User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter[edit]

Trophy.png

Signups are now closed; we have our final 127 contestants for this year's competition. 64 contestants will make it to the next round at the end of February, but we're already seeing strong scoring compared to previous years. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader (Irish Citizen Army Grapple X (submissions)) had 342 points, while in 2011, the leader had 228 points. We also have a large number of scorers when compared with this stage in previous years. Florida 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

Featured articles, portals and topics, as well as good topics, are yet to feature in the competition.

This year, the bonus points system has been reworked, with bonus points on offer for old articles prepared for did you know, and "multiplier" points reworked to become more linear. For details, please see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. There have been some teething problems as the bot has worked its way around the new system, but issues should mostly be ironed out- please report any problems to the WikiCup talk page. Here are some participants worthy of note with regards to the bonus points:

  • United States Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
  • Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions) has the highest overall bonus points, as well as the highest scoring article, thanks to his work on Enrico Fermi, now a good article. The biography of such a significant figure to the history of science warrants nearly five times the normal score.
  • Chicago HueSatLum (submissions) claimed bonus points for René Vautier and Nicolas de Fer, articles that did not exist on the English Wikipedia at the start of the year; a first for the WikiCup. The articles were eligible for bonus points because of fact they were both covered on a number of other Wikipedias.

Also, a quick mention of British Empire The C of E (submissions), who may well have already written the oddest article of the WikiCup this year: did you know that the Fucking mayor objected to Fucking Hell on the grounds that there was no Fucking brewery? The gauntlet has been thrown down; can anyone beat it?

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) 00:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Frank Newman (educator)[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Frank Newman (educator) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jrcla2 (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Frank Newman (educator)[edit]

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Motion regarding withdrawn case requests[edit]

Can you confirm that your vote in the above motion stands? A question was raised about whether or not it was conditional, and as the vote is close at 8 to 6 with 1 missing vote, the motion only carries if your vote is confirmed. Thanks --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to lift the Gibraltar-related DYK restrictions[edit]

Hi Carcharoth, just to let you know, I have posted a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs that the temporary restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page should be lifted in full. To meet your concerns about the previous discussion not being widely enough advertised, I've notified approximately 100 editors who participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 87#Gibraltar, again; notified the members of Gibraltarpedia and WikiProject Gibraltar; and added notifications to the centralised discussion template, WikiProject Spain and the Village Pump. Hopefully this should be sufficient. Prioryman (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you get my message?[edit]

did you please? Thanks XXzoonamiXX (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I got the e-mail, yes. Not sure why you e-mailed me. My advice would be to continue the discussions that you have been participating in. I don't have time to help further than that, I'm afraid, and haven't yet looked fully at the discussions either. Carcharoth (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
No, everytime i did it, Binksternet just ignores me or goes off topic to defend his point and it had been for two frustrating months. I asked you because i need some help since this was supposed to offer binding solutions between two users and all this guy did was keep on using sources and rewrote the information to deceive a reader and i was arguing with the guy in the reliable sources that think that Hiroshima was leafleted with 12 cities and Hiroshima was not and he deliberately rewrote it and put it on the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That clearly see as an user admin abuse and that should not be tolerated so please look further into this what I'm been saying to a guy name Binksternet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#About_the_.22Atomic_bombing_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki.22_article_leaflets. XXzoonamiXX (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 February newsletter[edit]

Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.

Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:

  1. Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), primarily for an array of warship GAs.
  2. London Miyagawa (submissions), primarily for an array of did you knows and good articles, some of which were awarded bonus points.
  3. New South Wales Casliber (submissions), due in no small part to Canis Minor, a featured article awarded a total of 340 points. A joint submission with Alaska Keilana (submissions), this is the highest scoring single article yet submitted in this year's competition.

Other contributors of note include:

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by British Empire The C of E (submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...

March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!

A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Appreciative noises[edit]

The article Active shooter was meager and needed work. I created a sandbox @ User:Buster7/Sandbox-Active shooter to work on it, un-encumbered. Re;Peer review, Can you give it a look, critique, and advise. Thanks in advance. Also, was this the way to do a large makeover of an existing article??? ```Buster Seven Talk 15:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC).

Alter ego needed[edit]

Hi Carcharoth. I've mentioned you here: [1]. Jehochman Talk 17:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Open letter to 5 randomly selected Wikipedia big shots[edit]

If you check user me, and it is very common for curious Wikipedians to do so even though it is wrong, you will see that I used to be a frequent editor several years ago. Some of my edits were from this computer.

Wikipedia is a very hostile environment. After being attacked, the natural reaction is to leave, vandalize, or read but stop editing. I have done the latter. I hope that you will consider the following ideas.

1. It should be deemed a personal attack and a reason to ban an editor if they, lacking the ability to discuss things in a civil and convincing manner, then start to accuse another person of being a sock. This type of behavior is highly effective, showing how juvenile Wikipedia is.

Wikipedia would be far more effective if editors were not allowed to continue to edit if they cannot calmly and rationally discuss issues in the talk pages. This is a far better way to improve an article than to falsely accuse someone of being a sock.

2. Everyone should disclose conflicts of interests. There are plenty. Wikipedia is quick to block someone if their name is a corporate name but allows POV pushers all the time. The most common POV pusher is in biographies of politicians. Some will always push for inclusion of favorable material and exclusion of unfavorable material. They will use excuses such as "undue weight" or "trivia" or will call the other person a sock.

It should be automatically assumed that one is a POV pusher if all their edits are one sided or if they always support a partisan viewpoint in the talk pages. Wikipedia should be neutral.

One way to do it would be for people to disclose possible conflicts on their user page and update them as they edit articles. For example, one could disclose that they are American. Later, if they write about politics, they could disclose that they are a registered party member or a government employee. If they don't want to disclose this, they can stick with botany and animal articles. In academia, people do make disclosures when they give lectures.

3. The last point is not as critical. Wikipedia should try its utmost not to be hypocritical. There have been several cases of unfavorable information about Wikipedia removed from articles and favorable information included. Examples include reporting when entities' own articles have been edited by the entity and then reported in the news. This helps Wikipedia and is included several times. Yet when Wikipedia has egg on its face, like false deaths, even if reported in a news article, is always removed from the article by other editors acting as censors.

Finally, I disclose that I have started an account because I have not edited for so long and do not have my password or even my exact name. It's been years since I edited. VDAWP (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Secret Informers[edit]

Wikipedia should not be a Gestapo type state [2]. It should not operate on the word of secret informers and in-camera trials. Who was the informer on User:George Ponderevo or was s/he invented by the Arbcom) and please supply diffs for the supposed serious crimes. Then please tell the project how each Arb voted - or are the Arbs ashamed of their actions?  Giano  13:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I see you asked this of all 14 current arbitrators, including Salvio giuliano who hasn't been active as an arbitrator for some time, wasn't active on this vote, and hasn't edited since 11 February. So you did fail completely to see the list of arbitrators who voted in support of this? <shrug> That answers your final question. As to the concern you raise about secret informers, I agree with the answer Kirill gave you. Diffs for the supposed serious crimes? One thing that was mentioned was the block logs and one account editing while the other was blocked. Have a look at that. But remember that both accounts are free to edit, and I don't think even any tags have been put up about shared IP addresses. That lack of any actual action being taken wouldn't have happened under the Gestapo, so maybe there is hope yet. Carcharoth (talk) 03:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I did see the list of who was supposed to have voted (I assume that you have not deleted from Salvio Giuliano from the mailing list?); however, I cannot believe that was the true vote - that so many Arbs would have been so gullible, totally naive and acted like sheep going over a precipice is not possible. If that vote is true and the anonymous email made no allegations of RL illegal/intimidating activity, then performance a secret checkuser was a grave misuse of trust by the whole Arbcom. The sender should have been advised to request an onsite checkuser - that is the correct procedure. As it was - you claim: As a group, having performed a secret checkuser, you then executed a secret kangaroo court and then agreed unanimity to protect yourselves. That none of you foresaw the resultant furore shows a basic lack of understanding of what is expected from arbitrators.  Giano  08:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Carcharoth, I'm not known as a softie, but I (and virtually all admins) routinely ignore block evasion when the evader isn't doing something that was intended to be stopped by the block. Blocks have a purpose. If somebody evades a block to engage in peaceful, productive editing, we look the other way. Please see my recent post[3] and answer. Jehochman Talk 11:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for your comments. They are appreciated. --DHeyward (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I wish somebody on the Arbitration Committee would answer my questions, even if they told me to go jump in a flaming lava pit. Being ignored makes me feel like there is stonewalling. Jehochman Talk 11:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

TY[edit]

regarding "courtesy": Thank you for the measured response and the AGF. I have made the distinction elsewhere, but I should have clarified one thing there too. I view "the committee" as a wholly separate entity than the "individuals" - my failure to once again make that distinction could easily be interpreted as snark against you, and for that I apologize. I had hoped to get this posted prior to your arrival this morning (morning for me anyway). I do appreciate the huge helping of AGF in the reply.

Now that one of the Arbs has neatly tied all the loose ends together on that page, I can only view this "Statement" one of two ways: 1) Either a vindictive outing (in spirit, although I'm familiar with the "not outing" as no personal info was divulged argument) for an "Oppose" vote in a RfA, or 2) A distraction in an effort to divert attention away from the cla68/badsite/outing elephant in the room that it appears nobody is willing to tackle. Perhaps it will all get lost in the noise on that page, but I won't be shocked if it doesn't prompt an even more difficult situation for the committee.

Either way, I do honestly appreciate the work that Arbs do, even if I can't fathom why you would want to. It seems like such a thankless task with few benefits to me. So thank you for that as well. — Ched :  ?  11:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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 Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom request: Argentine History[edit]

You said: "[Mediation] needs to be tried (again) before arbitration. It would helpMediation if others as well as Lecen and Cambalachero helped to assess what is going on here, to make this less adversarial than it seems to be at the moment." Today I did exactly what you suggested. This[4] and this[5] is what happened. You should have noticed by now that I was the only party who went through all stages of dispute resolution while they played with the time. The Arbitrators need to step in and do something about it. --Lecen (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Hi. I have requested peer review of Robert Hooke (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views), I wonder if this subject might interest you. I would like to start pushing the article towards FA, Hooke is, for me, one of the most interesting figures in the history of science. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will have a look if I have time. Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comment at "Clarification and Amendment"[edit]

Hi - here, you wrote: "Sandstein, please re-read that earlier advice and ask if you need any clarification on that." That advice was to "take care to communicate more effectively in future arbitration enforcement actions." Could you please explain how this advice relates to the question that is the subject of the request for clarification? I don't quite see the connection. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't relate to that clarification request. What I should have done was ask TDA to raise any issues he had with you first (such as the ones he mentioned), and then (if needed) request a clarification, and then I would have said what I said there. But I shouldn't have short-circuited that process. I normally try and avoid commenting on off-topic matters like that. Apologies for that. Carcharoth (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks, although I don't quite see what the advice has to do with The Devil's Advocate's concerns either. Would you consider amending your comment with respect to the clarification request? Currently, it reads as if you are of the opinion that I did not communicate well in the request regarding Hgilbert (the one Gatoclass asked about), and that I would therefore need to reread the advice to communicate more effectively.  Sandstein  08:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I clarified my comment there. Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

ARBCC clarification request[edit]

Indeed it is being handled, I (the initiator) suggested it be archived quite awhile ago. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ask the clerks about archiving this. Carcharoth (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter[edit]

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate London Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's New South Wales Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr (Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare (Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (Alaska Keilana (submissions) and New South Wales Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John (Indiana Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) J Milburn (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)