthews 18:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible distant relation ... Charles Matthews 02:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I was googling "Adair" to see what new Wikipedia articles I could add to Adair and came across one of your subpages -- User:Charles Matthews/Adair. There are a lot of articles listed on that subpage that have no immediate connection with the name. Could you satisfy my curiousity a bit?  :-) BTW, I'm User:SWAdair, just not logged in at the moment. Thank you. 152.16.188.107 10:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It was compiled from The Postmodernist Always Rings Twice by Gilbert Adair. Charles Matthews 12:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I made a comment on the discussion page for congruence subgroup, please take a look. Katzmik 09:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Anglican terminology, by Secisek (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Anglican terminology is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Anglican terminology, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The flag was thrown in error as it is my default. Clearly the completion of a merge is not a minor edit. All terms previously discussed on the Anglican terminology have been added to the Anglicanism page and most have been expanded as well. The merger was proposed on the talkpage, where it recieved encouragement with no detractors, and I carried it out in due course. Most definitions that were on the page were only a few word long and the article, such as it was, violated WP:NOT#MIRROR:

Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not...Mere collections of internal links.

Which is what the article was. If you feel the text in the Anglicanism article needs to be imporved, by all means, edit away. I look forward to your constructive input on this project. -- SECisek 21:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it needed a redirect, not a speedy delete. My mistake was caught and the problem was solved. It was the first time I attempted anything like that and I would like ask you to back off and not bite the newcomers like me. Your total lack of consideration of my good faith has not won you any friends in my book, either. -- SECisek

Hang on there. I checked your edits first: you are not exactly a newcomer. Pointing out the wording on what a minor edit is, and is not, is actually precisely what is required by the situation. Don't quote WP:AGF to deflect criticism that does not involve good faith at all. Charles Matthews 21:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have edited for less than two months, I had never completed a merge before, so I would say I am a newcomer. It was an honest mistake made in good faith. Exactly WHAT nefarious ends are you suggesting I was trying to bring about by merging a list of links into the prose of an article? The suggestion was floated over 10 days ago and I felt the time was right. Another user encouraged me to be bold. I changed my default so I won't forget to turn off the minor edit flag again, but I don't understand your nasty tone on my talk page over a simple error. -- SECisek 21:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually your tone is combative, and you seem to feel a need to have an argument about this in two places at once. If you are considering a merge, you are supposed to put a merge notice up, on both pages preferably. Of those ten days or so, I have spent most of the time in Taiwan. See Help:Merging and moving pages for basics on how to merge. This or any other pages on merging would make clear that the idea is to redirect one of the pages while preserving the whole content. Charles Matthews 22:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for all my short falls, hopefully I will improve in time. Thank you for the heads up and I would like to make it quite clear that I am not being combative. I am not even sure what we are going around about, other then your whipping me for not knowing the procedure the merge procedure and having the minor edit flag thrown. Really, why must you be so negative in your correction? -- SECisek 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who would take great objection to the business with the minor edits. That's one thing - how edits are marked and summarized cannot be changed later. Everything else can be fixed up afterwards; but there is ample documentation. There is a further point: double redirects have been created: see Wikipedia:Double redirects. That is, the links from clergymen, divine (noun) and subdean are at present not working properly. And indeed clergymen should now go to clergy, I guess. Charles Matthews 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

clergyman, divine (noun), and subdean have all been redirected. I hope I will not cause you anymore trouble. -- SECisek 22:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)