User talk:CBM/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Integral

Hey, new admin! Could you keep an eye on the brewing edit war with Loom91 at integral? See the talk page for the latest. I'm too close to this, and would like to concentrate on mopping up other parts of the article. Thanks. --KSmrq^T 13:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Loom91 did leave a long explanation on the talk page, he or she might be willing to discuss the matter rather than having an edit war. It looks like he or she is interested in making the language simpler (I myself stumbled over "refinement" when I looked through the article, since I know about refinements of partitions). I know this article is being worked on by other editors, too, so I hope a compromise on the wording can be reached. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. But this is not the first episode, and the trend is not encouraging. Nor is the behavior limited to this article; see this (older) and this (quite recent, and troubling taking this into account). From discussions on the user page we seem to have a (bright) student several years pre-college, which may be a factor. We shall see. Anyway, article leads are popular battlegrounds: "Describe Topic X in one sentence, which must be meticulously correct, totally complete, and easily understood by a great ape." :-) --KSmrq^T 15:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Being willing to talk does not mean that Loom91 is willing to compromise. He is part of the reason that I gave up trying to maintain Newton's laws of motion. JRSpriggs 02:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Too true, as he is now demonstrating. --KSmrq^T 14:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have avoided commenting on the article in case I needed to protect it, but now it looks like there are several other editors including Jitse Nelson commenting on the talk page. It's frustrating that people come to articles on basic topics like Integral and declare "this is awful, I'm going to fix it right now" when it should be obvious that prominent articles are formed by careful negotiation of many editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for watching. Yes, now that the month for this COTM is over, new editors appear. Perhaps it's the lure of a brawl. <:-O

I am constantly reminding myself, and others, that Wikipedia proudly proclaims that anyone can edit, and exhorts editors to Be Bold. Not be wise, nor careful, nor informed, nor fluent in English, nor …; well, you get the idea. This Wikipedia (but apparently not all) does say to be courteous, but standards of courtesy vary widely (or are ignored).

We encourage participation, which is good, and often the biggest hurdle to improvement. The month of June saw only a tiny (though hardy!) band of scrappers toiling away at integral. We nursed it to better health; now others want to adopt it. Where were they before? Ah well.

A Wikipedia article must survive a lifetime of such assaults. Realistically, the lucky ones get better up to a point, then decay. So far, integral is still better than when the COTM began. And I see that Loom91 has tried to make sweeping changes, only to be rebuffed by others. Good. Tag, they're "it"! I hope to tidy up a few details and retire to other pursuits. --KSmrq^T 22:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear; it looks like intervention may be the only solution after all. Loom91 just keeps coming back with more destruction. I can't help but wonder if he (correct pronoun — see here and compare to user page) targeted the section I worked on as retaliation for my final rebuttal on the talk page of his claims. Arcfrk says he doesn't have time to keep dealing with this, and King Bee (who has been steadily contributing) has already decided to avoid the page because of the disruption. (Is it weird that I could sense trouble brewing almost a week ago?)

Ironic, that someone who tries to bully by citing policy creats a page about his own father (so he claims), a clear conflict of interest; and that he includes mention of himself with a link (is he notable yet?); and that the page has incorrect markup; and that the biographical data provides no supporting references, contrary to BLP and his own threats about references at integral. (How can we be sure this is the son? Policy insists that we delete almost everything there immediately!)

∗Sigh.∗ I prefer editors who draw attention to themselves by doing good, rather than those who do it by disruption. I'm really sad the article has lost King Bee, a mathematics grad student who was collaborating with productive contributions, including images. It's a design weakness of Wikipedia that one persistent pest can distract a host of helpful editors for extended periods.

Isn't being an admin fun? ;-) --KSmrq^T 12:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The diff you linked above doesn't seem so extreme; maybe you can find a compromise wording between that wording and that was there before. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You need to look at the before and after text, because HTML comments were used to suppress a great deal. In prior discussions with other editors I had already explained the importance of most of the things that Loom91 unilaterally decided to remove. He either overlooked or ignored my concerns, and certainly did not discuss them. And I seriously doubt he knows enough about numerical quadrature to decide what's important and what not. Not good behavior. Furthermore, a section that was greatly improved during COTM was chopped up, ignoring all the topics and issues not yet touched. This is typical Loom91 behavior, destruction masquerading as construction. --KSmrq^T 14:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

When I was dealing with another difficult editor at Exponentiation, I found it easier to focus only on the content of the article, rather than worrying about the behavior of the other person. If you leave a detailed justification on the talk page, or a point to a previous, undiscussed one, and then try to keep any positive changes made while removing negative changes, nobody will be able to fault your editing. It's a shame for Wikipedia that it's so frustrating to edit basic articles like Integral and Exponentiation but so pleasant to edit articles like Second-order logic. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

CBM, thank you for your advice, It happened that I have read by chance your user page, do you know something about knot or braid theory or both? Let me know. I have some questions, if you are interested. John Manuel-21:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You may want to ask User:Chan-Ho_Suh or look at the list of participants in the math wikiproject (WP:WPM). — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks, John Manuel-01:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Why?

Did you deleted the World's Longest Poem sandbox subpage???

Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see the section higher up on this talk page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You should not delete those pages, you should move em, sorry, but your action is very arrogant, egocentric and predominant.

Regardless Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of Joy basu

You took exception to Joy Basu, an old article, and chose to speedy delete it. You cited criteria A7. But A7 explicitly says "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, the article should be listed at Articles for deletion instead." In this case, a previous AfD discussion had resulted in the article being kept, and more recently another editor had concurred with me that notability has been asserted. Lack of sources is not a recognised AfD criteria, and even if it were, the article cited a reputed newspaper. While there may be significant scope for discussion, the correct thing to do would have been to start another AfD debate. I think you will agree with me that speedying was directly against official policies. It will be best if you undeleted and listed it for AfD, so I do not have to burden DRV. Loom91 20:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to take it to DRV if you wish. I left detailed comments on the talk page about my reasons for deleting it. As I said there, "The deletion does not prevent recreation of the article, but any new version needs to address these concerns, especially the first." — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, surely you realise that only a small subset of the various reasons to delete an article are speedy deletion criteria? I was hoping that you will agree, after my quotation of policy above, that speedying was inappropriate in this case. You did leave detailed comments, but none of your objections are speedy deletion criterion. Speedying, like all other exclusive administrative powers, should be used with utmost caution because they do not allow the community at large to directly participate in the editing process. Loom91 21:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried removing just the uncited BLP material, but that left nothing at all, so it seemed more reasonable to delete it with a note that explained what was going on. As I said, the deletion doesn't prevent recreation of a proper biographical article. I do believe the article as it stood qualified for deletion as not asserting notability, regardless of whether someone else thought it didn't. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Joy Basu. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Loom91 21:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to invade this space Loom91, but it seems that the admin CBM is misusing his admin powers, if he doesn't give any viable explanation to whoever asks on those "deletions", I'll redirect this case to the ArbCom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 23:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that Arbcom is not the appropriate venue to discuss such things. Carl has replied in two separate place with regards to the deletion. Please keep a cool head and assume good faith.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 23:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He has replied, but not clearly, my head is cool and I don't have a bad faith. I won't discuss about these "such things", but about his adminship. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a detailed explanation about the sandbox pages higher on this page. The essential point is that the sandbox is not for ongoing edits or permanent storage - it's for temporary test edits. So things that have sat unedited for more than a short period of time can and should be deleted as housekeeping. As for Joy Basu, there is a review at WP:DRV where I have left a detailed comment. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of main sandbox is for newcomers edition test, but did you made an analizyz before deleting those sub-pages? How relevant or important they are? Do you know? Ironically your action resembles another in the sand, about an artist and a child, the child doesn't care about how impressive is the art-in-the-sand, moreso the water flux will erase it, but for the artist it is unforgettable. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And about your explanation higher on this page, you are controversial all the time, all sandbox sub-pages were constantly edited or modified. What isn't suitable for such deletion. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Each sandbox page I deleted that day had not been edited for several days. I left the pages that had been recently edited. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Another controversial point, the main page of World's Longest Poem was daily updated, with the current stats of how our project was being developed. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The last edit was "2007-04-04T11:41:53 . . Chrishy man (Talk | contribs | block)". The deletion was on July 9. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Impossible, the page had operation by bots modifying the status on daily basis. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) Which page are you talking about? And why were bots editing a sandbox page? Can you point me to their request for bot status? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

About the main page of the world's longest poem, a bot edit it based on how many verses and how many edits the poem had. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the exact name of that page? The info above is right for the page you named above. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Response and ramble

at my talk Jeepday (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Update on bot routines for editing Wikipedia

Hi Carl. I switched WP 1.0 bot from m:WWW::Mediawiki::Client to Perlwikipedia for downloading/uploading wikitext. The new package is much easier to understand, has fewer bugs/dependencies, and its development is open (see here, feel free to join). The API changes are not that big. They are listed below.

Old way	New way
require 'bin/wikipedia_fetch_submit.pl'; require 'bin/wikipedia_login.pl';	require 'bin/perlwikipedia_utils.pl';
&wikipedia_login($Bot_name);	$Editor = wikipedia_login($Bot_name);
$text = &wikipedia_fetch($file, $attempts, $sleep);	$text = wikipedia_fetch($Editor, $file, $attempts, $sleep);
&wikipedia_submit($file, $edit_summary, $text, $attempts, $sleep);	wikipedia_submit($Editor, $file, $edit_summary, $text, $attempts, $sleep);
require 'html_encode_decode.pl'; html_encode html_decode	require 'html_encode_decode_string.pl'; html_encode_string html_decode_string

Primarily, notice the $Editor variable, which is the user agent through which all the communication with the server takes place.

Another change is that article names don't need to have a .wiki extension anymore, since nothing is saved to disk (but names with .wiki at the end are still accepted).

Lastly, the most subtle change is that in the old package all text was assumed to be in Unicode. In the new package, all text is raw bytes as fetched from the server, text is converted to Unicode by the submit routine only at the very end. That means that any references to utf8 should be removed from any code using these routines (I hope that's enough :)

The updated set of routines for WP 1.0 bot is here. Let me know if you have questions. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted articles

Deletion of Critical Analyse of Islamic Cultural Politics and West

You deleted Critical Analyse of Islamic Cultural Politics and West with a deletion reason of "Original research, WP:ISNOT the place to pubish your interpretations of current events and religion". That would make a good reason on a prod, or a in an AfD, but it is not a speedy deletion criterion. Please remember that WP:CSD says: "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements."

I note that the article already had a prod tag in place, and you deleted it only minutes after the prod tag was added to the article. Why could this not have waited through the normal proposed deletion process?

I also note that the deleted page cited 10 reference works and had 4 inline citations. it may well be that this is in fact an OR synthesis or essay that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Or it may be that it is a valid summery that simply needs rewriting to more clearly attribute views to those who hold them. IMO that is not something that can be reliably determined by a single person. I request that you revert your deletion, and allow normal process to handle this matter. DES ^(talk) 20:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You said that this "was clearly OR, including sentences like 'In my opinion the September 11 events is a product of postmodernism since the distinction between image and reality have been evaporated and everything justified by reference of “power, secularism ”on one side and by “religious absolute” on the other side."" That may be so, but IMO that is simplyu jot a decision to be made by a single individual. I am not convinced that editing could not create a useful article out of this. It might well be deleted at an AfD, but that should be for an AfD, not a speedy delete.

You also said "When I deleted it, I left a message for the (single) author of that article [3] and he seemed to accept the deletion as he didn't respond, request undeletion, or make any other effort to restore the article. I take that as strong evidence that the author of the article accepted my reasoning, and I hope I can convince you to review the contents and do the same" Since the editor in question has not made any contributions at all since march 2007, it is unlikely that his non-response means anything about his acceptance of your reasoning. Silence is rarely good evidence of acceptance unless there is reason to know that the person was aware and in a position to respond, but failed to do so. Even then it is often rather weak.

In any case, having reviewed the deleted article again, I ask you to restore it and either use prod or AfD on it. DES ^(talk) 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You are free, as is any other administrator, to undelete the article if you wish. I stand by my decision to delete it as improving the encyclopedia. I realize you disagree with "product over process" and your desire to see this article go to AFD is honest. I disagree that there is any reason to bother with AFD for an article such as this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Note that I disagree with "prodct over process" because I think it is self-contradictory -- IMO the best way, in the long run, to have a good product is to follow a good process, even where that imposes some coats in the short run. I normally avoid simply undelting pags that another admin has deleted in good faith, even wherne I think the deletion was unwise or improper. i will consider whether to take this page to deletion review or not. Thank you for your polite responses to my comments, adn for your obvious devotion to and hard work on the project, even though I disagee with you on this issue. DES ^(talk) 00:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

When I became an admin, I was explicitly asked to promise that I would decide according to the guidelines, and if I had not promised to, I would not have passed. If you thing WP:DP is wrong, or that WP:CSD should be extended, the thing to do is to discuss it on the policy pages. In the meantime, you must follow it. It is not a matter of opinion. You do not have the choice of whether to delete according to what you think should be the policy and what the policy is, and neither do I. It's not a matter of policy over product--its a matter of being able to work together -- but only because we share a common policy. We do not argue over each article what policy ought to apply. We accept the policy, and discuss the application to particular cases.DGG (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Pharmocracy

You deleted Pharmocracy with a deletion log entry of "(CSD G1: Patent Nonsense)". But if you re-read Patent Nonsense you will find that this page was not patent nonsense in the Wikipedia sense. What it looked like was a PoV essay and/or a piece of OR. As such it would have been deleted in due course through proposed deletion which was already in progress. However, it is possible (although unlikely) that this was someone's theory, already published outside of Wikipedia, and should be reported on as such, with proper citation and attribution. Using speedy deletion rather than proposed deletion or AfD significantly reduces the chance that a properly cited article will be created, if one is justified. While I do not ask you to undelete in this case, since the page as it stood was uncited and apparently PoV, Please be more careful in using speedy deletion, and in choosing which deletion reason to put in the log. You might find recent discussion at WT:CSD to be of interest. DES ^(talk) 20:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

I wanted to be clear, by the way, that I agree with your comments at WT:V#Age of unreferenced. I think, based on these, that our ideas of how to handle deletion issues are not too far apart, an i hope we can come to agreement on the places where I have disagreed with a couple of your actions. I don't want my comments to be perceived as some sort of attack -- they are not so intended. DES ^(talk) 22:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to join in assuring you that what I may have said in an AfD is not intended as a reflection about the overall quality -- and quantity--of your work as an admin, and what you same about policy, all of which is very impressive. A few more like you and we wouldn't have backlogs and could afford to take our time thinking more about each article. But since we don't have time what with all the undoubted junk, it's necessary to develop a feel for what doesn't really fit within that class but is instead worth a further look. I haven't gotten there yet myself as well as I'd like--a speedy of mine was challenged just this morning, and has been restored and is turning into a passable article. One thing that some of us do is to be very careful about articles from an established editor--a guy whose been writing good articles isn't likely to suddenly turn into a jackass--that article I mentioned, I hadn't paid attention to the history. Another trick that saves time in the end is not to argue about a speedy with anyone objecting in good faith. But if he doesn't convince you it's OK, then Just send it to AfD to be argued there--try not to get personally involved about your deletions any more than your articles. Some BLP must be removed immediately, but for a borderline case, let AfD decide. If they reject the article, as they likely will, it convinces the editor much more than if it's just one or two admins. Happy deleting (when appropriate)DGG (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Narrowness of the CSD

I do indeed think that "every deletion must follow either a speedy criteria, WP:PROD, or WP:AFD. Note that if a deletion is not pursuant to Prod, or to one of the XfD processes, it is a speedy delete by definition. Note that WP:CSD says: "The speedy deletion policy specifies the limited' cases where administrators may delete Wikipedia pages or media without discussion." and "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." (emphasis added). WP:DP says "There are four basic processes for deletion" and "Pages can be deleted without any discussion if they meet one of the criteria for speedy deletion." and "Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion. This includes contested speedy or proposed deletions." and "If it is doubtful whether a page is or is not speedily deletable, a deletion discussion takes precedence. In practice this means that a page that had a deletion discussion resulting in 'keep' or 'no consensus' should not be speedily deleted." IMO any deletion that cites, or rests upon, WP:IAR or WP:UCS that fails to conform closely to one of the speedy delete criteria is invalid and should be overturned on that basis alone. WP:SNOW can be used to close discussions when consensus is obvious in less than the normal period, but in anything other than a slam-dunk case it generally causes more trouble than it is worth -- saving a few days is rarely worth dissension. SNOW is never grounds for deleting anything without discussion. While it is true that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy these policies and the procedures created under them exist for reasons -- generally good reasons IMO, and I think that ignoring them usually does more harm than good. See Process is important for a longer exposition of this view. Note that i wrote the in ital draft of that essay. In short, not only do i think that pages should only be deleted that conform to one of the WP:CSD or after a WP:PROD or deletion discussion process, but the relevant policy pages seem to me to require exactly that. Note the recent case of Four Reigns which was speedy deleted as "OR" and restored by deletion review, see here. DES ^(talk) 23:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I think that we do not agree that the deletion process is a binding set of rules that must always be followed to the letter. I don't think I will have much chance of swaying you to my point of view. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have held this view since 2005, and have acted on it in many cases, and as the arguments you have made do not IMO differ much from others I have seen, no you are unlikely to sway me. Let me attempt, briefly, to sway you. Whether the policies are mandatory or not (they are certainly written as if they were) I think they should be followed fairly strictly as a matter of good practice. There have been extensive debates in the past about the precise wording and scope of the CSDs, which considered in some detail what kinds of things ought to be deleted without discussion and what ought not to be. The existing CSDs got a pretty wide-based community consensus. Often there were specific reasons, based on outcomes, for specific choices. For example "Hoax" is not a CSD, although many editors and some admins think it is, and some treat it as one. Why isn't it? Because there have been too many cases where what appeared to be a hoax was in fact a real but obscure fact. Similarly "OR" isn't a speedy criterion. Why not? because too often things poorly written, with a good deal of PoV content, combine real and valid content with OR, and it is much easier to fix these if they haven't been deleted. In other cases, something that a given editor thought was OR turners out to be perfectly valid, but obscure and/or poorly sourced. in sort, these aren't decisions well suited to the quick, all-or-nothing process that is single-handed 'speedy" deletion.

Another reason to stick to the criteria: transparency. When an admin deletes, no one but another admin can review the content and check if the deletion was proper or not. Admins are trusted to delete in specified circumstances, but are not (and IMO should not be) trusted to simply delete anything they think "harms the project" -- to extend that level of trust is to make non-admins second-class editors. That really harms the project, IMO. DES ^(talk) 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To DES: Using the rules to achieve an objective inconsistent with the purpose of the rules is an abuse of process. No specific sequence of words can be guaranteed to accomplish the desired result in all cases. The purpose or spirit behind a rule should always guide its interpretation. JRSpriggs 03:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

you are right to a certain limited extent. But I have not yet found an instance at WP where the appropriate effect could not be obtained by following the appropriate rule. I was asked about my views on IAR when I became an admin. I replied it was necessary to have it, but if we did things right we should never need it. As the vote was 111-1-2 if I remember right, I think people agreed with me. Relying on IAR for routine is putting ones own interpretation of what would be a desirable result above the community consensus. No one has the right to do that. Putting oneself above the consensus that forms policy here is destructive to the encyclopedia. Policy isn't a tyranny or a straightjacket--its our policy, the consensus of what we all have agreed to do. DGG (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss the application of Wikipedia policy, including WP:IAR, to all my actions. But instead of focusing on policy as an end in itself, I would rather justify what I do via what it is actually accomplishing. We disagree about the role of policy in nonroutine situations, not routine ones.

I'm not very interested in discussing what I "must" do on WP or convince you I'm right. I'm quite confident in my opinion about the relationship between policy and practice.

In your RFA that you spoke about above, you emphasized the need for compromise, and I agree. For example, I undeleted Joy Basu since the net effect on the article is the same whether it was deleted or not: it was essentially rewritten from scratch by DES after I did the necessary pruning. The whole time I advocated recreating the article, although I feel you ignored that. While I think deleting the history would be slightly better for BLP reasons, I'm willing to compromise on that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is obvious!

Hi Carl, I have stumbled upon your comment above:

It's frustrating that people come to articles on basic topics like Integral and declare "this is awful, I'm going to fix it right now" when it should be obvious that prominent articles are formed by careful negotiation of many editors

and wanted to point out that nothing is obvious on Wikipedia! First, a lot of basic, high importance articles are in a stub/start state (there are even some top importance articles of this type, cf. Algebraic number theory). Moreover, careful negotiation sometimes leads to awful results, since everyone fears to upset the balance that suits no one. See e.g. Function (mathematics) before and after March 19, 2007, when I took a bold step of cleaning up the lead (after spending several hours studying the discussion). And on the top of all that, examples of one hard-nosed editor imposing his will on the community are, unfortunately, not that unusual. So I would say: "Go ahead, fix it right now. Just be graceful". Arcfrk 04:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The key issue is that being graceful requires grace, and that includes acknowledging that in many cases the previous editors of the article know as much about the subject as I do. I wasn't intending to refer to ordinary bold editing in my comment, although I see it can be read that way; I meant editors who ignore previous talk page discussion, believing that somehow they are more knowledgeable about the subject and better able to write the article than the people who came before them. Certainly there are times when it's correct to say "this is awful, I'm going to fix it right now". It's usually worth asking "what issues led to this be so awful?" first. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wondering If This Should Go On Deletion Review

An article has been discussed here [[1]] and I'm wondering if perhaps it should be put up for Deletion Review. I wanted to check with an admin first though because I'm not sure if it's worthy enough for one or if it falls into the realm of something like WP:OTHERSTUFF. The article itself is Lucy's Retired Surfer's Bar. Should I set it up for DRV for the user? Or what else? -WarthogDemon 01:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Film image deletion

I noticed that you recently deleted an image which was used in The Snow Queen (1957 film) and Soyuzmultfilm. I could in fact have provided a fair use rationale for both of these articles if I had known that the image was about to be deleted. In fact, you probably could've done so as well, since it was a pretty standard case of a low resolution film screenshot.

Is there no policy anymore which states that a notice about the image's imminent deletion must be put up on the talk page of every article which it is used in?

It seems like should be common sense and common courtesy to do so, considering that many images were uploaded before the de facto rules were changed. Esn 03:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I might as well add that another one of the images which you deleted from Soyuzmultfilm with no notice was a low resolution logo of a corporation. I'm pretty sure that that's another pretty standard case of acceptable fair use. Esn 03:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll undelete the image so you can put a rationale on it. This image wasn't tagged for deletion by the automated bot, but by User talk:BigrTex, who must not be aware. I'll let him know. Here it is: Image:Snejnaya Koroleva (SMF).jpg. Sorry for the inconvenience, — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I've put in a rationale. The Soyuzmultfilm image is probably best kept deleted, in any case, since it's an older logo (not their current one). Esn 04:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested block

I just reviewed the blocking policy. I will try the wikibreak enforcer. Thanks! —ptk✰fgs 03:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:ADB Icon.svg (Your proposal for deletion)

See image for my comment - Leonard G. 04:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues. A minor issue is that the rationale doesn't meet the technical requirements such as identifying the copyright holder and article of use. The major issue is that the image is likely replaceable by a simple photograph of the icon and port on an actual piece of hardware. Rather than deleting the image altogether, I extended the deadline by a week by adding a disputed rationale tag to give you time to keep the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these issues seems to be addressed by the longer rationale added later. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Carl, I have added a longer rationale, but the problem is that under copyright law a photograph of the logo created in such a way that the illustration of the logo was the primary purpose of the image would also be a derivative work, and thus be copyright. What I'm saying is that we could replace the logo with a photograph - but it would be equally "fair use".

If that wasn't true - then what's to stop me selling "Nike" t-shirts with photographs of T-shirt Nike logo ? Megapixie 06:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right that a photo whose main goal is to illustrate the icon is no good. But the article doesn't need to illustrate the icon. It needs to illustrate what hole on the computer you stick the wire into. A picture of the hole which includes this icon is OK, as is a picture of a pair of shoes Image:Adidas.JPG that include the adidas trademark or a picture of Image:Chicken_McNuggets.jpg that includes a McDonald's logo. The point is, the "logo" of a wire protocol is not particularly relevant to the article, but the connectors and ports are. — Carl (CBM · talk) 06:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice the large disclaimer on Image:Chicken_McNuggets.jpg that points out the fact it's a trademark. If you tried to use that image anywhere outside of an encyclopedia article, you'd likely be in for a visit from the McLawsuit heavy mob. Effectively that image is unfree. Likewise if you wrapped the texture of the shoe in Image:Adidas.JPG around a shoe you'd also be in for a visit from the law squad. Your argument is either:

A. We don't need to show the icon.

B. We can show the icon but only in a sneaky way so as to be more free.

If you are arguing (A) then I disagree- the icon is part of the bus standard. If you are arguing B, then I would say that you aren't making this encyclopedia any more free, because the images concerned still show the same copyright logos just slightly smaller and you are just re-arranging the deckchairs.

I'd rather show the icon directly and clearly under a good solid fair use claim, than make a misleading GFDL/PD claim on a photograph, like say for example Image:Mini_logo_op_stuur.jpg (on commons). Megapixie 06:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The first difficulty with the USB logo is that the copyright is unclear. The image does not, for example, identify the copyright holder. As for Image:Male_and_Female_USB_Connectors.jpg , I don't know whether that needs a trademark tag or not. I'll ask around. — Carl (CBM · talk) 07:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree the mini logo on commons is bogus. But I'm talking about Image:Male_and_Female_USB_Connectors.jpg. That is obviously a photo of plugs, not a sneaky way to get a logo. — Carl (CBM · talk) 07:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Gregbard 05:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Incident at Vichy

Hi, sorry, you removed the spoiler alert in Incident at Vichy, and then I put it back in, before reading your comments about your edit.

I really think the spoiler alert is appropriate there - you say "We don't use spoiler tags in these sections" - why? I mean, there's a major plot twist that's revealed in here.

I didn't mean to just rollback your edit, sorry about that. I just didn't read the History on the page, so I thought there was some sort of Wikipedia bug. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glasperlenspiel (talk • contribs) 2007-07-07T21:53:53.

thanks

Hiya Carl! Thanks for the kind words about Peter. And I appreciate your adding the proper ref--that's a smart policy.

Image:Snejnaya Koroleva (SMF).jpg

I have likely marked thousands of images as missing a rationale over the course of the last couple of months, including the one that you point to. I, like most image patrollers, use User talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js to mark images and notify the uploader. There certainly wasn't consensus to put notices all over the place about image tagging two weeks ago, and in fact many complain that we notify too much as it is. If consensus develops for posting notices on article talk pages, then I'm confident that the tool that I use will be updated to reflect that change. If you wish to work through my contributions log and add additional notifications for the images I've tagged, you are welcome to do so.

By the way, thank you for pointing me back to this image, it has become orphaned at some point and I have now tagged it as orphaned fairuse. ~ BigrTex 19:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Sandbox/Wikistory. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you.

ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 21:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I am using the sandbox... — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sandbox

It's quite humorous that you left me a warning message telling me to use the sandbox for test edits, when the page I edited was a sandbox page. Everyone is free to edit and/or blank sandbox pages, since their purpose is just test edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and I mean no offense by this, you are wrong. WP:BLANK esplains it all. Notice that it says "no blank pages" which makes no distinction between encyclopedic and non-encyclopedic content. The sandbox is used for test edits, yes. The sandbox subpages, not necessarily. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 21:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's long standing practice that users can blank the sandbox, and this is not vandalism. I don't see any reason why a subpage of the sandbox should be treated differently than the sandbox itself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

For the simple reason which is that they are not the same page. It's as simple as that. I have never labeled your contributions as vandalism, at least as of now. Leave the page as it is. If the page gets deleted through the MfD, then so be it. But until then, leave it as it is. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 21:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is a subpage of the sandbox, however. I'm not planning to fight about the blanking, but I'm free to edit the page as much as the next guy. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Therefore I am free to revert your edits. It can be a very useless waste of time. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 21:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I did move the page

It's now at Wikipedia:Wikistory (Sentence). --ragesoss 01:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I was thinking the same thing.--ragesoss 01:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Alan Coren

Re edit protected procedure: How many days will it be before I can edit this article? (Sigh). Why did Tim! suggest this as a solution? --Frank Ness 20:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Joy Basu

I was asking DS because I thought of getting the opinion of a third party. As for the play, I'm sure there have been newspaper reviews (the play is yet unpublished), but non of them in newspapers available online. That means I'll have to go to newspaper archives. I've nowhere near that much time. That Joy Basu has written such a play and that it has been performed by the theater group Natyaanan is not exactly controversial information, and I would have little to gain by inserting false information of such a nature. So I was wondering why you are contesting it. You are citing BLP, but that policy seems only to cover potentially controversial or negative material. As a sidenote, you said that you wouldn't want to edit Integral since you were already editing an article with me. I don't get the reasoning. Loom91 13:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cronholm144 was asking for some sort of admin action on that page, possibly page protection. I'm not sure admin action is justified - there haven't been enough reverts for protection in my opinion - but I have no plans of getting involved there when I am also involved in the Joy Basu article. There are plenty of other admins who can deal with the integral article, and I have a limited attention span.

As for the Joy Basu article, I have already explained how your edits to that article fit into the conflict of interest policy. As a family member you might be more likely to feel it is worth including the play, but if the play is unpublished and there is no evidence of critical commentary, I don't see that you have a very strong argument for including it. DES suggested that you should leave that article for neutral editors, proposing changes (with sources) on the talk page, and I think that would be a reasonable course of action. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why my edits should be judged on whether they are COI rather than whether they benefit the encyclopedia. As for the play, it was performed for two years by a mainstream Kolkata theater group on all the largest theater halls in the city (like Rabindra Sadan and Madhusudan Mancha). In Kolkata, it is not customary to publish a play till it has spent some time out of active production. Critical commentary is there, but hard to explicitly reference. That seems to be notable enough. Further, the play is not a subject of article itself (in which case it would have probably been of insufficient notability) but rather a topic mentioned in the article. I think WP articles usually mention the complete works of any artist, even if not all the works are notable in their own right. As for proposing changes on talk, that's basically what I'm currently doing. Loom91 14:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• In this edit you said "editing this article except to remove vandalism is likely a violation of the conflict of interest policy that prohibits articles being edited by people with close relationships to the subject." that is not quite correct. First of all, WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy. Secondly, what WP:COI says is: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, he stands in a conflict of interest. COI edits are strongly discouraged. and There are no tidy criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, but there are warning signs. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, family members, employer, or associates may place the author in a conflict of interest. When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference. Thus the situation is more complex than an outright prohibition. (For example it is considered normal for people to edit their own articles to correct factual inaccuracies, not merely to remove vandalism). In this case, i think it would be reasonable to add the info with a {{cite}} tag. Or to wait for an offline citation to an offline newspaper review or theater program as a source. Asking loom91 to use talk pages and have his edits confirmed by another editor does seem reasonable, but i don't feel that the inclusion of the title of a play which has, apparently, been publicly performed in a significant venue is unwarranted. DES ^(talk) 14:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Run-time analysis

Thank you for your assessment of this article. If you have any suggestions for improving it, I'd be grateful if you posted them here. Groupthink 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected at Template:S-par

I've created a complete code for Template:S-par - located at User:Tim4christ17/code3 - sorry for the confusion. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 03:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Image Renaming Problem

I just noticed that Image:Quilfish.png should actually be Image:Qwilfish.png. Would you know how to move it to the right spelling? -WarthogDemon 00:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it can be moved. The only way to do it is to upload it again under the new name. But the image name, per se, isn't so important. If the image was named ERFDDFS.png it would still work just fine. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Just wanted to try to be concise if possible. Thanks though. :) -WarthogDemon 00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Mao Zedong and edit protection

I commented on the error several days ago, and only just added the editprotected template today to draw attention to it. I have no intention whatsoever of getting a user name, I've edited Wikipedia extensively since 2001 without one and don't intend to get one now. In the meantime, a verifiably incorrect date regarding one of the 20th century's major leaders persists in an article so frequently read and edited that it requires protection. The date in question was unsourced, and I have provided a source (directly from the CCP, no less, who would know when the document in question was signed -- it was, after all, their document) for the new one.

If you're comfortable allowing inaccuracies to persist, then by all means, do so. But telling me to "get a user name" after I've gone to the trouble of doing all the homework already is a little bit, what's the word now? Condescending? Are you one of these editors that feels that anonymous users should have no rights, even when they're obviously productive?

It's not like it wouldn't have taken you under 20 seconds to change "November 1956" to "April 1956" or even better "April 27th, 1956". Instead, readers of the article will be misinformed and pundits will continue to claim that Wikipedia is not a reliable or accurate reference on anything of value. Brilliant. 70.132.14.22 00:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It would take me quite a long time to check the references, which I would need to do since changing one date to another is something that requires checking references and getting it right. I only came to that page because of the editprotected notice. But the page is only semiprotected, so any username 4 days old can make the change, and there were other requests for pages that actually require administrator rights to edit. I usually just leave a note on semiprotected pages that admin help isn't needed.

You don't need to get a username; if you choose not to do so the only thing you lose is the ability to edit semiprotected pages. I don't think it's such a burden to get one, and although you can edit as an IP user indefinitely that does not mean that it's encouraged for longterm editors. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Be reasonable! You are asking us to trust you, but you are unwilling to trust us even with a made-up identity. And you are unwilling to do what is necessary to obtain trust which is to build a reputation for veracity. You cannot have a reputation, if you do not have an identity. JRSpriggs 04:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I am doing nothing of the sort. The references are there, and you are welcome to verify them. I am not expecting anyone to trust me. In fact, I am of the opinion that any edit which is accepted based on trust rather than references is probably not an edit that ought to be made. It should not matter in this case who is making the argument. Not to mention that this is not a politically contentious correction -- as far as I can tell, the November 1956 date came from a fanciful quotation on a Tiananmen square tourist site, which is not referenced; it appears nowhere else that I can see. Meanwhile, multiple sources verify the other date, including the (authoritative) CCP reference (the petition in question was internal to the Chinese Communist Party), which I linked to. No one is debating that the petition was signed, there is no propaganda here, the question is whether it was signed in November or in April. One random tourist site on the internet says November (and all the sites that mirror Wikipedia, of course) and every single Chinese language source claims April 27th 1956. Before you start yammering on about trust, maybe you ought to consider what motive I might have to lie to you. As others have noted, it would be trivial for me to create a user just to make this one edit if I were so inclined, and you and I both know that no one would bother checking it, just as no one (save me) bothered checking the original date.

Just to add to it all, that particular section of the article has a template requesting that claims be referenced! Here, I go looking for references to improve the article, find an inaccuracy, and provide an editor with the necessary references to correct a minor, non-politically charged mistake and then back it up, thereby improving the article and taking a step to correct the lack of references, and what do I get? Comments about my unwillingness to sign in (something that, I think, is still my right), as if that makes a difference? This is ridiculous. 70.132.14.22 05:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Carl, sorry to bring this onto your talk page, I just realized that you were reacting more to the misuse of the {{editprotected}} template, which is only to be used for full protection. I should have been more clear on its use before including it. Sorry about mouthing off on your page. Regards... 70.132.14.22 05:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

File:Cat dude.jpeg

OK, not understanding something here. CC 2.5 is OK, but CC 3.0 isn't? I don't understand. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The website clearly said the license was for noncommercial use only. We only allow some CC licenses here, and we do not allow any that are for noncommercial use only. Indepependent of that, we don't allow CC 3.0 licenses because of the "moral rights" clause. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That is where ya loss me in the legalese. See, where I am kinda at a loss, and I am honestly trying to put a correct template on this image, is that lolcat image authors are near, if not completely, impossible to find. Since the authors of these images release them on boards like 4chan and others, they are releasing them into the public domain. Eventually they end up on sites like icanhascheezburger.com and others. I am not trying to end run, I am honestly at a loss, because in really would be impossible to find the author to ask permission and could it be claimed that they released it into the public domain? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If the original author cannot be located, then we have no way to know his wishes. We cannot assume the image is in public domain just because the original author is not known. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK..../sigh/....there is a "sub-site" of icanhascheezburger.com, called the "Cheezburger Factory". You can take already uploaded picture and make your own lolcat image. If I did that (same saying...I like it) and uploaded it onto Wikipedia, since I made it, would that work? - NeutralHomer ^T:C 02:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would matter where you got the original image of a cat from. If you take a picture of a cat yourself, and then make a lolcat out of it, and license it freely, that is acceptable. If you get an image of a cat somewhere else, note the license of it in the image page here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will give it a shot and let you know what I find. It will take me a couple to find a blank copy of the pic. Thanks and Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter 7

You took my comments off of the harry potter 7 page, saying they are vandalism etc. It is all true. I can prove its true. It is leaked. The user is called Yamathan. This is not made up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monsterman75 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-19T17:26:32.

Yes, something was released. But there is no way to know it's authentic, since there is no way to compare it with the real book. We don't take Yamathan's word that he didn't write his text himself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(i dont know how to make a proper reply) It is extremely unlikely that a fan wrote a book with the same number of pages as the real thing, got the same font, the same type of paper, the same references at the beginning, and everything. So, would it be okay to repost it tomorrow, once the book has been released, and people see it's the same? I think seeing as its been reported on the news that somebody got a copy and took photos, this is the real deal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monsterman75 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-19T17:32:35.

Please sign your posts! Yes, once the book is released we can include a plot summary. But until then we don't trust the leaked copies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

harry potter dies; discussAnonynoise 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

it makes me feel sad — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Navajo blanket speedy delete

I noticed you tagged Image:Navajo blanket.jpg for speedy deletion. I'm wondering if this is necessary, as it is a photo of a work of art, and it is very likely that it was taken before 1923 (it was taken between 1910 and 1925). If it is, perhaps we can upload one of the two images here, which are pd, since they are known as taken before 1923 (I prefer the first one). On the other hand, as with many of these things, copyright is claimed (click on the rights and reproductions link, if you like). Let me know what you think, I figure it might be just as good to upload a more clearly pd image in place of the contested one, rather than delete it. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it as "replaceable" because I think there should be free images that would substantially convey the same information (someone should be able to take a picture of an existing blanket, if nothing else). There is a delay until July 22 before the image may be deleted, to give time for free alternatives to be found or allow anyone to challenge my tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Template

Hi, that template (Template:Hellenistic rulers) is just an experiment. I am not planning to use it in the near future. Regards. PHG 05:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Calabi-Yau.jpeg

It appears you have tagged Image:Calabi-Yau.jpeg for deletion based on its licensing information. We have a problem. Actually, we have interlocking problems.

1. The license is clearly incorrect. It says "This is a screenshot of copyrighted computer software", but that is false. So far as I can tell the image was simply copied from this site, and its connection to Mathematica has nothing to do with copyright, no more than an image produced with Photoshop would give Adobe Systems any rights.
2. It appears the image was produced by Andy Hanson, and by default he holds the copyright. Perhaps if we ask him nicely he will give Wikipedia permission, but I see no evidence that he has placed the image in the public domain or otherwise licensed it so that we are free to use it.

Hanson has provided enough information so that we might be able to recreate a variant of the image ourselves. That would be nice. Meanwhile, we have a mistagged, unlicensed image. --KSmrq^T 07:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I see this is being discussed at WT:WPM. Sorry to bother you here. --KSmrq^T 07:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleep OR straw poll

There is a straw poll being conducted on the Bleep OR issue. Your input is welcome. Dreadstar † 16:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not convert images in infoboxes into thumbnails, as you did to Nicktropolis

It looks ugly. Also, none of those images in Nicktropolis were tagged for speedies, as I checked. Please do not do this anymore or I will see to it that you are blocked. JONJONBT talk•homemade userboxes 22:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to be blocked for that maintenance work. If the images are no longer tagged for deletion, you should remove the "deletable image-caption" template from the article source code. The point of the edits is to make those templates visible, and if the templates remain the same thumbnail code will be added next time I run the script to do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

PD tags

Hi CBM. What is your ground for replacing Currency tags by Public Domain tags on coins to which Copyrights are attached? PHG 21:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The coins are over a thousand years old, and so they are not copyrighted. The photographs add no artistic interpretation to the coins, and thus the images are derivative works of the coins, also in public domain. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not a standard Wikipedia interpretation. Usually coin images are copyrighted and have a "Currency" tag for fair use. Do you know of a Wikipedia written rule that allows these images to be considered Public Domain? PHG 00:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I will ask about this at WP:NONFREE. If the images are not public domain, they will need to be deleted as replaceable fair use. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

tagging

Hi! Thanks for your attention about my tagging antiisomorphism for the maths WP. I was on a tagging spree and didn't really think about that. Is there really a lot of talk page vandalism going on? I would have thought it more important to give summaries for the articles proper.--SidiLemine 13:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand better what you meant. Good to meet you too! I was hoping someone would come and check that I didn't do that wrong anyway, but I guess I could have given a summary;). The other reason I didn't think about it is that when you "create" a talk page with the template, the summary is automatic.--SidiLemine 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter 7

""""Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Please do not add unverifiable plot summaries to the Harry Potter articles. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)""""

Sorry about that, mate! It was verified, just not by a news source yet. Thank you for not banning me. Have a great day! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iforget1919 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-23T13:43:51 (UTC)

The WP definition of "verifiable" is idiosyncratic and not the same as the real world meaning. We identify verifiability with verifiability through publicly released published sources. I did think there should be a plot summary as soon as it was publicly available. Sorry about the "vandalize" part - I should have just written by hand instead of using a premade warning that wasn't quite accurate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Invite

Gregbard 04:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You already invited me. Perhaps you should keep a list. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I checked the "what links here" for each of the templates, and I didn't notice cbm. I thought it was a conspicuous absence, so I wanted to make sure. Be well, Gregbard 05:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

My talk page is archived very quickly. Thanks for the invite, though. I have the logic page on my watchlist. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Relation algebra

Hey Carl, you know anything about this? It's written in a fairly confusing manner -- it claims that "RA is an algebraic structure" but then spends most of its time discussing something like equational logic. The reference to "laws of form" strikes me as a danger sign. I can't figure out how to disambiguate its link to Boolean algebra because the article itself seems intent on ignoring the distinction between a structure and classes of sentences true in that structure. --Trovatore 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about relation algebras, but the article does have some sentences that are quite confusing to me, mostly in the section "Expressive power". — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification

I don't think I understand your question at Wikipedia talk:Requests for verification#Consensus Points. Do you think my definition of burden is different then policy version at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, or are you questioning if consensus exists for the statement? Jeepday (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it is different than the "burden of evidence" at WP:V, which only requires sources for facts that are challenged or likely to be challenged, not for "all" facts. If your "burden" means that every article must have sources, then there is not consensus for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In the context used at RFV, I/we am/are assuming that if someone placed a {{RFV}} (or {{PROD}}, etc) the article or content would be considered "challenged". Policies and guidelines for references are addressed else where. The main question at RFV is when an unreferenced article is challenged what is the best way to move forward and stay with in the expectations of Wikipedia editors and policies. Are you concerned about some automated process to delete articles? Jeepday (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In order to challenge content, you would have identify exactly what you are challenging. "All of it" is not a challenge of content, since there is no way to tell for which facts a reference is requested. You are misinterpreting the intention of that part of WP:V, which is to allow editors to challenge particular facts or inferences that they find doubtful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

most PRODs are not placed saying not verified--they are placed sometimes saying " apparently a hoax, because ...." and then it is clear what needs to be demonstrated, or more often "no evidence to show that this is notable"--and it is quite clear what evidence is needed, or "I dont think this is notable enough" which is an implied request for more sources to show notability. Some things are obviously notable, some are considered notable by convention if they can be shown to exist, like inhabited villages, most need to be shown to be notable. That's what the sources are for, and that's the basis for the challenge. I've been looking at the not referenced articles from time to time. About one-fourth I look at have serious problems with notability, or COI spam, or probably copyvio, and then the appropriate direction needs to be taken. The others are almost certainly OK, and just need to be improved. Not all of them are priorities.

remember that a general challenge for sources does not always address the issue. It is after all fairly easy to produce a reference that appears to be about a subject. Usually the details arent questioned unless there is some reason for it. Yes, this leaves unfortunate errors in, probably by the million. But they cant be eliminated just by putting in a reference. They need the sort of fact checking a news source or an academic peer-review or a legal investigation would do, and this takes hours for anything sufficiently complicated--and inevitably involves original research. We rely instead on the errors the millions of user happen to find, and in all tests, its been approximately similar to more formal sources. DGG (talk) 06:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ubdo Extra musicsample

I reverted {{Extra musicsample}}; the non-free content is used as an example, and is not used in the actual template, but in the documentation for the template. When the template expands on other pages, the non-free content is not included. John Cardinal 00:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:NFCC#9, nonfree media is not allowed at all on templates, for any purpose. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that applies here, then why not repair the example and use another file in place of the non-free content? That would help the encyclopedia more than removing non-free content that no one but the free-content police cares is being used as part of an example. John Cardinal 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Coin images

As far as I known rare ancient coins are acceptable as Fair Use due to their historical significance and their rarity which often makes it difficult to impossible to have an alternative. PHG 13:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion at Image talk:AlexPorusCoin.JPG. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

CBM, for your information, most of the coins from the "Indo-Greek" series that you tagged are unique specimens, which are located at the Cabinet des Medailles, Paris, where it is not allowed for the general public to take photographs of them.PHG 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You should indicate that on the talk pages of the coins in question and in the fair use rationales for the coins (which don't exist - the images are also subject to deletion for not having these rationales). But "most of them" is not enough - each image is considered separately. Also, as I have said twice now, it is not permitted to use fair use images on templates. I will plan to remove them from the templates in 24 hours. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Template "Indo-Greek kings" was internalized into the article. PHG 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Award

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For outstanding work in taking care of image backlogs, I award you this shiny new barnstar. Hooray for you! Not to be used internally. Keep away from mentally unstable pets. Void in Wisconsin. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:UST Seal.gif

Please undelete Image:UST Seal.gif as it is fair use and I never specified this on the image page appropriately. Once restored I will update the image with the correct information. Let me know if there are any problems, thanks! -- Noetic Sage 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I restored it; please add a rationale soon, or it will get deleted again by someone else. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Olasky

Carl,

No, I'm not an impersonator. I took a quick look at the article about me and saw both inaccuracies and a jerry-built structure for the whole piece, which I suppose is what happens when different folks come and take whacks. As you can see, I have not eliminated criticisms, but I have removed my classification as part of a theocratic "dominationism," which makes no sense in terms of what I have clearly written.

Cordially, Marvin Olasky —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olasky (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC).

A little help here

Logic has its own space for requested articles. I have a link in the math section for it. The same is true on the philosophy side. We really have to learn to work together here. That means that the articles have to be at least equally accessible to the math and philosophy folk. I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but I must assert for the sake of the WikiProject that I will revert again if this is changed again. The math people have had it under their category for so long I"M SURE you believe its math and that's that. Get over it. Work together in a common space. Be thankful for it. Please don't fight with me over it. Gregbard 12:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You can put a link from the logic to the math project, and we can put a link from the math to the logic project. That would seem to me to qualify as "working together". Most of articles listed are clearly mathematical, not "logic". — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend that, if you find people revert and complain about your edits, you might try discussing things before unilaterally implementing a new organizational plan. You may find that taking an aggressive tone ("Get over it") does not help your cause, nor will polemics. The people in the math project, by and large, are mathematicians, and we respond best to good reasoning stated clearly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was true that 'Most of articles listed are clearly mathematical, not "logic".' then it PROVES my point that we need to place this where so-called "logic" articles WILL be in it. The whole thing is circular, and you are too closed minded to see outside the circle. Get over your narrowness please. As for the "unilateral ... new organizational plan," isn't it more reasonable to just deal with it? There's a wonderful new logic section. Why don't you set up shop and move in? Gregbard 13:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If most of the articles are mathematical, it would make sense that they should be listed under mathematics. I have no objection to listing them two places, however.

There is no reason why others must "just deal with" changes you have made; they are free to discuss them and reject them if desired. The entire wiki method is founded on the principle of consensus. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Russia

Can you go ahead and unprotect this - the resolution was decided on.--danielfolsom 19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox/World's longest poem

Why was this deleted? It says for "housekeeping" but that was weeks ago. When will it be returned? 207.237.50.154 19:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The sandbox is for temporary test edits, not permanent pages. I deleted several subpages of the sandbox that had not been edited for (at least) several days. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No more

Your "deletable image caption fixes" aren't fixing things all that well. Please correct the issue. - Dudesleeper · Talk 13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you mean that they make the pages look worse, I accept that - the goal is to make the caption visible. If you know of a better way to do it, I would be glad to implement it. If you have specific cases where the script fails, please let me know, and I will try to fix them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Slightly dodgy edit by VeblenBot

Here. I know the original formatting is more than a little screwed :-) Cheers --Pak21 12:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is odd. Thanks for pointing it out. My script assumes that the deletable image caption tag is in fact inside the square brackets for the image, so that adding a thumb parameter makes sense. The (other) script that added the deletable image caption tag must assume that the infobox is used so that the image field doesn't contain other information. I think this is an uncommon situation, and would be a great pain to code around (I would have to use a real parser instead of regular expressions). In any case, the point is to get the images fixed by drawing attention to them; neither the deletable image caption tag nor the thumb parameter needs to stay in the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

thanks

Hi Carl, it seems I totally forgot to thank you for providing the test samples for this database for references. Sorry, and thank you very much again. Jakob.scholbach 01:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

a few questions/comments

we are trying to reach a consensus on the meerkat manor page:we just cant do it.no one's bending...also,how come ive read all of the new messages on my talk page but the new messages box is still on my screen?thanks...67.185.182.69 02:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

look at the discussion.this has been going on for a few days.we still cant decide.everyone is stone set in thier beliefs.i already explained why i think it should be there.everyone just said i was totally wrong.67.185.182.69 03:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR warning on User talk:Cruise meerkat

Hiya CBM! Long time no see!

I don't know if you'd noticed, but I'd already blocked Cruise there for 3RR. While this account is new, I dug a bit on his page, the talkpage, etc.. first and noticed it's not his first account, so went ahead and blocked him for the 3RR.

If there's an alternative reason for your warning message to him, please feel free to ignore this note. :)

Anyway, don't be a stranger. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw your block message when I came to leave a note, but being lazy I didn't want to spend too long investigating which article he had been blocked for, so I just left the note anyway. There was another IP editor that I also contacted about 3RR last night, and I did convince that person to take it to the talk page. So I didn't think protection would be needed, although I think that the Alison was right in protecting the page when it was requested at RFPP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Nicola Sanders

While I appreciate you don't want to fix your bot to deal with edge cases, could you at least stop it making its known bad edit to Nicola Sanders? Cheers --Pak21 07:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The right thing to do is to take care of the image; that's why the bot goes through to make the deletion tags visible, since in many cases they aren't visible.

In this case, since Sanders is living, WP:NFCC#1 says that we should use a free image to illustrate her. So I just removed the image from the article. Alternatively, you could try to write a rationale on the image page explaining why this image cannot be replaced by a free one, but I tend to agree with whoever placed the deletion tag that this use of a nonfree image could be replaced by a free image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That'd be me then :-) Cheers --Pak21 13:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. You could just remove the image from the article yourself; the placement of the notice in the edit history is enough warning for others that the image is up for deletion. The deletion notice needs to stay on the image page, but not on article pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi. I have reinserted another image, one that I actually took myself. Thanks--Ad@m.J.W.C. 00:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that completely solves the problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Famous Funnies

Naw, I think you hit the nail on the head. That comic is such a historically significant milestone, I can't imagine anyone rational challenging what you wrote.

The "what links here" link seems to be disabled for image pages. Obviously, that function's helpful in knowing where an image appears. Any info on that? Thanks! --Tenebrae 00:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

At the very bottom of each image page there is a list of the articles that include the image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Overzealous

It might not be bad to slow down a little. The tags you're putting up, from everything I've seen so far, are all on absolutely justifiable, historically significant works that indisputably provide necessary illustration of articles about a visual medium. I have to ask what the rush is, since anyone can run around Wikipedia putting tags with deadlines on them, and it takes time for editors to catch up to them all.

Since you seem to have a handle on the historical justification of images, I'm wondering if we might not all be better served by your adding these fair-use rationales rather than simply tagging. --Tenebrae 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the concern that it takes time to handle the tags. I don't tag a lot of things, however. Today I was resolving a category of images with disputed fair use rationales, which included a comic book image. I noticed that some of the comic book articles included a lot of fair use images, which seemed more than "minimal use". I looked at the images to look at the rationales, but many of the images didn't have them. That is not unexpected, since only recently is there a push to get all the nonfree images in line with the nonfree media policy, in particular, item 10. I am no expert in comic books, so I don't know which of the uses are important enough to justify a nonfree image and which are not. So long as there is at least one convincing fair use rationale on each image, the image won't get deleted, just removed from articles, so the deadline is not as serious as the tag may claim. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As for Image:FamousFunnies1933.jpg in the article Max Gaines, the issue I see is that the article is about the person, not about the comic. The comic is not discussed critically in the article (since the comic has its own article). So the use of the image of the comic in the Max Gaines article seems to go beyond minimal, necessary use. The part of the fair use rationale that talks about how the image is small and doesn't infringe on the copyright holder is trivial - the key part is when the rationale justifies why the image significantly contributes to each article in which it is included. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair Use rationales

I've noticed that you've tagged a number of Fair Use images as having contentious fair use by citing "A separate rationale must be given for each use of the image in an article." Where in Wikipedia Policy is that actually stated? If I'm missing something, please let me know, and if you could provide a link I'd appreciate it. Drewcifer3000 05:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#10 (c): "The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use." — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Thanks very much. Although I don't agree with the policy itself, I can't argue with your enforcement of it. So, I'll bring up my concerns at the WP:NFCC talk page and fix a few images that you tagged. Thanks. Drewcifer3000 19:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

FUR addendum...

Just wondering, is there a problem with using the {{Non-free media rationale}} templates, even when purpose of use is spelled out for each article in the "Purpose" section. Or does it have to be replicated for each article, even if sections are going to be duplicated (description, source, size, etc)?

If that is the case, like the poster above, I'd like a link to the exact place where that policy is spelled out clearly and unequivocally. - J Greb 06:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is somewhat redundant to copy all of that template multiple times. The relevant policy is WP:NFCC#10 (c) "The name of each article in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate fair use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language, and is relevant to each use."

I take a relatively pragmatic approach to the rationales, and for example I think the rationales at Image:FamousFunnies n1(1934).jpg are OK. The important part is that the rationale needs to explain why the image makes a significant improvement to the article it is included on. The other stuff (small size, etc) is mostly trivial. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, when I tag an image for not having separate rationales for each use, it's because I don't think the image can be justified in all the locations that it appears in. But since no attempt at justification is given at all, the first step is to get the rationales written, and then discuss whether they are strong enough to use the image in multiple places. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem or three in that...

First there's an issue with the template coding. It demands something be entered for "Description", "Source", "Portion", "Low resolution?", and "Replaceable?". It's especially troubling with "Source" since it also adds the images to Category:Images without source if there is even 1 instance of the field being blank.

Second, some of the images you've been tagging, in an effort to avoid that limitation of the template and what amounts to unneeded, tedious repetition of information, have the individual articles listed in the "Purpose" field with the explanation of why the image is used in each article. Yes, there is only 1 FUR, but that FUR is attempting to meet the spirit of §10c, even if it doesn't meet the letter of it. This is the same situation as what you point to as an acceptable FUR with the Famous Funnies image.

Last, looking at your last paragraph, there seems to be a bias against the template, even though it is the one suggested under WP:FURG#Template. "But since no attempt at justification is given at all,..." implies, at least to me, that there is nothing there, period. But the tagging has been done to images with the template, with information presented as "Purpose" for the articles. And if if it's a case where the use of the image can't be justified in some of the articles, isn't it more appropriate to remove it from those articles citing the FUR-vio rather than bludgeon the image whit what appears to be an incorrect tag? - J Greb 16:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have raised this question at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Question_about_fair_use_rationales_on_images_used_in_multiple_articles. You may want to comment there. Rationales such as "For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article." aren't adequate for an image used so many times - our nonfree image policy requires minimal, not liberal, use of nonfree images. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair point... especially with the Jim Lee poster. And I'll take some of the heat for that one... I've got a cut-n-pate of the template on my user page with 4 short uses: Primary (Info box or equivalent); Secondary (illustrating a point in the article text); Artist; and Writer (though this one may need to go...). It looks like DrBat just copied one version and it slapping it in in all cases.

I'll post to the discussion you've started. - J Greb 21:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm not going to add to the size of the already groaningly-huge Wikipedia talk:Spoiler but I have made my opinion on this known here (Click this link to contribute while it's still live). A reasonable archiving period and general agreement that older discussions can be revived would be beneficial. Inflicting huge page sizes on a discussion page, even though the discussions are obviously not ongoing and are never revived after restoration, is unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway 04:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka

Hello

Please have a look at the article please. Cited material is being take off without any discussion against it at all. Can you please have a look and enforce some rules here? Thanks Watchdogb 13:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would rather not protect the page, and it doesn't look at a quick glance like anyone is reverting enough (yet) to be blocked for edit warring. You should take the issues to the talk page of the article. Find out why people remove the material you add, and see if you can find a compromise about it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift reply. I do not want the page to be protected. I have taken the discussion to the talk page but no one seem to answer why they are reverting cited material. Can you keep an eye please ? Thanks Watchdogb 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have the page on my watchlist. You could try contacting the individual editors who remove the material, on their own talk pages, to discuss the matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Can you give me your opinion on using Asian Security Order: Instrumental and Normative Features, which is published by Stanford University (ISBN 080474629X), in the above article? Is this book usable as a RS ? Can sentence be added from this book? Thanks in advance. Watchdogb 21:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be used in a number of universities herehereherehere

Protection of Seung-hui Cho

Why such a long protection period? Seems to go against the guidelines established in WP:PROT? Would you object to an experimental lifting of the protection to see how much vandalism the article gets now that the Virginia Tech shootings are no longer front page news?

--Richard 06:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't object. It was once common to just make all protection indefinite, so that it had to be manually lifted. I prefer to always set an expiration date, even if it is far in the future, but that doesn't mean I think the article must stay protected for that long. I'll unprotect that article and we'll see what happens. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

QuakeSim page Reply

I thought I was uploading the information to the QuakeSim page and not my user page. I am new to Wikipedia page creations and didn't know I was doing it incorrectly. Any suggestions or help tips?

QuakeSim 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)