User talk:Carchasm

Carchasm, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Carchasm! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thank you for your superb contributions to Sumerian subjects, such as your thoughtful rewrite of the Enheduanna article. Looking forward to more of your contributions!! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much @पाटलिपुत्र:! I'm glad you liked it! - car chasm (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Season's Greetings
	Hi Carchasm! Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and a beautiful and productive New Year! पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 13:23, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I present you with a barnstar for your great work recently in philosophy articles, for your diligence in putting to a halt rampant hagiography, and for your calm in the face of editorial ignorance. I'm impressed. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm particularly delighted to have another editor onboard who recognizes the fringe nature of scientism. This is especially important in a project where a majority of the regulars at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard themselves often take positions (mis)informed by scientism. The combination of ignorance and self-righteousness in editors who nevertheless are acting on good-faith motives can be extremely difficult to deal with, but don't let it drag you down! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 14:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! I'm also quite happy to learn I'm not alone here on the anti-scientism front even if we're a minority viewpoint here. :) - car chasm (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to thank you for having responded to my request for help on Argument from authority. I'm not quite a newbie editor, but still very much in the early learning stage, and it hadn't occurred to me that there was a significantly better version of the page from years earlier that could be reverted to. Sockpuppet investigations are also new to me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Happy to help :). And don't worry about missing the old version of the article, I missed it too until I found the old conversation on that noticeboard. I don't usually see things like that, I think that pretty much only happens when you have a long-term dedicated vandal like in this case. Really not sure what that sock's game is, linking to the same noticeboard they got nabbed for twice and making the same arguments seems like... a bad move to me. - car chasm (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Self-awareness

Hi, I noticed that you visited the article self-awareness in September and added maintenance tags with edit summaries. While this is helpful, it is ideal to make a note on the talk page with a brief explanation as that is the first place interested editors will look to try and resolve the problem. Drive-by tagging is generally discouraged because it makes it difficult to determine the initial problem. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

going to claim WP:SNOW on this one, the talk page already had plenty of explanations of the issues here... - car chasm (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Potential copyright violations: Plato's minor works

Hi carchasm. Following your deletion of copyrighted (Hackett) translation material at the Epigrams (Plato) article, it occurs to me that I should let you know that similar content exists on other minor articles which I've created/edited, specifically Plato's fourth, sixth and eleventh letters. You may also wish to delete those sections too and/or recommend the redaction process which you've proposed in the case of the Epigrams.

The way I remember it, I was investigating Plato's minor works c. 2018 (as a newer editor), and while aware of the concept of translation copyright, I figured that the involved passages were brief and uncontroversial enough (even though running to a few hundred words/a few paragraphs) that they might be construed as fair use. Clearly you disagree, and I am happy to discuss further to protect the encyclopedia. MinnesotanUser (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hi Carchasm! Forgive me for using this template, but it's the easiest and quickest way to update you on this, since it explains things better than I could:

Hi Carchasm! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.

Removing or adding navboxes, sidebars, etc. are also not minor edits, since that may be disputable sometimes. Confusing, isn't it? It's one of those wikispeak things: 'minor' = 'not liable to dispute'. Personally I only mark edits as minor when reverting obvious vandalism, though I often don't even do it in such cases either.

My impression is that it is a feature which largely goes unused, but I do know that people tend to get angry when you mark edits as minor with which they disagree. That's why it is good to know about this.

Sincerely, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very helpful; I certainly don't want to unintentionally upset anyone, so I'll refrain from using it for anything other than typos and other minor copyedits. - car chasm (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Beware copy-edits, these can be the worst when you accidentally change the meaning into something inaccurate or nonsensical . But yeah, that's my attitude too: trying not to upset other editors. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS

Please take some time to read MOS:CAPS before restoring violations of the said MOS [1]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista - go back and look at these diffs [2] [3] you didn't just change the capitalization, you changed the content in the infobox! - car chasm (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

That is the case in only the first diff. When I last edited the two articles, I did not revert back to the previous content. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Omnipaedista You changed "metaphysics" to "ontology" in the second box. I'm not sure if you're doing this programmatically or something, but if so, please stop it - if an infobox was updated with new content and no longer follows the manual of style, you should not revert the change. - car chasm (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Category

Hi, the link Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 26#Category:American social commentators for Category:American social commentators under deletion doesn't appear to work. Could you check? Brandmeister^talk 15:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Those subcategory nominations were all merged to the discussion on the parent Category:Social commentators which is on the previous day's list - you're certainly welcome to update them all if you wish. - car chasm (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Baby, bathwater

Lilly was both. There are plenty of sources which state this. Most likely several of them are already cited in the article. Skyerise (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. - car chasm (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Don't be rude

Hi. On 03:26, 10 June 2023 you threatened me with a block wantonly with ill-considered accusations of impropriety and vandalism on my talk page only because of edits I made that you did not agree with or understood. Kindly avoid doing that in the future and instead follow proper consensus processes, addressing and discussing with your fellow editors in a civil manner your possible concerns before any kind of warning you issue. Also, it seems that you haven't even read the pages you're warning about. Next time, read the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy before you misuse or inappropriately use templates in a rude manner. Thinker78 (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)