User talk:Carcharoth

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. For the fictional wolf of the same name, see Carcharoth.

Archives

---

• July 2005 and September 2005: July 2005 - September 2005
• February 2006 to January 2007: February - March 2006 - April - May 2006 - June - July 2006 - August - September 2006 - October - November 2006 - December 2006 - January 2007
• February 2007 to January 2008: February - March 2007 - April - May 2007 - June - July 2007 - August - September 2007 - October - November 2007 - December 2007 - January 2008
• February 2008 to January 2009: February - March 2008 - April - May 2008 - June - July 2008 - August - September 2008 - October - November 2008 - December 2008 - January 2009
• February 2009 to January 2010: February - March 2009 - April - May 2009 - June - July 2009 - August - September 2009 - October - November 2009 - December 2009 - January 2010
• February 2010 to January 2011: February - March 2010 - April - May 2010 - June - July 2010 - August - September 2010 - October - November 2010 - December 2010 - January 2011
• February 2011 to January 2012: February - March 2011 - April - May 2011 - June - July 2011 - August - September 2011 - October - November 2011 - December 2011 - January 2012
• February 2012 to January 2013: February - March 2012 - April - May 2012 - June - July 2012 - August - September 2012 - October - November 2012 - December 2012 - January 2013

Beautifully said

I share that wish most heartily. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (and sorry not to reply before now, been a tad busy offline). Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations and Thank you

See also: User_talk:AGK § Well,_while_we're_waiting

Hi.

First, congratulations on the successful request : )

(And I know it goes without saying, but I did vote for you.)

And I wanted to thank you for the nudge to try for it. It was definitely an experience.

Congratulations, and Thank you again : ) - jc37 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth, welcome back! --Elonka 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeay! We get to work together again!  :-) Grats! — Coren ^(talk) 21:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks all. :-) Bit busy the next few days, so apologies if I don't follow-up on all the post-election stuff as promptly as I'd like. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Adding my voice to those who are pleased to see that you were chosen for another round of insanity and abuse ArbCom. KillerChihuahua 00:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Congrats and snowballs!

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec12}} to your friends' talk pages.

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

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) 08:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Carcharoth! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol.
Best, Risker (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jack James (rocket engineer)

Hello! Your submission of Jack James (rocket engineer) 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! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Robert J. Parks

I've responded to your question at on the BLP noticeboard talkpage. Hope it helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!

Hello Carcharoth, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated congrats

I hadn't been around in a while, so I've been poking around to see what everyone's been up to while I was gone. I'm glad to see you decided to grace ArbCom again. Congrats! ceranthor 23:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Only 36 minutes of freedom left... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup

Hello, Carcharoth, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Will Streets

Well, that's interesting. To be honest, I'd never heard of him until I went on the Western Front Association's War Poets trip to the Somme in July (and there's another one this coming July covering different ground, in case you're interested). Because he is so little known, I hadn't thought of putting him anywhere except at "most common name", which is how the author of the biography, Victor Piuk, refers to him. It seems to me that the existing arrangement is quite adequate, but I can see your point as well. Deb (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That trip and the one coming up sound very tempting. I will have to see whether I can organise myself to go on something like that, thanks for the pointer! As for the name, I do think the formal name is better in this case, but I am going to hold myself to a promise to work on expanding the article before doing anything like starting any formal discussion on the page title. First step would be a 5-times expansion for DYK if that is possible. But I have plenty of other articles to work on if you have any plans to work on that, or we could work together on some of these poets - I see you created Leslie Coulson back in 2010, and stopped by Ronald Arthur Hopwood (that has been worked on heavily already). Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an interest of mine (I am secretary of the Siegfried Sassoon Fellowship), but the sum total of what I know about Will Streets has already been said. Viv Whelpton, who wrote the monograph on Coulson for Cecil Woolf, is a good friend of mine and also leads the War Poets tour. Here is more info: http://www.battle-honours.eu/group-tours/tour13-wfa-poets/ Deb (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It is very tempting! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing a discussion

Hi Carcharoth, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Ending the Gibraltar restrictions will need closing by about 14:00 UTC tomorrow (having run for the usual week). As you are uninvolved in the Gibraltar controversy, would you be willing to close and summarise the discussion? It should be a fairly simple job as there seems to be a pretty strong consensus. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I won't be around then. Earliest I would be available is 07:00 UTC on Friday 4 January 2012. If you need someone to have a look before then, best ask around to find someone else. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, no problem - I'll see if Casliber is around. If not, I'll revert to you. Prioryman (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw the thread on Casliber's talk page. He is probably right that a few more days of discussion are needed. This, incidentally, is why it can sometimes be best to sort out when and how to close a discussion at the time it is opened, though some discussions need restarting or extending and you can never tell how they will develop. Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, in hindsight, but we are where we are. How long would you suggest leaving it for - how long is "a few more days"? Prioryman (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. You could try and calculate how long the current number would last if all were reviewed and put in the queues at the currently allowed rate. Though I see there is also a discussion about changing the rate at which DYKs go up. Ideally, there would be something at the current discussion from all those that commented at the original discussion that imposed the restriction? Otherwise it could be seen as an end-run around that original discussion. Were the two discussions (the original one and this one) both publicised to the same degree? Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant the current number is but for the record there are 15 nominations at present of which 6 have been fully signed off. That would last 15 days if they were put in queues at the agreed rate of 1 per day. I seem to be the only one now producing Gibraltar DYKs, since ACP2011 seems to have quit Wikipedia (possibly driven off by the anti-Gibraltarpedia hate mob, which is shameful - she was an excellent contributor). The current discussion has been handled exactly the same way as the original one – publicised on WT:DYK and mostly involving DYK regulars. I think most of the people who commented then, including the person who proposed the original restrictions, have now commented. As it currently stands, 7 people support a full lifting of the restrictions, 2 support a partial lifting and 2 oppose any lifting. The latter, I might add, were not involved in the original discussions. Prioryman (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I exchanged some talk page messages with ACP2011 some months ago, and was hoping to work with her on some war memorial articles. It would be good if someone could follow up and find out if she has any plans to return. I need to get some sleep and do some other things this weekend, but if no-one else has commented by the end of the weekend, closing that discussion might be justified. It would certainly be silly to have it open for weeks on end. But I'm not sure how much difference it will actually make, seeing as there aren't that many of those DYKs left. You've asked me and Casliber. I'm wondering if asking one more person might help? Could you point Casliber at this thread and ask him what he thinks? It might also be a good idea to leave notes at the WT:DYK discussion pointing out who you've asked about this, just so no-one is blind-sided by this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Several people (including myself) have tried to contact her by various means but as far as I know, nobody's had any response since November. Some people from Wikipediocracy were trying to out her at the time and I fear this may have precipitated her departure. You're right that there's not many DYKs left, but the issue is more about what we do with future DYKs. I'm still working my way through the Sieges of Gibraltar and the personalities associated with them, and I have some work to do on the fortifications in conjunction with Gibmetal77. I can see no good reason to continue to restrict these since the original concerns about the now-ended Gibraltarpedia competition no longer apply. On a more personal level, the restrictions have been quite a frustrating experience. My DYKs are, as I think you know, of a pretty high quality and they normally get reviewed pretty quickly - within a few days at the most. Nobody has ever expressed any concerns about my Gibraltar-related DYKs yet I've had to wait anything up to two and a half months for them to be reviewed. I don't see how perpetuating that situation can possibly benefit anyone. At any rate, the discussion is currently at a standstill and I agree that closing it by the end of this weekend would be a good idea.

I asked you and Cas because you're both (ex-)arbitrators with experience of DYK, uninvolved in the previous discussions, and your judgement in the matter would be highly regarded by the community. I can't think of anyone else who fits that bill. Prioryman (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just following up to say that the discussion seems to have tailed off - it's run for 10 days now but nobody has commented in days. Could you please close the thread? Prioryman (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've closed it now. I'm going to drop a note at Casliber's talk page, and then I'll be offline until this evening if there are any questions arising from this. Hopefully the comments are clear enough. Carcharoth (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

They are, though I have to say that I'm both surprised and disappointed that you don't feel that a 10:3 majority constitutes a consensus. I'll consider what to do next, though in the meantime I thought I would let you know that I've proposed an amendment to the restrictions and notified that to several other pages - see WT:DYK#Proposed minor wording change to Gibraltarpedia restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Replying to this briefly: it wasn't a 10:3 majority. The views were split 7:3:3 between three options. The three people that supported a limited lifting of the restrictions, or suggested continuing the restrictions in some form, clearly cannot be counted as supporting a full lifting of the restrictions. It is possible that some form of limited lifting of the restrictions would gain a 10:3 majority, but that would have required a new proposal. Looking at how the subsequent discussion has developed so far, making clearer the overlap and differences between WikiProject Gibraltar and Gibraltarpedia might help. On the backlog, the bottleneck seems to be getting two reviewers for each nomination. You could ask for help to clear that backlog, along with clearing out some of the oldest non-Gibraltar-related nominations at the same time. Carcharoth (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I did notice things had been fractious. Let's hope everyone can pull together going forward. Carcharoth (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jack James (rocket engineer)

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert J. Parks

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

RFAR

Sorry for my excessively long case request and comments. I hadn't been involved in arbitration previously and didn't understand the difference between case requests and cases. Ryan Vesey 15:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Magnus Carlsen

Hi Carcharoth, I'd like to take you up on your kind offer to source from Wonderboy. In particular, the sentence "Becoming an International Master, Carlsen was given a year off from elementary school to participate in international chess tournaments during the fall season of 2003." is not sourced. If you could add a citation/page number for that, then I think the article would be fully referenced and ready for its GA review. I've got the book on order (and the 2012 games collection by Mikhalchishin and Stetsko), so I'll be able to develop the article more fully before a future FAC. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a games collection? :-) I'll pop by the article and add the reference. You may need to tweak it to fit whatever citation style is there. Enjoy the book when it arrives. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

French army officers

Hello, Carcharoth. You have new messages at Dumelow's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

At long last I have discovered how to search the French archives page. If you head over to this page it takes you to the database of Legion of Honour recipients, click search (recherche) and it gives you options to list recipients by:

• Surname (male recipients)
• Surname (female recipients)
• 84 records which are kept separately at the Grand Chancellery or the Museum of the Legion of Honor (the other listings are records at the National Archives of Paris or Fontainebleau)
• Town of birth
• Department of birth

With a last bullet point giving you access to the advanced search.

The records are incomplete due to lost documentation but seem fairly comprehensive, containing correspondence, pension records and so forth along with the legion records and service records.

The ones you are interested in are:

• Emile Eugène Belin (1853-1937) Already at French Wikipedia
• Maurice Pellé Already at French Wikipedia
• Edmond Buat Already at French Wikipedia

Still nothing for d'Alenson though, you'd expect all the Chiefs of Staff to hold a Legion appointment. He is proving a very difficult man to pin down! Let me know if you start drafting articles for any of these men, I be more than happy to help with them - Dumelow (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It is also possible to view the French army officer lists and pension records. These are divided by branch of service (metropolitan army or colonial) and by date of leaving service and provide basic information about the man (date of leaving service, rank and regiment). So for example I can find René Laverdure, killed in Morocco in 1914, on page 61 of the 1900-1926 colonial records. But again no sign of d'Alenson - Dumelow (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I had noticed the French Wikipedia articles - may I ask what your approach is in general when a French Wikipedia article exists? Do you request a translation, or try and build an article yourself using the same sources? I tend towards the latter, though if it is a well-developed article I have requested translation in the past. I read some of the material on d'Alenson, and it is a fascinating episode in that period of the war. I'm wondering if some of what is written is under a variant spelling of his name, but probably (given his death from consumption(?) [TB] during the war and that he is described as 'dying' already during the period in question) and the failure of the Nivelle Offensive (of which it seems d'Alenson, as Nivelle's right-hand man was a principal architect) it is maybe understandable that not much was said at the time. It seems subsequent historians haven't said too much on all this either. I wonder what Nivelle's views were? Anyway, let me know if you find anything more. I'll let you know when I get back to working on this topic. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Conant FAC

Hi Carcharoth, FYI I have finished making comments on the chemistry aspects of Conant's article, if you want to have a look. Regards, EdChem (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about this edit of mine as an approach to reducing the amount of GK references in the Conant article? EdChem (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That looks great (sorry for the delay in replying). Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's ok - I recognise that your re-election will have added plenty of extra work. Glad I could help with the chemistry of the now-FA. I'm willing to help with other FACs that need a chemist's perspective, so feel free to drop me a note if I can be of assistance again. EdChem (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Will Streets

Just to let you know that I managed to get in touch with Victor Piuk, Will Streets' biographer, via Facebook, to ask him about the name. I believe he's now intending to contribute to the article. Deb (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It can sometimes be harder to contribute to Wikipedia as someone who is published on a subject (especially if you need to reference your own writings on something, as that can get tricky), but it is always great when someone who knows about a topic like this is willing to help out. I'll try and look in on the article, but let me know if I can be of any help at any point. Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

ODNBweb

FYI I have finally got around to implementing a new version of {{ODNBweb}}. See Template:ODNBweb/doc I think it will meet your requirements. -- PBS (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That does indeed look perfect. Carcharoth (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your question

You may wish to see my comments at the bottom of WT:DYK#Number of DYKs. Prioryman (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

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) 12:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Leroy Chang

KTC (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email failure: Will resend codes

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello, I was wondering if you could review a discussion re: the exclusion of the National Women's Soccer League on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and provide your feedback? Discussion is available here. I'm seeking some impartial feedback from an administrator. There is a little bit of additional discussion on my Talk page. Thank you for your consideration. Hmlarson (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't have the time or inclination for that. Hopefully some of the others that I see you have asked will be able to help. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The King and I is at FAC

Hi, Carcharoth. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. I know that you have reviewed articles in the musical theatre area before. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will try and have a look, but can't promise that I will have time. Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Housekeeping...

It's only been over six years since you did some housekeeping at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Assessment...I left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth.2FAssessment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 January newsletter

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. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) currently leads, with 358 points. At this stage in 2012, the leader ( 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. 12george1 (submissions) was the first competitor to score this year, as he was last year, with a detailed good article review. Some other firsts:

• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score for an article, with the good article Hurricane Gordon (2000). Again, this is a repeat of last year!
• Buggie111 (submissions) was the first to score for a did you know, with Marquis Flowers.
• Spencer (submissions) was the first to score for an in the news, with 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede.
• Status (submissions) was the first to score for a featured list, with list of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) was the first to score for a featured picture, with File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg.

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:

• Ed! (submissions) was the first to score bonus points, with Portland-class cruiser, a good article.
• 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.
• 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 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Frank Newman (educator)

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)

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

Motion regarding withdrawn case requests

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

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?

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

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

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

Other contributors of note include:

• Sven Manguard (submissions), whose Portal:Massachusetts is the first featured portal this year. The featured portal process is one of the less well-known featured processes, and featured portals have traditionally had little impact on WikiCup scores.
• Sasata (submissions), whose Mycena aurantiomarginata was the first featured article this year.
• Muboshgu (submissions) and Wizardman (submissions), who both claimed points for articles in the Major League Baseball tie-breakers topic, the first topic points in the competition.
• Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), who claimed for the first full good topic with the Casting Crowns studio albums topic.

Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by 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 (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Appreciative noises

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

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

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

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)

Your comment at "Clarification and Amendment"

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)