User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

Source formatting in article

Hello. I am trying to format the sources of my FAC nomination, but something doesn't seem to work. I understand nothing about these templates and scripts, tried several different solutions but all the references come up in red and missing. Could you give me any advice with this ? I thought it was too off-topic for the nomination page so I'm asking you here, sorry for bothering. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 14:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I will try and look tomorrow. It does sound relatively simple to fix, so you could ask around at other places, such as the template talk page for that citation template. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

After several failed attempts I managed to fix it, along with the other sources. One last thing - the 2011 Census source is in the format <ref>2011 Census, p. 11</ref>, should I format that with the {{Sfn}} template too ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 09:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Revisit FAC discussion for Brisco?

Hi Carcharoth, thanks for the initial comments and suggestions at this FAC review. I've done a bunch of work recently on the Brisco article, per comment from the FAC discussion. Would you mind taking a look to see if your issues/concerns have been addressed? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It does look much improved. I will try and drop by and say that, but as I said at the time, I'm unlikely to have time to actually support, as I want to do some content work rather than reviewing over the holiday period. Carcharoth (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy Xmas

	Merry Christmas
	From me, a happy NSW Xmas bush Xmas from us all down here in Oz (damn, should have 5x expanded that for this Xmas...is there still time I wonder....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally....

I have been placing some fossil ibis discussion into the genus article Eudocimus before I figure out what to distil to the species page. I just found this which I will read tomorrow (as it is late and I need to sleep). It is always tricky to figure out where to draw the line between species/ genus and family discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: Been looking at the number 2463 on the banner...10 points for recalling what happened in that year....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The White Council was formed (yeah, I had to look that one up)? Strangely, though, I don't associate random numbers with years in Tolkien's Midde-earth chronology. :-) About the evolution stuff, I was only really after a general idea of how old the lineage was in comparison to other birds and other ibises, or some general mention of what has been found in the fossil record. I was hoping you would find some simple summary somewhere, instead of having to do in-depth reading on the topic. Carcharoth (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Smeagol gets the One Ring! That date always stuck in my mind......Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn folklore is proving extremely elusive too.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Note to self

Since it won't get archived there, leaving a note here to remind myself of this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not offended

I personally have never considered nudity to be in any way offensive. A naked butt is a naked butt, so what? I'd not put a pic of people copulating on my user page, but I don't find it offensive either. It's just nature. People find the silliest things to get offended about. Yworo (talk) 01:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's more the appropriation of the image for political protest that is offensive, rather than the image itself. The context in which an image is used is everything. Using such images for educational purposes to illustrate an encyclopedia page is fine (not that the image is very educational or encyclopedic in the first place), but using such images for an internal protest/campaign is missing the whole point of why we (or Commons) host such images. They should be used for educational purposes, not for shock value coupled with some soundbite-y slogan. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So that was pointed out to me and I changed it. Everybody makes mistakes. It's not like I took some stand and refused to modify it. Some may choose to find the use offensive, others may not. It's clear that you so choose, but it's a choice, not a given. Yworo (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Some might think that the edit summary that you used about getting in trouble might suggest that you were aware of all this. It's not difficult to think "hmm, maybe I shouldn't do this", and then cancel or rewrite the edit you are about to make (it took a while for me to start reading edits I was making before saving them, and cancelling or rewriting them when needed). I'm not too fussed about it, but some people, on seeing what you did here, will take a long time to be convinced about what your intentions might have been, no matter what you say. And the thing about Wikipedia is that all the edits you make are there, in the history, for all to see at any time now or in the future. But you know that already, so this is probably a good time to end this conversation. Carcharoth (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Core biographies

I would appreciate any input you might have at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Core biographies#Proposed expansion of list. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocking proceedure

(Since this is getting off-topic from the arbcom case, I thought best to spill-over)

I'm a great believer in avoiding red-tape, but I do think on the subject of blocking established contributors we could do with a bit more. I think we'd all agree we need blocks to be rarer, reviewable, but also less easily undone in contentious circumstances. My own thoughts are that (other than 3RR or arbcom enforcement) the blocking admin should not set a tariff, but should simply place a "holding block" (which would be for a standard duration - doesn't really matter what that standard is - could be 6hrs, or indef). The blocking admin then posts to the appropriate noticeboard, giving reasons and a recommendation as to length. He also places a template on the user's talk page, directing admins to the noticeboard, and instructing the user that he can make a statement, which will be transferred there. If, and only if, the admin follows this process, then no admin shall undo the block other than through the noticeboard procedure. Normally, consensus on the noticeboard shall determine the ultimate result. The discussion should be closed by an uninvolved admin (or indeed perhaps a crat, arb or panel of people chosen for it). They shall normally let the discussion run its course - unless there's a snowball emerging that it is a bad block. If the block is quite clearly outrageous, the closer can make a note of that, and issue a caution to the admin - that will serve to clip wings, and a pattern of them be cause for arbcom consideration.

If we'd had the above, then the "cunt" comment would have attracted a holding block. I suspect that there would have been less outright opposition to the block, because it would not have read like a draconian and unilateral ban (which is how "indef" is currently read). Six hours later, a closer would have calmly closed the discussion - probably with an unblock for time served.

The advantage of a system like this is it would make admins think before blocking, but make blocks a real deterrent, because they would not be quickly undone(unless utterly dumb-assed). But maybe it is too much process?--Scott Mac 14:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree some way to slow things down and ensure discussion and consensus-formation, rather than chaos is needed. The sticking point is usually over who closes the discussion, especially if it is not clear, and what to do if you disagree - continue discussing, go to the closer's talk page, or what? You will also get disagreement on who merits the more bureaucratic process compared to others who only get to use the unblock template. Possibly incorporate into the unblock template a request an option for editors to request such a noticeboard discussion? I say this because I've always been uncomfortable with admins putting blocks up for review as they (sometimes unintentionally) present the issue in a way that favours them, rather than allowing the blocked editor to have an equal say in how the issue is presented. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, ultimately someone has to blow the whistle - and their decision needs to be final, unless so blatantly incompetent that arbcom needs to fire them. We already recognise that with RFA which has a set of users chosen to close what would otherwise be very contentious discussions - and for the most part people accept their call. So, you could restrict closing to crats, arbs, or a dozen level-headed people arbcom choose. As for which discussions go to the noticeboard, you could have the blocking admin choose. If he doesn't follow the procedure, then his block is subject to the usual "second mover advantage". Not a problem for a 3RR or uncontentious vandal block. But admins blocking in contentious cases, could choose to use the "reviewed block" process I've outlined. If they do, they know their block will be scrutinised - but it will also not be lightly undone. In any case, we could have ANI/Block reviews which means if it gets clogged up with a bunch of straightforward blocks being endorsed, there's no harm done.--Scott Mac 15:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the problem with this discussion is that it is utterly worthless, because we've not got the structural mechanism to make even a modest change like this (short of arbcom fiat).--Scott Mac 15:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, there is a way. You give up (nearly) everything else you do, and spend all your time on Wikipedia, persuading and encouraging the sort of culture change needed (which includes ensuring the same values are passed on to the next generation of Wikipedians). If your argument is reasonable, you stand a good chance of achieving some sort of change. But most people are sensible enough not to do that. A couple of hours a week, or in spare time, isn't really enough any more. And that is not good. I think UninvitedCompany pointed this out a long time ago now, but it's always been a problem - how to get enough traction both in the face of general apathy, and when there is opposition from those with (for whatever reason) more time to spend on Wikipedia, and the willingness to dominate discussions. This reminds me of who the top contributor to WT:RFA is, as one of the arbitrators pointed out recently. Carcharoth (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This problem has been the root problem for years. it is the reason that we've never reformed BLP, RFA, or anything else. It also drives people to frustration. Kelly Martin once described Wikipedia as a "Dramaocracy" - I don't know that this is right, but it is true that one of the only ways of getting traction is to create drama (not this usually works, it is just that nothing else seems to) and drama stirring is the last lesson we want to teach new Wikipedians. The problem it is always easier to either to talk an idea out - or to create the impression that there's no consensus. One soon gets cynical enough to believe that eternal RFCs are a waste of time. The solution of course is leadership - but Wikipedia hates leadership, and the Jimbo who once led is now quite impotent. I'm incredibly pessimistic - net cuture is fast changing, and we've got an incredibly concentrative project that thinks any change is undemocratic and a betrayal of the model that got us here. We are still acting as if Bebo and Myspace were the only competitors for the online time of people - and as Twitter and Facebook technologies have moved on, we're still using what's a fast ageing interface. My suspicion is that while size of the database makes Wikipedia irreplaceable, it will slowly cease to be anything that can move forward at all.--Scott Mac 16:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You would have thought leadership would have emerged from somewhere. There are in some ways pockets of leadership dotted around the place. And some central leadership with the WMF. But nothing really connecting things. By the way, do look up what I was referring to by 'top contributor to WT:RFA' and then consider whether any real change was ever achieved there or not. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I hardly needed to look that up. Well, I suppose if people want to waste their time in that swamp, that's their choice. Me, I decided that influencing RFA was a dead duck long ago.--Scott Mac 17:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(butting in) I was musing on the drama - I wonder if it is more overt because of the way wikipedia is - namely how everything is recorded. At workplaces and institutions where there is bitching, backstabbing and complaining it takes place in the coffee room, at the pub after work or wherever and is present but passes. Here this stuff gets set in stone and on one level is alot more obvious to all. Doesn't mean we give up on trying to make the place a more harmonious and effective one, just a bit of context I guess. I do tend to think there is more thought given before use of advanced tools such as checkuser and suppression/oversight, and we have seen a change in editing influenced by the BLP debate, but yeah it can be frustrating.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I mean, in the big scheme of things, Malleus said "cunt"....and? You either decide that it is back-office (not good, but permissible) chatter and don't waste time - or you have a robust ethic where someone gets to say "cut that out", then "no really, I mean it" and then "OK, you'll not be editing again until you e-mail me and let me know you've understood what I said". But that needs a robust policy decision, and officers to enforce it. And it needs the mechanism that if people don't like the policy they know how to propose a change - and get a definitive yes/no to that proposal. Our problem is without a leadership or proper mechanisms to settle policy, every case becomes a discussion of whoever wants to but in, with an interest to but in, because it is only through cases that policy can possible evolve (although not really). Perhaps over civility standards and enforcement the whole thing is slightly amusing (except that it is a huge time-sink), however exactly the same insane process is governing BLP policy, referencing, flagging, manuals of style, and content in a raft of contentious areas. But then, even this complaint of mine is just part of the same phenomenon, because I've been saying this for years - but there's no mechanism for actually doing something about it.--Scott Mac 21:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The precipitating incidents involving Malleus and the admins that carried out the blocks and unblocks were a bit more complex than that. It has been laid out in the evidence in the arbitration case. I hope those commenting actually look at that, because there were signs at the time that not everyone saw the attack on Spitfire and thought people were still talking about the initial "admins" comment. There are still signs (from some comments being made on talk pages) that people didn't follow the entire timeline in detail and are making comments based on an incomplete picture. Anyway, to respond to what Casliber said, I said something similar at the case and earlier here. It's nothing new, but sometimes you have to say things many times for it to sink into the general consciousness. I first realised it when I saw people making user talk pages comments as if they were talking among a group of friends and I thought to myself "do they actually realise that they are talking in public and that anyone, even the person they are talking about, can see what they are saying?" Possibly the intention all along was that the person they were talking about would see what they were saying, but in many ways that is worse. Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially begins at the start of 2012 (UTC) after which time you may begin to claim points. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Mail

{{you have mail}} Buster Seven Talk 05:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was replying but lost the connection. Will look again later. Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Victor Negus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Respiration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

T:DYK/Archduchess Sophie of Austria

I do not quite understand what the problem is with the DYK nomination listed above. Kindly explain. --Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I will explain there. Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been remiss

Hi Carcharoth, I meant to stop by and thank you for your review of the The Entombment (Bouts) when the FAC closed. Unfortunately I became very busy in real life at that time, and it slipped my mind. Yours was one of the best reviews I've had - you pushed us to clarify pieces that were missing, to dig for more sources, and ultimately another page was written. When I review, it takes a fair amount of time, so I really appreciate the time you spent on the review and as a result the article was much improved. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I kind of got that impression at the time, but it's good of you to follow up with that. I'm hoping to make it to the Wikimedia UK-organised British Library tour of the illuminated manuscripts exhibition they have on, in case articles about that kind of thing interests you. Hopefully some useful things will come out of that (I think Johnbod is going to that). Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that kind of thing does interest me and I'm envious. I missed an illuminated manuscript exhibition at the Getty last May - I was visiting LA but the exhibition was ending and I didn't have time to get there on the last day. Btw - The Entombment will be TFA tomorrow. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom leaked emails

Carch:

You said at one time (in the discussions here on wiki) wrt Arbcom leaked emails that if anyone had a problem with anything you said there, to take it up with you. I do have one.

During the "Risker and Geogre" reqforArb, you made a comment to Risker on the listserv along the lines of "let us know if we should put this to a stop". This was wrong because she was recused and was the subject of the request. If this were real life and you were investigating a fellow officer in the military or on the board of a court martial, it would be unethical to make such a comment.

Not meaning this to be any heavy thing. I (honestly, no ass kissing...just dead straight) think you are a man of ethics. So no "pattern" or any of that horseshit. And I love your reviews.

TCO (Reviews needed) 01:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd have to look at the context there (and remind myself of what exactly was said - this was well over a year ago now), but you are likely correct. There were times when things did go too far, sometimes someone spoke up against it on the list and sometimes not (sometimes the speaking up about something is in another thread and easy to miss). Glad some people are still reading through all that stuff and haven't died of boredom yet - is that specifically mentioned somewhere or have you obtained a separate copy of whatever is floating around out there? You could also point out some of the 'finest' moments as well, to counter-balance the above... Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC) PS. If anyone would prefer this or any similar discussion to be conducted by e-mail, just say so.

Major props for the square answer. And no, I do not think it went any further. No, I don't have a copy of the listserv emails. And no, I'm not reading them (skimmed it months ago and it stuck out at the time.) I actually don't like to read or research that stuff, kinda bothers me. Just had to say my piece. Peace. (I thought about email...reprimand in private, praise in public, but I didn't really feel good about that.) Nuff said. Out.TCO (Reviews needed) 02:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

FACs...

In case you were specifically referring to some of the issues we ran into on the last FAC you reviewed of mine (I did finally get something into Geoffrey's article, by the way, please check it out and let me know if that satisfies your concerns)... I think in my case, I find a leisurely style of reviewing at FAC to be very stressful. If you want to review articles of mine, I'd welcome your input at Peer Reveiw or I can make a point of dropping a note here if I'm going to be bringing something to FAC in about two weeks - that way you can do an in depth review (which are quite excellent) without it being "under the gun" so to speak at FAC. As a down payment on that - I have two articles at Peer Review right now - Baldwin of Forde and Pain fitzJohn, and likely will put another one up in the next week or so. I would more than welcome your insightful and picky comments at any or all of those, where the pressure is less. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It was not just that last FAC review, but I was referring to that in part. Thanks for spotting that and being so gracious about it. I keep forgetting that peer review is better suited to a more leisurely reviewing style. Has anyone thought of doing combined GAN, PR and FAC listings for specific topic areas (I suppose various WikiProjects do that)? Or is there a page listing all GANs PRs and FACs? I know I could open up all three pages and scan them, but it takes long enough sometimes to go through the FAC page and see what is there. Actually, while you are here, could I get your thoughts on the GA process (which I've never really participated in)? I suppose it is best to read a few reviews there to see what is required? I've sometimes thought that it might be better to cycle reviews in groups of four: DYK, GAN, PR, FAC (maybe include FLC and FP). Or do one area one evening and more on to the other one the next evening, returning to the first one around a week later. Never had the discipline to do that though. Hmm, I'm rambling now. I'll try and look at those articles by the end of this weekend, but after that will return to my resolve to write more this year. Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist does combined listings via {{WPMILHIST_Announcements}}; other projects may do the same. By the way, I'm working on a "reviewer guide" for FAC, but in the meanwhile have you seen Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches? It's linked at the top of WP:FAC as a 'review FAQ'. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think reading that is what made me more aware of FAC and the other review processes. One thing I regret right now is not having the time to read the Signpost regularly, as that is always a good way to find out more about other areas of Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ping. Not done yet, as it's heavy on the stuff I've actually been reviewing lately; the other stuff will take a bit more work. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any "combined" review listing besides the MilHist one, but PR does break the PRs down into subject listings like Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review. You could watch that page and have a better chance of keeping up. Any help you can spare for my articles at Peer Review is wonderful (and I don't want you thinking of avoiding them at FAC either, but I think we'll both be less stressed if you have plenty of time to conduct your review without the pressure of FAC.) I do think you greatly improve articles with your reviews - I'm just not sure that FAC is the best fit for your reviewing style. I know they are always looking for help at PR, they are chronically shorthanded there. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo sapphires

Thanks for being a voice of reason in this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Lister Medal

Are any on public display? I do tend to travel.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure. I should look into that more. The depressing thing about that is that I contacted the RCS (Royal College of Surgeons of England) about what the dates and titles were of the lectures with that information missing, and they didn't know. I also looked through every page of the published bulletins for the years concerned (and the years either side) but no luck. I suspect the organisation went through a mini-crisis of some sort and traditions fell into abeyance for a while. I'm hoping to have more luck with Janssen Medal (French Academy of Sciences). There is also Prix Jules Janssen (not sure what happened to the 1989 award). Quite why some of these awards don't have published lists, I'm not sure. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places. Carcharoth (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you find it out let me know. Or if there is anything in the National Archives, I am meaning to get over to College Park.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to decide whether to fix a load of dead link to the website of the French Academy of Sciences... Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. I'll leave you to it. I've done a bit of start work for the 1896 election article, but I'm taking a couple of days to clear up review commitments.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say ...

... that you have honestly earned some true admiration from me. Your views are often very thought provoking, and yet so very calm and rational. Why on Earth did you ever leave the AC? — Ched :  ?  15:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I could (and maybe should) write a whole essay on that. Briefly, it can be a bit of a timesink unless you are very well organised. It can also be draining and can make you lose perspective. And it is difficult to point to an identifiable product at the end of the process. Some arbs regain perspective by taking breaks, but I never really managed to take proper breaks or feel on top of things enough. Two years felt enough, and there is much more to Wikipedia than ArbCom (I wanted to write more articles and do some reviewing as well), and there is a whole world out there beyond Wikipedia (other interests take a lot of time, and I enjoy reading books a lot, and there is the small matter of ensuring work-life balance and spending time with family and friends). If you want more perspectives on this, ask some other former arbs as well. Some of the above applies to Wikipedia as a whole, of course. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogo reshoot

Your attention is requested here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reshoot_of_Yogo_sapphires. PumpkinSky talk 23:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Round_2_of_reshoot for new ones. These are much better if I can say so myself. Input appreciated. PumpkinSky talk 01:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination review

Hello, and a happy new year ! Could you please take a look at the Bulgaria FA nomination ? I've addressed the issues that were mentioned, but since the article most probably will not be promoted, I will need a bit more feedback to deal with before I nominate it again after some time passes. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 11:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I will try, but can't promise anything and as you say the FAC might close before then. If it does, I will post on the article talk page when I get time. Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Victor Negus

The DYK project (nominate) 08:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Incumbents

Are you including Dana and me in your use of "incumbents" and "delegates" at the recently archived WT:FAC discussion? I'd be happy to provide a history of my involvement at FAC/FAR to anyone who wishes it, but it would take me a very long time to compile...Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I was including all delegates from both FAC and FAR (and TFA), yes. What I had in mind was not a complete record (as you say, for some that would take a long time), but more a "record from the past year" type thing (not necessarily complete, but some links and a general idea). Both reviews participated in, and contributions made as an editor (not delegate) to raising/maintaining articles to/at featured status. Ideally, as well, the 'past year' record at the time of appointment to the delegate role. If there is nothing (or nothing much) from the past year, then the last example of featured article writing or reviewing, and when that was. What I'm essentially trying to get at is whether those who become delegates manage to keep writing and reviewing, or whether they mostly stop doing that due to the demands of the new role. From what I've seen, it seems to vary, and some delegates seem to be very conscious of how things change once they accept that role. The reason I suggest links to the last time a delegate did featured article work or reviewing is because I'm looking for something more concrete than just a vague "it's been ages because I've had no time for that because of the demands of the role". I would ask the same of those delegates that left the role, and whether they left because of burn-out or other reasons (I saw what Karanacs posted), but that might be difficult. I'm also aware that it's not really my place to ask these questions, and no-one is under any obligation to answer, but I think such things should be discussed at the RfC at some point, and having such a record for each delegate (rather than old-timers knowing that the delegates have that experience) would, IMO, bolster the system. Delegates would be able to point to both their record at the time of appointment, and their record since. Too much of that is 'institutional memory' at FAC and not really documented anywhere. Carcharoth (talk) 05:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Non-article Tolkien pages

Hi there! Would you please look at Category:Non-article Tolkien pages and share whether you can think of any reason not to merge the contents directly into Category:WikiProject Middle-earth which, by definition, also contains non-article Tolkien pages? I know that you did not create the category but since its contents all are in your userspace, I thought you'd be the best person to ask. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to move them (or for someone else to move them) or to take those pages out of the category system completely. It would be nice to know if there were ever any pages in there other than those ones, but I don't think that is possible. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Special:RelatedChanges could be useful (e.g. here), although I don't know if it can show changes from more than 30 days ago. I've moved the four pages into Category:WikiProject Middle-earth, leaving the decision of keeping them in or removing them from the category system to you or the WikiProject's other members. Best, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

		The Military history reviewers' award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October–December 2011, I am delighted to award you the Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Buggie111 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh. What did I do to deserve this? :-) (maybe the review of Titchwell Marsh, that would be rather ironic). Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

WWI project by WMUK

Were you aware of this [1]? PS trying to get the next Cambridge meetup for 4 February. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware. Thanks for that and the provisional meet-up date. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Latest pear and purple Yogo sapphire photos

See Talk:Yogo_sapphire#Latest_pear_and_purple_photos. Hope you think they're better, and just in time for the Great Wiki Blackout of jan 2012! PumpkinSky talk 01:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not on the editor

Hi Carcharoth, whilst you were a sitting admin during WP:ARBRB, you responded to concerns that I have on a proposed decision at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed decision. It has been my experience, as was my concern back then, that this one-sided interaction ban would be used as a weapon to sideline editors from articles. This is although I have taken your advice since then, and comment only on content, without commenting on editors -- which was obviously the intent of the interaction bans. But because of the one-sided bans, I have reduced my editing almost entirely from articles which are within my interests, and there are occasions when this interaction ban is being used against myself as a weapon. There is a current AE request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Sander_S.C3.A4de, in which I have again mentioned your comments, but I am now requesting that you comment on the current AE request and clarify your position from the Arb case, and put it in context in relation to the request at AE. Cheers, Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look. It's a bit late now, so I'll try and take another look later this weekend when I'm less tired. Might not be until Sunday though. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

DYK issue

Hi Carcharoth. Since you participated in a previous discussion regarding reuse of PD text in DYK submissions, you may be interested in contributing to a recent discussion on the same topic, here, or the proposal which follows it. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Carcharoth. You should have bothered to ask me what were my reasons to those comments. But if you have no interest, I can't force you to learn them, right? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it seems you didn't bother to learn them. Call in the firing squad. --Lecen (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ceoil's block

It's difficult to point to the correct diff containing the insults, as some of them are full of typos and some were oversighted – for unrelated reasons. However, Ceoil wrote: Oh and by the way TCO you are generally seen a light weight prick, and more or less not worth talking to. You have nilch credibality aimed at TCO and I'll try and make friends despite you, you stupid counter productive cunt. aimed at Bbb23, later changing "cunt" to "tool". I believe this constitutes more than sufficient justification for a block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish someone would take the time to understand that there's a two month history behind all of this. People can only take so much to be honest. We all know that Ceoil can't spell; yet somehow he's managed to write quite a bit of content. Do the misspellings warrant a block? He struck the naughty word, which I myself used at FAC talk recently, so maybe block me too? Truthkeeper (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Misspellings do not warrant a block: I make boatloads of them, sadly... What warrants a block is calling a fellow editor "light weight prick" and "stupid counter productive cunt" (or tool), no matter what that person did to you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I get that. But do you know why this is happening? Is it at all relevant? Do you care why I'm very upset and about to the leave this place and why Ceoil did what he did? Or is just about hitting a button? Does anyone care about what caused this to happen? I think the answer is no, and that's why people get sick of it here and walk away. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Lecen was asking the same question. One problem is that I think people build up frustration and want to start RfCs, but rarely find the time to do so. Instead, they get increasingly frustrated and lash out at each other. The problem is really to get people talking without throwing insults at each other. How do you do that? Carcharoth (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

By being honest and starting earlier. By the time it gets to this point there's so much pent up frustration it's unimaginable. How do think I feel that this all began because of a simple edit I made to a template? Since then Ceoil's been blocked twice, I've been blocked once, FAC is at an RfC and some people just don't care. I have two choices: say something and be told I'm assuming bad faith, or leave. Again, I'm being told be quiet - so again it's time to leave. But the wrong person was blocked and the wrong person is leaving. I leave it all of you to figure out how to fix the mess. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am requesting two things of you now (and as you well know, you have a history of doing same, documented in correspondence from me to ArbCom, cc'd to you):

1. Stop baiting Ceoil, who is quite obviously quite angry.
2. Stop opining on affairs when you haven't read the entire history and don't know what's going on.

As in the case already documented to ArbCom, your meddling in issues you haven't studied does more harm than good. You admit you don't know the history, so why are you taunting Ceoil, which can only result in a longer block for him? Do not post to me again on this matter: I am more than willing to discuss it with people who actually know the history, or are willing to study it which you don't and haven't, and I am not going to discuss it in an environment where Ceoil will get angrier and angrier and end up with a longer block. Stop. It. Now. I've been clearly asked to stop, even by you, and yet you come to my page and ask me to continue. Do you not see the hypocrisy ????? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to second SandyGeorgia request here (though not the way she asked), Carcharoth: Ceoil is quite visibly upset. Can I appeal to your reasonableness and ask you to please refrain from posting there, for the time being? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Carcharoth, please check your email before you go any further with this. 188.28.190.185 (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to calm down and write something reasonable about this, but it is proving difficult with some of the aspersions being cast around here, and the way some people twist matters around here to their own interpretations. I don't, for the record, normally keep e-mail open while editing Wikipedia, so the note above to check my e-mail is the best way to alert me if that is what is needed. Thank-you to whoever posted that. I have no intention of going near Ceoil or Sandy's talk pages for some time. Carcharoth (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Carch - I'll chat later today via email. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Adrian Desmond

I see him on your "reading list", and he's an interesting author in the area around my main theme of the moment, the Ethnological Society of London. Are you motivated enough to start an article? Also, Saturday? Charles Matthews (talk) 10:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing messages I forgot to reply to, and I completely missed the bit about Saturday. Obviously far too late now! :-( I only know Desmond's work through his work on that biography of Darwin he co-authored. So not really motivated to go further than that, sorry. Carcharoth (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)