Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:58, 30 June 2008

• /About me */Plaudits
• /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive 4, /Archive5
• /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10
• /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive13, /Archive14, /Archive15
• /Archive16, /Archive17, /Archive18, /Archive19, /Archive20
• /Archive21, /Archive22, /Archive23, /Archive24

Postpone closing of ArbCom case?

Dear Charles Matthews,

I saw that now 4 arbitrators have already moved to close. If I understand correctly, the case will be closed at 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)?

I love Misplaced Pages's concept: The sum of human knowledge is just that: the sum, not the subtraction. I believe we wikipedians of all colours are going to be able to differ violently in opinion and at the same time work together in an atmosphere of camaraderie nevertheless and respect one another. These conflicts are burning editors out, myself not the least. We need help to find the way back to the core policies of wikipedia, which are there to prevent these conflicts and to warrent the creation of high-quality, neutral articles by due process.

It was not I who invited the ArbCom to this matter, but now that we're there, I would welcome a solution to the ongoing conflicts. I believe my proposed principles are in line with Misplaced Pages Purpose and Policy: Would you be inclined to continue on the case and see whether you can rule on some of the Proposals I and other editors have made? Perhaps the ArbCom would be willing to consider my Proposed principals 3-11? The most simple one, and quite important, would be nr. 3:

(POV tags are not there to point to dissensus amongst reliable sources, but dissensus among wikipedia editors.)

Would the ArbCom be able to rule on this? Reminding the other editors (4 of which are valued admins) that this is how wikipedia works might be of help in resolving the conflicts and informing our readers about the status of the article.

PS See also this, at the bottom.

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

OK, thanks for let me know, i will check probably next time. --Aleenf1 09:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PHG motion

Hi Charles, here you said you'd support extending the restriction on PHG, a position shared by at least three of your colleagues. However, there hasn't been a single comment on that clarification request in over a week now; would you be able to consider proposing a motion in the relevant section to keep the ball rolling?

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, wrong person... sorry, I got you confused with Matthew for a second :) Sorry, Daniel (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mystical Theology

Hi, I added a sentence on your article on papal letters and came this way to mystical theology. I made a suggestion on the talk page, please see wheher you like it. My view is that the high quality article certaily meets Misplaced Pages standards, but it could be more transparent, if categories such as history, purification etc, and more specific authors would be added. Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added something to Talk:Mystical theology. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Attendee

Thanks for your thanks on my edits on Max Plowman - one of my special interests.

I note your own special interest in mathematics, closely related to logic, which leads me to speculate on your use of the neologism "attendee". Formed, obviously, on the analogy of "employee", i.e. someone employed (as distinct from "employer", meaning someone employing), "attendee" must logically mean someone attended. Since "attend" itself has two meanings, I am curious to know in which sense you were an "attendee" at the Birmingham Wikipedian meeting: someone made to attend, or someone waited upon. Doubtless, with his own precision of language, Max Plowman would relish enlightenment. In clarity. Mountdrayton. Mountdrayton (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just one of seven who went along there - I hadn't realised I was neologising. I had been meaning to write up Max Plowman for some time, dating back to early efforts to find out who had been writing the poems in those 1920s anthologies. I'm more of a medievalist here, now, but I go where the work is, these days. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you were not an attendee at all, but an attender - I thought Misplaced Pages encouraged the use of plain English. On Max Plowman, you will see that I have amplified the info on his army career and conscientious objection, and on The Adelphi. Although you cite a source for the purported editorship of the latter by Jack Common, this claim is not borne out by other sources, and I am satisfied that Common was never more than assistant editor. (Your source is in any case suspect in suggesting that the magazine folded in 1939, whereas it continued until 1955, as I know from my own physical observation.) I am not familiar with Jeffrey Meyers' book Orwell, which you cite as authority for the claim that "Orwell was still in agreement with Plowman's pacifism in early 1938", but I can only comment that the statement is nonsense as it stands. (Does Meyers cite any authority?) I am not aware of evidence that Orwell was a pacifist at any time, but certainly by 1938, when he had volunteered for POUM in the Spanish Civil War, he was clearly no pacifist, and by the Second World War he overtly and intemperately attacked pacifism. I may add that, because of a continuing myth that Orwell had a pacifist period, I have discussed the point with a number of academics much better versed in Orwell than I, and all are in agreement that Orwell never was a pacifist. The relevant sentence is therefore urgently in need of serious modification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountdrayton (talk • contribs) 00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. (Could you do the ~~~~ thing to sign?) I'll check back on the phrasing for the 1938 Orwell matter - it was more like Orwell assenting to some proposition in conversation. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Jack Common was co-editor of The Adelphi in 1935-6 (George Orwell - A Kind of Compulsion 1903-1936, p. 182.). I think it is right he mostly helped out. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oath of royal supremacy

You have created an entire article without using a single inline citation. Please use some inline citation so that readers can understand from where the information came. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are being a little unreasonable. That is an adaptation of an old and long Catholic Encyclopedia article. So (a) the adaptation takes some time; (b) there is a very substantial and detailed reference section; and (c) you don't seem to have noticed that there are inline references given, anyway. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article should be given time, especially as it was from an old PD source. Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed Oath of Allegiance (1559) redirected there, but there is no 1559 bit mentioned. Is that a typo or was there one in 1559? Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in the subsection on the 1534 oath. What is said there is that the 1559 act just reinstated the earlier oath, so it wasn't a priority to make a subsection of its own. There are bigger issues for the 1606, where I'll add a modern reference. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but there is a section on the 1534 oath and the 1643 oath, so now you've confused me even more! (Since corrected) And still, when I search for "1559" I find nothing. Do you mean "This was passed 19 August, 1643, and afterwards, in 1656, reissued in an even more objectionable form."? That would suggest 1656, not 1559. And I can't find anything in the "Oath of Royal Supremacy (1534)" about old oaths. <head starts to spin> :-) Apologies if you were planning to edit this to be clearer, but thought this might help. Carcharoth (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1 Eliz. c. 1 means 1559 - I've made that explicit now. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I also found Act of Supremacy 1559, Acts of Supremacy (to which Act of Supremacy 1534 redirects]]), Act of Uniformity 1559, and Elizabethan Religious Settlement. I haven't looked closely, but there might be a lot of material being duplicated here, or maybe not - maybe you can just link to those from your 'oaths' article. Oh, and if "1 Eliz. c. 1" is 1559, when was the earlier repeal by Mary (1 Ph. and M. c. 8)? Currently there is March 1534 (26 Henry VIII, c. 1), Queen Mary (1 Ph. and M. c. 8), Elizabeth in 1559 (1 Eliz. c. 1), Elizabeth (1592-3) (35 Eliz. c. 2), June 1606 (3 James I, c. 4), The first Parliament summoned after the triumph of William of Orange added a clause to the Bill of Rights, which was then passed, by which the Sovereign was himself to take the Declaration (1 W. & M., sess. 1, c. 8) - presumably 1688?

There is also a missing sentence "(see )" with nothing after the "see" (it's in the 'The Irish Oath of 1774 to Catholic Emancipation, 1829' bit). Obviously a lot more than that, but that's what I noticed this time round. Please feel free to copy this to the article talk page if that is a better location for this. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I might do that. The whole thing is certainly a can of oaths. My reference (Patterson) has a chapter of 50 pages on the 1606 Oath; so it may gravitate to separate articles and summary style. Of course the CE source is parti pris on the whole business; but there is nothing wrong with making a timeline 1534 to 1829 out of it. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

regarding the arbitration over at the wikilobby page...

Am I to understand that the situation has been arbitrated and my year-long or forever whatever topic ban is upheld? Surely I get 24 hours or something to make my case ? Juanita (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is yet decided. Please make a concise case in your section on WP:RFAR, and only there. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#BAG_requests_process to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. We're discussing it. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Saint Dungal

Dear Mr. Matthews, I made an attempt to improve the Saint_Dungal voice. Please, are you so kind to review what I did? Have I well understand what you suggested me in the past? Thank you! Have a good day. Bepimela (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made a couple of small changes. Dungal isn't on the Chronological list of saints and blesseds: 9? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. If the category people see Chronological list of saints and blesseds, they will go apocalyptic! :-) A pure list (even in chronological order) can be done in a category. Annotating the list can go either in the direction of a timeline, or series of timelines, or even towards a "History of..." article. The trouble being that such overview articles take time, and they look awful when only half done, and someone will try and delete or merge them... I wonder if we have Misplaced Pages:Timeline yet? Hmm. Misplaced Pages:Timeline standards wasn't quite what I was after. I was thinking more of the four pages linked at Timeline of entomology. That approach has been taken instead of a History of entomology approach. See Entomology#History of entomology. I'm also looking at Saint and trying to see how people can get from there to a timeline or history article such as Chronological list of saints and blesseds. Anyway, just some thoughts. Carcharoth (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, categories can't have redlinks, and entries can't have annotation. If the "category people" haven't spotted this lack of functionality in four years, I'm not sure what can be done for them. Those lists happen to be useful tools in developing the site, in what is a difficult area. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the redlinks. Forgot that. I think they prefer to have redlinks in userspace or projectspace lists. There are many incomplete categories that don't have lists of redlinks. But this is a bit pointless, as I don't object to the lists per se. The numbers at the end or the article titles will annoy some people though (it's a bit WP:SELF). Also, some will object to the lack of "Christian" in the titles. Anyway, after a year of nuturing a list of redlinks at Talk:Royal Medal, I'm now systematically creating stubs instead of watching others create them. I found a similar set of redlinks at Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD (second nomination), and there are tons of similar redlink lists all over Misplaced Pages. See User:Magnus Manske/Dictionary of National Biography. Many people (including you) have loads in their userspaces as well. I don't think a project would help as such (people doing this work seem to know what they are doing), but a centralising page might still help. Ah, I think Misplaced Pages:Most wanted articles and the other similar pages linked at the bottom of that page, is what I am looking for. Trouble is, it all gets out of hand quite fast. I wonder if anyone has looked at the relative efficiency of, say, Misplaced Pages:Most wanted articles, Misplaced Pages:Requested articles, Misplaced Pages:Articles requested for more than a year and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles? It would be interesting to see which results in more articles being created, though they probably all do to a certain extent. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Red Link Recovery is also interesting. Anyway, sorry for rambling on here. I'll stop now and get on with other stuff! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See Category:Red list. There is no percentage, really, in moving good lists into project space. I only create articles that are not article-space orphans. So I'd create fewer such articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hadn't seen that category before. Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration?

How would one go about formally requesting the focus of one were expanded or whatever? Does there need to be a formal process before it is accepted, or can it happen afterwards? Only I think if the William C one were accepted it should be on all the disruptive editors on the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States page. The argument over what he's been doing only really came up after William started working on it. John Smith's (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's up to Arbitrators to define the scope of the case: in voting to accept, or at a later point. Others can produce in evidence what they think is relevant. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was wondering if there was a process or not - but looks like one arbitrator has already decide to expand the scope. John Smith's (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation

I inverted the names as you suggested when leaving the Wikify tag. Can the tag be removed or do you suggest anything else? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the idea is to make the names into wikilinks. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I could do that, but an awful lot of them would be red. Some articles might then be created, but others would not be sufficiently notable to deserve their own article. In the case of this list, should the editing process end with those names being deleted or merely unlinked? - Fayenatic (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. I expect all the articles will be created in the end. No, the names shouldn't be deleted, because the list has value as a reference. In practical terms, all these people are documented, so the existence of the redlinks is nothing bad. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, that stage was easier than the earlier one. It's more blue than I expected, but a lot of the links are either invalid (same name, different person) or ambiguous. Anyway, I'm done on that page. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Aji Keshi

Hello Charles. Can you keep an eye on Go for a few days. As it moves towards Featured Article status everyone seems to have decided it is open season on the page. Hugs--ZincBelief (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Maybe you mean honte (aji keshi is the pejorative)? Charles Matthews (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks again

I was thinking about redlinks in that thread, and then saw this from you! "List of redlinks: anyone who doesn't realise that should get back to writing articles." made me laugh out loud. I agree that people need to rediscover the power of the redlink! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There seem really to be two issues. There is the design issue: which namespaces are intended to be picked up by search engines? There we have defaulted to "all", when there are presumably other options. And then there is material on the site that should be blanked or even oversighted anyway. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

q maths and wolfram

Charles, Could you have a quick glance at User_talk:Pleasantville#Wolfram_links and tell me if you think it looks ok to you? I don't know the maths pages here well enough. Can see a lot of Wolfram links going in and appears to be a Wolfram consultant (inter alias) promoting them ("helping people to find content at...") but its a bit grey as they have a pretty worthwhile site etc and I don't know whether to just accept it and move on or fight the conflict of interest. --BozMo talk 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining it, I will leave it to you. As I say there does seem to be someone paid by Wolfram adding links to Wolfram which we wouldn't normally tolerate but you are in the best position to judge. --BozMo talk 07:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would want to see examples of uncontestable "spam" before concluding that there is a problem here. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then there is, I think, no problem. Many edits like which add links to the Wolfram site and to the Wolfram page on Misplaced Pages are being added by someone who looks like they are paid by Wolfram... which does contravene WP:COI. Also the extra internal link to a wikipedia page from references most people would not include. But there may be a real gain to the project and I am more than happy to leave it to you on the Maths pages. --BozMo talk 11:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that we use no-follow, and that COI only really bites when outside interests diverge from Misplaced Pages's interests, the link you show is not the kind of addition that would concern me. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Cleverdon

Great minds clearly think alike - he was on my "to do" list, and I was delighted to see that the redlink had turned blue without me having to do anything! I've added DOB/DOD with the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography reference, and some categories, incidentally. Regards, Bencherlite 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - I tend not to link to the ODNB or other pay sites, but we can agree to differ on this. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not a pay site for all those (like me) who have free web access through their local library membership, for example, or those who can get hold of the printed version, so I don't see a problem. Bencherlite 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Misplaced Pages namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Karol Antoniewicz

I've corrected a series of redlinks on this page you created. Could you check that the pages are there in future, and that you've got the right name; for example, you linked "Cardinal Franzelin" which was a redlink; however, the person himself (Johann Baptist Franzelin) already had a page you could've linked to instead. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Slow down - that page was created minutes ago. I think if you look at my contributions, you will see that I contribute many redirects. You are going too far to say "corrected": what you did for Franzelin was to pipe the link. Now, I'd prefer to create the redirect there, once and for all. So that Cardinal Franzelin in future leads to the correct page. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I didnt mean to sound patronising. Ironholds (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Tango

Just wondering if you'll be voting on this case, as one of the arbitrators who accepted it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

You might want to check your talk page on meta. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Liturgical book

I noticed you created the page Liturgical book. Did you intend for this to serve as a disambiguation page or as an article? Could you let me know either on my talk page or at Talk:Liturgical_book. Thanks! Dgf32 (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Paul Zumthor

A tag has been placed on Paul Zumthor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Patent nonsense applies to the nomination, not the page. Get a grip. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU has a new format

Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at WP:HAU/EU and make sure your checkmarks are in the right place and feel free to add or remove some. There is a new feature, SoxBot V, a recently approved bot, automatically updates your online/offline status based on the length of time since your last edit. To allow SoxBot V to do this, you'll need to copy ] to your userpage. Obviously you are not required to add this to your userpage, however, without this, your status will always be "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and punctuations

Would just like to bring up one minor thing: please kindly watch out for grammar/punctuation usage when composing articles. You have made quite a few grammatical/punctuation mistakes in your Shusai article, and it was difficult to read. For a list of corrected errors, please simply compare my edit against yours. Thanks. By78 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan

Hi Charles Mathews

I refer to an earlier instance when I have have been the recipient of help from you see ] item 34 0n the content section.

You had then said to me If you have particular problems, please let me know. I work on many parts of Misplaced Pages, and I am only concerned to improve the articles. Charles Matthews 06:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a user Misaq Rabab who has completely and determinedly obliterated various categories from over 200 articles . Two of the categories he has completely decimated are

• Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan
• Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan

This users contributions are also invariably almost entirely in the nature of deletions ,or alterations of existing content without any cited verifiable additions .

Would you care to please take a look at Category talk:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan item 5 on the content section

Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what User:Soman says there. An application at WP:CFD should clarify whether the category in question is useful, or should be under some different name. If the CfD comes up with a positive verdict on the category, then it would be clearer that removing articles from it could be negative. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

that was fast !

Cheers

Intothefire (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal - PLEASE HELP

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to you as Arbcom member to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter.

This is a massive injustice, and only allows others to continue to assert factually incorrect, malicious, offensive and POV items about my country.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.246.83 (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

San Domingo

In Raymond Breton, you bracketed the words "Island of San Domingo", creating a link to a non-existent page. Based on the names Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo (its capital), and Saint-Domingue (the former name of Haiti), I'm pretty sure that this island and Hispaniola are one and the same. What do you think? DO56 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't certain. The Garifuna article says he spent time on Saint Vincent (island). There could easily have been more than one island in the area called after St. Dominic, at some point. You may be right, but really some further research is needed. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's actually more likely to be Dominica, which he certainly visited. It makes sense if he moved around in the area St. Vincent-Dominica-Guadaloupe, where he ended up. The article should really be expanded on the basis of some further sources. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he was French: our Dominica article says the French took it over in 1635 and sent missionaries. So both the geography and the politics suggest it wasn't Hispaniola. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, what you say makes sense. As to further sources, information on the Internet will likely be scarce, but jiggering with Google has located http://www.centrelink.org/davidcampos.html and http://www.sup-infor.com/ultimes/garifuna_a/garifuna_a-ina.htm. More likely, histories of, say, proselytism in the Caribbean strike me as the best place to check. DO56 (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate account notification

Hi there, I've posted a question here and Rlevse suggested I contact an arbitrator about this directly. Could you check to see if this editor has notified ArbCom about User:TheNautilus being an alternate account of User:I'clast? Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been answered. Thanks! Tim Vickers (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Question raised at Talk:Monad (category theory)

See Talk:Monad (category theory)#Confusing sentence?.  --Lambiam 23:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Irish College

Thanks for cleaning up the paragraph I added to your article. It looks more concise now. I didn't mean to make a mess out of it, I just felt it needed to be updated and the fact that people such as Tony Blair had stayed there. I would have liked to have mentioned that Blair consumed vast quantities of tea whilst a guest but decided that had no place in an encyclopedia. Cheers. jeanne (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It was fine - all I did was to order the sentences. Thanks for the update. Charles Matthews (talk)

Proposed decision - Footnoted Quotes

Please note a finding 2.1 has been proposed and may need your vote in terms of choice - it's here: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Use_of_quotes_in_footnotes_2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)  Done

Excepting deciding on finding 2/2.1 (or whether it should be a principle/remedy), perhaps the case is ready for close votes? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting there. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

All pass now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - CAMERA LOBBYING

Ready to close - 2 votes made already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds case

Hi, I saw your recent edit to that. Your comment seems to suggest that you would like to see a case opened publically and then consider all the evidence and make a determination. Do you want me to adjust its format/location with the intent for the arbitrators' votes being "open a case to examine whether to unblock or not", or leave it as a request for amendment, which is where no case is opened and then the arbitrators simply vote on the motion "SevenOfDiamonds is unbanned, with conditions X Y Z"? Daniel (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - there has been some offline discussion, and perhaps there should be some more, before I answer that. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for the reply. Daniel (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Charles, re your comment here ("assuming a request is posted"), I assume that you were assuming that SevenofDiamonds did not post a request. In fact they did (that's what started things going). William M. Connolley deleted the request, along with several comments by others, because it was "posted by banned user." The comments from others were later re-added by Kendrick7 but SevenofDiamonds' comment was left out. I don't know what the protocol is here, but if it's okay for a user blocked by ArbCom to post a request on the ArbCom page from an IP address then perhaps their comment should be re-instated. In any case it's a bit confusing now considering that it looks like Kendrick7 initiated the request which is not really the case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned users should respect the ban, and go through the ArbCom list. That has been happening, here. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I thought that might be the case but your comment on the ArbCom case made me unsure if you were aware that SoD had posted a request there. Thanks for clearing things up.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Hi,

Since you expressed an interest in Systolic geometry at some point, I thought you might be interested in the situation with Systolic geometry for a beginner. Katzmik (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Historical Christian hairstyles

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Historical Christian hairstyles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent 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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ninety:one 11:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Thomas Sampson

A tag has been placed on Thomas Sampson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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 indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.  Channel ®   23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me! The page history of Thomas Sampson is a fascinating tussle between modern and old. I wonder if they are related in any way? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Undeleted to the correct version. Lesson heeded! Bencherlite 08:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Misplaced Pages:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Real projective line help with dispute

Hi. I notice that you are the major contributor to the real projective line article. Hoping you might be willing to help arbitrate an edit dispute. See the talk page. -- Cheers, Steelpillow 06:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're going off on an odd discussion here. The concept of "infinity" in projective geometry is valid as soon as one lays down a coordinate system: it's part of the standard language. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Yes, what you say is true - as far as it goes. However, projective geometry (PG) as such does not require a coordinate system - that is one of its most important properties. Coxeter's book on PG does no more than introduce coordinates at the end, while Edwards' graphical tutorial does not use them at all. Other classics, such as Hilbert & Cohn-Vossen's Geometry and the imagination, also do very well without them. Of course, once one introduces say a real coordinate system then one obtains real projective geometry and, as Coxeter points out in the most wonderful one-liner one could wish to end a book with, the rest of the story is to be found in any standard textbook. All I have tried to do is to make minor changes to the page in line with Hilbert and Coxeter's treatment, without sacrificing the standard analytical understanding. -- Cheers, Steelpillow 12:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hilbert and Coxeter are great men; it doesn't mean that their views represent the current mainstream views, though. The typical approach to projective geometry these days assumes linear algebra. The hyperplane at infinity is a conventional form of words, explaining in these terms the relationship between projective space and affine space. What you say about the relationship between metric structure and the language of "infinity" is basically misleading, therefore. It would be better to explain what is going on here in some detail, in an appropriate place, rather than trying to impose it on top. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying here in that at first sight it might seem to contradict what you said before, that The concept of "infinity" in projective geometry is valid as soon as one lays down a coordinate system. I guess you are pointing out that affine geometry has no metric, yet it does involve "infinity". I qualified "finite" by "(metrically) finite" because a finite geometry is something different. Do you think that it would be OK to simply delete the metric qualifier to read "A finite visualisation is obtained...", or do we need some other form of words?

(I am trying hard not to impose anything "on top", merely to obtain compatibility with a long established and mathematically valid foundation (however unfashionable it might be today). This foundation is already covered pretty well in the article on projective geometry, and the present article should not contradict it.) -- Cheers, Steelpillow 14:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are multiple points of view, which is not so common in mathematics, perhaps, but is common enough in other areas. What would a "neutral point of view" be? Well, certainly it doesn't exclude what Coxeter said, for example. But Coxeter's view should come labelled as such. All I mean by not putting anything "on top" is that Coxeter's point of view shouldn't be represented as the point of view. It is safest, I think, to explain the "hyperplane at infinity" starting from linear algebra, since (with the possible exception of work on projective planes) that is the mainstream definition. From there, saying that homogeneous coordinates with last entry zero gives the points at infinity is a good explanation. Other views of what is going on have their place - a proportionate place, according to our basic concepts on NPOV. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. My small change no longer seems to attract criticism. Sorry I do not have the knowledge to make the larger change you suggest. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Is there any way for a normal user to see some (scrubbed?) version of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence? This seems like the sort of case that many editors would want to follow. Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a quick answer to that. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks anyway for the quick response. Gnixon (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sirletus footnotes

Many thanks for your kind note on this. Confusing that the guy is known as both Sirleto and Sirleti in the literature. I do appreciate the formatting corrections -- I don't do enough in Misplaced Pages to get conversant with the finer details. The toolbar with the ref tag was handy, tho -- otherwise I wouldn't have remembered that either! It's wet in Ipswich today, so it's probably wet in Cambridge and Southwold too. Roger Pearse 12:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Cambridge - drizzle for Strawberry Fayre. I kind of specialise in people with name variants - redirects mean that we can solve that issue for the whole Web, really, with a few seconds adding redirects here.Charles Matthews (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Prince Hassan bin Al Talal

hi, i was wondering if you could help me, i tried moving the above titled page to Prince Hassan bin Talal but i wont let me and says i need to contact an admin as it has been at that name before, i dont know exactly what to do, but if possible could you change it to Prince Hassan bin Talal as the Al in the current page title isn't in his name at all. If you cant do that could you please tell me exactly what to do and how to do it. Thank you AliaBuhler (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, done now. I could explain the issue, but essentially there was a redirect to which some minor changes had been made, needing a deletion. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazing Diligence

Hi, thanks for visiting my talk page and for your message. I am very amazed by your great diligence in this encyclopedia. First, let me say that when I edited Vincentian Family / Lazarists last year, I just accidentally popped the link. Second, I was a Vincentian Seminarian, and had been co-seminarian of / lived with these - Opus Prize awardee, Fr. Norberto Carcellar, CM, Fr. Dizu, Provincial, and Fr. Banaga, President of Adamson University, from 1966-1971 here in Valenzuela, and Angono, Philippines. Memories, yes. So, I took great time to research on this, as you suggested to fill in the stub:

with a) the incumbent superiour general, b) the actual Nov. 8, 2007 awarding at CU, and c) I also included these 2 plus the 150 years in Philippines of the Vincentians in the Congregation of the Mission article here and Regards. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Homeopathy

With the exception of the two remedies relating to SAB, all other proposals pass. It has taken a while to get there. Perhaps this case is ready for close votes now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite there on Discretionary sanctions. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked one of the two voting arbitrators (who have not voted on the remedy at all) to make a preferential vote. Other than that, I'm not sure any further thinking on the new definition is essential for the time-being (if this is the issue) - I can't imagine any major admin problems arising unless an admin had very poor judgement in 'interpreting' the uninvolved part. What do you think? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was chasing votes on the case yesterday, anyway. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I think we haven't caught any still. I wonder if it will ever be closed at this rate. :(

While I'm here, seeing you're one of the arbs who accepted it, perhaps I could nudge you to look/vote at the Giovanni case as - it'll close a bit sooner than the above case, with some luck. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Inhambane

HI I recently expanded the article on Inhambane. According to the source the town was listed on the first Jesuit mission to Africa. I wondered if you had any other sources which mentioned it and could be used to expand it. I've proposed it for a DYK just thought you might have something on it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a brief mention in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Where I came across an early mention of Jesuits around there was in Gonçalo da Silveira; but I'll have to admit I didn't get the geography of where he went figured out. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting old public domain material

I know you do a fair amount of work with public domain editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Would you be able to add some thoughts at Misplaced Pages talk:Plagiarism? That proposed policy or guideline is in its early stages and still very rough, but it needs as much input as possible to avoid getting things wrong. I'd like to see a notice posted on the mailing list as well, if possible, but I don't subscribe to that. Would you consider posting a note there? If not, don't worry, I'll ask someone else. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yah, there seems to be some problem: what is fair use, fair paraphrase and so on. It will be quite hard to get a neat guideline there. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the article incident. From now on, I'll only use templates if I know for a fact that the article breaks the rules. Most of the articles that I marked got deleted, so I'm guess I'm not entirely stupid when it comes to the rules.Schuym1 (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

OK, I saw you were editing new here, and wanted to talk about the way templates are used. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to systolic geometry

Hi,

User:Loom91 is unhappy with the page. Could you please comment? Katzmik (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have written the introduction in a way more typical of a survey article. This should be helpful ... Charles Matthews (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that helps a lot. Katzmik (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"defamation timebomb"

I have to take issue with your claim here, and apparently I can't express an opinion on the page you made this claim. My first question to you would be just why are WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:NPOV insufficient such that WP:BLP is required? If an article is unfavourable to a subject, why not just apply WP:NPOV to correct the problem? Can you give me an example of an edit that would satisfy all Wiki policies except WP:BLP? I believe it would be less than obvious that this hypothetical edit, which complies with all other policies, would be in need of deletion (thereby demonstrating a need for an additional policy that would support such deletion).

My second question to you would be how is that you see defusing of this supposed "defamation timebomb" as your responsiblity when WP:OFFICE already seems to have taken on that responsibility? May I refer you to the WP:OFFICE language which indicates that not only does the OFFICE reserve the right to intervene with respect to the "threat of legal action", but "in other cases it may be simply as a courtesy". See also the language which says the OFFICE will intervene in "questionable or illegal" situations, as opposed to just illegal. Similarly, see "prevent legal trouble or personal harm".

Yet it is your position that the OFFICE has nonetheless so limited the orbit of its responsibility that YOU have to step in? To protect the interests of Jimbo Wales?

My final question would be to ask how is your position not an example of a Chilling effect (term). Bdell555 (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)