Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:31, 14 December 2006

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. For the fictional wolf of the same name, see Carcharoth.

Archives

• July 2005
• September 2005
• February - March 2006
• April - May 2006
• June - July 2006
• August - September 2006
• October - November 2006

Questions on Vote page

the version you are seeing was put together by user:Thebainer I'm not really sure one way or the other on the matter of links to the candidates question pages other than to say we got by without them last year.Geni 11:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections

Yeah I was gonna msg you to let you know - I did it as the bot had stopped working, and I thought that may be why... but then I checked the history and it actually stopped a couple hours before so must be something else. Gurch isnt online but when he comes back on I'll chat to him and we'll reinstate it. :)  Glen  15:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth 15:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde's page

Regarding your comments on cydeweys page on sitting arbitators voting, it seems they are Giano 16:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Carcharoth 16:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom

That was a mistake; I was in the middle of voting when I made the comment. I'd edit that one out too, but Geogre replied kind of angrily, so I'll leave it be. As far as discussion goes, I think on occasion, it's important. I believe I left comments on two users: Geogre (because I felt that his actions on the vote page were inappropriate) and R.D.H. (Ghost in the Machine) (because I felt his action particularly wrong). It shouldn't become like RFA where 3-paragraph opposes are used on a regular basis, but if it helps voters, I don't see a problem with it. Ral315 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom tally

Carcharoth wrote:

In case you haven't spotted it (it's not always clear), JzG has withdrawn from the ArbCom election, and your bot-generated table doesn't show this yet. If people update the page by striking through the candidate's name, will this mess up the bot, will the bot just write over it, or is it OK to do this? Carcharoth 15:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've updated it. Thanks – Gurch 15:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Watchlist

I came here to thank you for your continued commitment and leavelheadedness in the ArbCom process, and then I read that you were looking for a way to manage your watchlist. You may want to organize them like this. (This is not up to date, but you get the idea.) — Sebastian (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks. I know about the Recent Changes method, and I had ideas to do something along those lines, but I've never seen them organised that way! :-) Carcharoth 10:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! BTW, do you know a way to combine recentchanges with whatlinkshere? Since I now have 37+ talk pages of high-profile editors on my watchlist, I had another idea: I'm adding the template "User:SebastianHelm/replyhere" to new posts and keep it as long as I watch the talk page. Ideally, that would create its own watchlist. — Sebastian (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Vaguely. I've heard of something similar, but I'm not sure. You could try asking at WP:HD, the Misplaced Pages Help Desk. Carcharoth 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, I usually do a bit more research before I bother people there. Now, back to work - I distracted you long enough. — Sebastian (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)    (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

"IRC discussions"

Freakofnurture specifically did not want to deal with the situation at the time I took care of that. I'd leave a note on his talk page to confirm it with him. Ral315 (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was there when he said that. -- Drini 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true! —freak(talk) 04:28, Dec. 9, 2006 (UTC)

Rules for deletion

Would you care to comment on my proposed Ref Desk Rules for Deletion:  ? I would like to build a consensus on which rules should be followed. StuRat 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Wizard (fantasy) redirect

Since you've been commenting on the subject, I was wondering if you had an opinion on whether the Wizard (fantasy) redirect should point to Magicians in fantasy or the Wizard disambiguation page. I'd like to get that resolved (for some bizarre reason..;). So far we have two editors for Magicians in fantasy and one for the dab page. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to make certain I understand what you are saying on the Wizard (fantasy) talk page. If I go through and disambiguate all 305 links to that page, and find a majority (over 50%) of them dab to the Magicians in fantasy page, then you believe Wizard (fantasy) should redirect to that page and not the dab. Do I have that right?  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 04:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think so, but do ask around to make sure. There must be other places you can ask as well. Carcharoth 09:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just asking for clarification on your own opinion, since jc37 was asking for clarification on consensus, he obviously values your opinion on the subject - and you're part of the discussion and thus part of consensus. I'm already quite certain the redirect should point to Magicians in fantasy and not the dab page.  :) Dreadlocke ☥ 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Thanks for the fireworks incident links

Those thanks really are quite unnescesary, but are gratefuly received all the same, and the same aplies to your comments about the new articles. It's nice to hear that your contributions are apreciated sometimes! Blood red sandman 17:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

LOTR

Stats from this time frame. Voice-of-All 20:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Viewing page modification statistics (from the 401 edits shown on this page):
User statistics for these edits:
Number of users: 223
37.91% IP/anon edits (152 edit(s))
1.75% likely new user edits (7 edit(s))
8.23% likely unestablished user edits (33 edit(s))
36.16% likely older user edits (non-admin/bot) (145 edit(s))
11.97% administrator edits (48 edit(s))
3.99% bot edits (16 edit(s))
Time range:
1 approximate day(s) of edits || 65 approximate day(s) since first edit
Most recent edit on: 00:00, October 6, 2006
Oldest edit on: 00:09, October 5, 2006
Current time: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:25:44 UTC
Analysis:
Notable edits (creation/expansion/major rewrites/sourcing): 0% (0 edit(s))
Significant edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 1.75% (7 edit(s))
Superficial edits (grammar/spelling/wikify/links/tagging): 19.45% (78 edit(s))
31.42% marked reverts (any) (126)
20.7% probable reverts of vandalism (83)
Unmarked edits: 47.38% (190 edit(s))
Averages:
47.38% edit summary usage
Average edits/user: 1.8
* edit(s) per day (current)
403.522 edit(s) per day (since last active)
126.792 marked revert(s) per day (since last active)
1 : 0.46 regular edit to marked revert ratio (RE:RV)
42.89% edit progess (non-reverts/reverted edits) (172 edit(s))
47.92% of edits by IPs/new/unestablished users are non-reverts/reverted (92 out of 192 edit(s))
47.37% of edits by IP-only users are non-reverts/reverted (72 out of 152 edit(s))
*Average edits per day not shown because the most recent edit to this page is not visible

I just updated these numbers due to a bug where users are renames/revisions deleted which causes many edits to be counted as reverted. It now has a limit to help stop that from happening. Voice-of-All 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rules for Ref Desk opinions ?

Would you care to comment on rules for Ref Desk opinions: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Next_item_for_consensus_discussion:_Opinion ? StuRat 17:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on Ref Desk template removal ?

Sorry to bother you again, but would you care to comment on: Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Opinions_on_template_removal ? StuRat 21:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hobbits...

OMG, I was gonna delete some files that I didn't need from my computer, and guess what I came across: "hobbit redirects for carcharoth". Do you remember when we did that? It was a while ago... Cbrown1023 05:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

LOL! That seems a world and an age ago... :-) Carcharoth 12:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

Good to see that you're working on Requests for arbitration. Could you please take a look at the Deltabeignet case which I just added? I have never done anything like this, and I could not find instructions how to do it, so I probably didn't do it correctly. I am at the moment so frustrated that nobody cared about it when I posted this on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Suspected identity theft, while cases like a medieval quote on a userpage receive pages full of attention. — Sebastian 01:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You did the right thing to post to WP:ANI. I think you should give it a bit more time for people to respond there, and then take it to WP:RFC if needed. WP:RFARB seems a bit premature, but as you've added it there, see what they say. Bits you've missed out include "Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request"; and "Confirmation that other steps in have been tried". If you want to know more, I'd suggest asking one of the ArbCom clerks, or someone like User:Newyorkbrad, who is more involved with ArbCom "watching" than I am. Carcharoth 01:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Newyorkbrad happened to see this. It seems to be a little unpredictable sometimes what topics will get picked up on the noticeboard or not (I just did a "see thread way up there, someone please respond to it already" post about something else a few minutes ago). I agree that you need to give things some more time before escalating to something as serious as ArbCom. The ArbCom clerks might also be a good source of advice; most of them are also administrators as well, and thoroughly familiar with all the procedures. Newyorkbrad 01:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I now now what to do next time. I gotta go now, but I may post a "see up there" mail tomorrow. — Sebastian 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nuh, uh! This is Misplaced Pages. Doesn't work that way... :-) We do stuff for you while you sleep/work/whatever. I'll post a "see up there" mail, and maybe Brad can tidy up the ArbCom case to say that maybe the case is not needed. Brad, do you want to do that? Carcharoth 01:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Participation in the Signpost

Responding to your comments at RFAr. Really, the Signpost isn't that different from true encyclopedia writing. The style of writing that is appropriate for a newspaper is quite similar to that of an encyclopedia. When people ask me, all I ask is that it be an interesting, informative article and that it be submitted to me by our deadline. I really don't even consider myself to be the "head" of the Signpost; though I technically hold the title of editor-in-chief, it's like being an administrator- it essentially means that I'm the janitor, and doesn't give me any de jure powers. I rarely ever reject contributions, unless they're short, or irrelevant (i.e., if someone were to submit an article on some other, non-notable wiki, but I've never had anything like this happen).

I think what people see is that it's the same editors (currently Michael Snow, Flcelloguy, Trödel, David Mestel, Simetrical, and myself) who write the bulk of the articles. This may create the illusion that it's an exclusive group. Occasionally, others will help out, but it tends to be a rarity. This isn't, I think, an issue of anyone being explicitly denied from editing, but more of people being too busy on projects that directly benefit the encyclopedia. Frankly, I'd love to see more people helping out- more stories lead to a wider coverage of Wikimedia. I used to issue calls for writers every few months in "From the editor" pieces, but usually only one or two writers would volunteer, and I'd never hear from them again. Ral315 (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Have you considered calling for writers again? Maybe not every week, but every now and again? I know committment can be a problem, but you might be pleasantly surprised at the response. I once considered (when I was a newbie) on submitting a diary-like column that showed someone stumbling their way through the place, learning the ropes. Too late for me now, and maybe column-like stuff is something you want to avoid. I find it difficult enough to find time to read the Signpost, let alone contribute, and I'm amazed at how you and your team manage to get a well-written Signpost out every week. You do cover the important things, but what maybe doesn't come across is that there is lots of other stuff out there that the Signpost can't hope to cover. Maybe a list of links to other newsletters might be an idea? I know of the Esperanza one and the Military History one and the WikiProject Biography one, but can't think of any others off the top of my head. Carcharoth 01:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea! There's a Novels and Films one, too! Cbrown1023 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On your other question, I believe that the redesign is the biggest English-only vote, not including ArbCom. With ArbCom, there's a good chance more people voted, but since they didn't vote on every candidate, the vote for any one candidate is much less. On the foundation level, the last Board elections had 2347 valid votes cast. Ral315 (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Candidate re-entered the ArbCom election

Sorry about that. My fault for trying to sleep while the elections are in progress, I guess. Fixed now – Gurch 06:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I'll amend my statement, this implication was indeed not what I intended. (Radiant) 12:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom elections- a question

Quick question then- what of a user who has voted before a year long ban ? The ban starts before end date of election, but the user has voted before being banned, does this vote count ? Haphar 15:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a clue. Ask over at the voting page. Carcharoth 15:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

People have been striking out or removing such votes, although I don't think there is any official ruling on whether they should do so (nor do I even know whom one would ask for such a ruling). But as it happens, particularly in light of Jimbo's recent comments, this isn't a process where one or two votes is going to matter much one way or the other. Newyorkbrad 15:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles

Yeah, I realize I don't do enough "quality" edits: I'm a wikignome! But, I'm trying to change that, currently I'm working on The Public Enemy. I will also probably drop by and help the folks at the Cinema COTW with Back to the Future sometime this week. Thanks for giving me your support anyway! :) Cbrown1023 21:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

how to send emails

Sir how do you send emails to other wiki users. contact me as soon as possible. Ricky 17:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

6th anniversary of Misplaced Pages

Of course. Ral315 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion article

You can fix or edit the article as you see fit. I'll remove my little notice at the top. --Elaragirl 00:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please vote on attempt to delete new Ref Desk rules

Vote here: Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Reference desk/rules. StuRat 01:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyde's comment.

Thanks for letting me know about that. I was wondering if he would. On the one hand, there are situations where comments are clearly necessary, eg, voters without suffrage. On the other hand, long did/did not discussions are clearly bad. This seems to be somewhere in the middle, but (IMHO) closer to the first case. While I regret implying that he made a deliberate decision to mislead people, his comment is a misrepresentation of what actually happened. I'm going to ask him to clarify it. And I'll put back just the correction without any comment on him. Thanks again, Ben Aveling