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)

	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)Reply[reply]

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

	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)Reply[reply]

		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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Hello,

I wish to add an image showing the table of all stoic virtues (23 total) from a book of which the author has given full written permission to use on the wikipedia page of Stoic virtues. I have attempted to ulpoad the photo stating the author has given permission to me, however the image got removed under the reason of "fair use is not permitted", I have tried to search more info but couldn't get to a good conclusion on how to re-upload the image without it getting taken down. I would really appreciate your help with this one.

Cheers.

Aboutzero (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

@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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Thankyou for your comments on the emigration categories. It might be worth noting that, such as Azerbaijani emigrants to Uzbekistan, do not have any articles in them that clearly fit, that has the general Azerbaijanis in Uzbekistan article, but from sometime in the late 19th-century, until 1991 those moving from Uzbekistan to Azerbaijan were not immigrants, and before the late 19th-century what is now Uzbekistan was part of either the Khanate of Khiva, Khanate of Kokand, or Emirate of Bukhara. So this category only refers to people who moved in the last 33 years, but there was significant movement from Azerbaijan to Uzbekistan for at least the previous 90 or so years, maybe a little more, so the article will cover many who were never emigrants. For the purposes of making such that entries in immigration or emigration cats refer to a time when the country existed and when people could be said to leave or enter it, it is much easier to patrol in 1 category instead of in lots of micro sub categories, so this would seem to suggest another reason this is not a good way to split up categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding lack of civility in WP:CFD. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Carchasm!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BrownHairedGirl at CFD and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, RevelationDirect (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 4, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Darker Dreams (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The proposed decision in the SmallCat dispute has been posted. You are invited to review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee,

I saw you in the revision history of an article, noticed you hadn't edited in a while, and saw the note on your userpage. So it goes. It was nice to have you around. I wish you well on your travels. jp×g🗯️ 08:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]