User talk:Carcharoth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neotarf (talk | contribs) at 03:23, 25 November 2014 (→‎Your comment on PD page: more specifically). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

This is hard for me to say but...

I do not think you realise the impact of your words. As you know, I'm largely incommunicado, doing the tourist thing here in the UK right now. And yet, three separate WMF staffers (both permanent and contractor) reached out to me, pointed out your comments about reconfirmation RFAs, and were genuinely heartbroken that an arbitrator thought so little of their ability to understand the difference between their volunteer and staff actions that they should be stripped of permissions they've held for years because they've taken on employment with the WMF, and got those jobs at least in part because of their work within the community. They're still part of the community, they don't become non-Wikipedians when they become staff. It was perhaps unintentional on your part, but you've really hurt a lot of people with that. Risker (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Risker. It does help to hear that, and please never feel you can't say things like that to me, or that you find it hard to say. It was, as I said over there, just a suggestion, late at night when I'd been going through the whole workshop trying to engage with what was being said there (you know how rare it is for arbitrators to do that). I should have thought more before saying that, and if any of those staffers that reached out to you are reading this, I apologise for the impact my words had on them. FWIW, I never said anyone should be 'stripped of permissions' (that was Carrite's wording - what I said can be seen here), but I can see how the re-RFA comment could have been taken in the same vein. Anyway, I'm hoping some of the discussion at the workshop will be more productive than that exchange was. I'd encourage anyone reading this to participate there and give their views. Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you for finally putting the purpose of the Workshop back to good use with the Media viewer case. Having the drafting arbitrator actually put their working notes on the Workshop and not bulk post the "immaculate idea" in bulk on the Proposed Decision is very good for us to help craft a good final decision. Hasteur (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Resolution

Dear Carcharoth, please see this polite request, and provide a positive thoughtful response there, if you have one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for the note, Rich. The timing's not great. I'm going to be out most of today and tomorrow and away from the computer. When I get back, I have other matters to attend to that will take up most of my time. I would suggest that you provide links at what you have posted, as not all arbs will remember which case you are referring to. Carcharoth (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014

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) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

  1. Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
  2. Scotland Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
  3. Nepal Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
  4. Oh, better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly... Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
  5. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
  6. Florida 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
  7. Colorado Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
  8. Canada Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Herm Matty.007 (submissions), Ohio ThaddeusB (submissions), United States WikiRedactor (submissions), Idaho Figureskatingfan (submissions), Greece Yellow Evan (submissions), Portugal Prism (submissions) and Bartošovice v Orlických horách Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your message

Sorry, was not online for most of the weekend, and before I decamped I unwatchlisted a lot of pages and turned off notifications. I have just seen your message on Jimmy's talk page, but it is now well past my bedtime and I will not be able to address your request tonight. I will do my best to do so tomorrow evening. Risker (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, and for striking through at Jimmy's talk page. I may come back to this later, but not for some time as there is quite a bit to think about. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure

Hey, I saw this which I very much appreciate. But given that it's one of the more obscure articles on Wikipedia and one of the more obscure "claims" (which I got wrong), I just wanted to say thanks for the double-over-obscure-correction. If there was a barnstar, you'd get it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was a pleasure to be able to help out on a matter of local geography. I only became aware of the article through the notifications systems, as it notified me that you had linked to an article I had created (that hotel article) - some of those notifications I've not always followed up, though I did it again recently when someone linked to the Norman Moore disambiguation page and I was able to fix that as well. I was going to say the Boat Race never went as far as Richmond, but then I thought I'd better check out the history. It was fascinating to learn that there were two Boat Races that year! Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Swiney

I was just looking at this article when I noticed that it had been almost entirely copied from the ODNB. I've now deleted the offending material, but on looking through the article history to see who had inserted it I noticed that you had welcomed Doughan – who created the article – and claimed to know him in real life. Is it perhaps the David Doughan who wrote the ODNB article? I know it doesn't really matter, as the copyright sits with the Oxford University Press rather than with Doughan, I'm simply curious. Eric Corbett 15:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric. Thanks for spotting and cleaning up that article. I believe it is the same David Doughan who authored that ODNB article, though I would have to check with him to be certain. I do know David, though I never actually followed up the welcome message I left him, and I see this was eight years ago now. I see he has also edited as User:David Doughan. He has about 50 edits under each account and doesn't appear to edit very often. Not quite sure what follow up is needed here. I may be seeing him tomorrow or the following weekend, and will try and mention this to him if I get the chance. Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only follow up that may be needed I suppose is to remove the copyrighted material from the page history, but I'm no expert. In any event, everything that's there now has been rewritten from scratch, so there's no real problem so far as I can see. Eric Corbett 13:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gratias

Thank you for the image. Do you like its inclusion? I need the line again: Erhard Egidi died who taught me Bach. I am probably not a reliable source, silently play Epitaphium. Hear also Cantiones sacrae (Schütz) (I thought of him when I wrote it.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the day of the funeral, I got another Magnificat started, Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The German Main page shows a Strauss Lied you may know, Traum durch die Dämmerung, including my motto "Ich gehe nicht schnell, ich eile nicht" (I do not go quickly, I do not hurry) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

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) 02:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. 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 or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014

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) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Op-Ed & WWI Timeline editing

Howdy. Its always nice to see someone that enjoys reading what I write, all the more so since in this case its not written for the encyclopedia such as it were but for other members and guests to read and ponder on. I've a good many Op-Eds that I hope to write over the next several years in honor of World War I, which I hope will be equally well received by community. By a remarkable set of coincidence you've also asked the editor who changed the bugle's layout and design from this to this, which resulted in our current article news format which I felt did better justice to articles that had achieved GA, A, and FA-class by allowing the community to sample of summary of the newly promoted content. It is my hope to rebuild the WWI timeline page to better reflect that in the next month or two, the only reason I have not done so already is because I'm a little too busy at the moment and I feel that these early actions in the war, while significant, can be better covered in the Op-Ed section for emotional impact (such as it were). Once rebuilt, the timeline should be able to cover expanded summaries and audio-visual information easily.

As to the suggestion about Great War Centennial and covering more on what people are working on, that gets a little tricky, not so much out of concern for material but if you cover what people are editing in general then the concern shifts to the question of whether or not people are editing just so they will be mentioned. Its not out the realm of possibility though, so if you were to firm up you idea and create something so I could see what you have in your mind's eye we may be able to make use of it. For the record I note here that you may have better luck using the WWI Task Force stats since that task force is a broader interpretation of WWI, so it may lend the appearance of more activity, which in turn may entice more editors to work for the GWC special project. The other issue here concerns the publication itself: surprising as it may seem, I;m not part of the bugle's editorial team (meaning I'm not one the project coordinators assigned such as it were to the newsletter), therefore the issue of jurisdiction comes into play only insofar as changes would need a green light from the two that are listed in order to be added to or altered in the current bugle incarnation. If these concerns were addressed though it is entirely possible that we could move forward with that idea. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GGTF arbitration

I'm requesting that you talk with your ARB colleagues about limiting responses on the workshop. Carol's prolifigate contributions there are not surprising. That is her M.O. I for one will feel comfortable about not reading most of her bullet points, even the ones made about me. Others might not feel the same.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 06:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial tablets to the British Empire dead of the First World War

Hi Carcaroth, I guess no one has yet taken up the request to photograph the tablet in Amiens Cathedral, but I wanted to let you know that I took a better photo of the one in Nantes - the old one was a bit grainy and off-colour. Hope that helps! Adam Bishop (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam. The new picture looks much better. I do now have some pictures of the tablets in Amiens, as I visited the cathedral myself over the summer, but I haven't got round to uploading them yet <looks guilty>. I'll try and remember to ping you when they go up, or you could add the article to your watchlist. Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCup 2014: The results

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Smithsonian Institution Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Scotland Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! 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 · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peace

Thank you for your user page on Armistice Day. I wrote a new article, Da pacem Domine, part of a memorial event. - On a smaller level: I think it's time for armistice in the so-called infoboxes war. No battle that I remember since 2012, former fighters acting peacefully together: what needs to be done to formally end something that factually ended long ago? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. I'll try and reply properly when I have more time. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time but let's try to not make it a ten-years war ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ps: poster "nie wieder Krieg" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly unrelated reminder of the Eric I know (well, when he entered his second edit to my talk, I didn't know his first name yet): "OK, later. Have to warn you though that I'm not really a Wikipedian, have never been a Wikipedian, and I scare away women, children and new editors. Allegedly. But I'll try and be gentle. Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And was I gentle? Eric Corbett 08:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gentle, supportive, collaborative, entertaining, and with an oppose against the main stream that made me stay when I was ready to leave (one of three times). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flip statement

It's extremely rare for me to say anything critical to you, so I hope you will indulge me one time. This was not the best way to phrase things: the impression I have so far is that DP is asking for more understanding from others about his actions than he was prepared to give to those he took actions against. I think it would be better to say, "DP should make sure he always provides others as much understanding as he is now asking them to provide him." That's applicable whether he remains an admin or not, and I hope it's a statement he would readily agree with, rather than argue (as he is now doing). If DP was impetuous or assumed bad faith on occasion, there is no justification to do the same to him. Far better to ask all concerned to maintain high standards. Jehochman Talk 16:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Proposed decision

I note that several arbs including yourself you have voted on the proposed decision without waiting for my statement. I have now posted a partial statement Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision#Statement_by_Neotarf specifically addressing the diffs that were presented. I hope to be able to post a summary statement later today.

I am very surprised that these accusations were made against me at all, especially since I specifically offered to provide any additional diffs that might be needed during the workshop phase, but at that time no one seemed to be taking any of the accusations seriously.

I know that in the final decision, there are usually some diffs cited as rationale for the decision. Could you provide me with some indication of what diffs appear to be at issue, so I have a chance to respond to them?

I am also quite concerned that a lot of different issues are being shoe-horned into one finding, and that arbs are voting for the finding as a whole without necessarily agreeing with all the separate points. Perhaps the issues could be separated. In particular I am very distressed that I am about to be censored for raising the issue of using diagnostic names of mental disorders as insults, particular the phrase "passive aggressive". I have also seen the word "retarded" used on talk pages as a personal attack, and have seen the users who objected to such terminology being subjected to bullying and ridicule themselves. Wikipedia has had a number of individuals with mental disorders who have been able to participate successfully. Aaron Swartz comes to mind, and there was another who committed suicide within the last year, whose name I do not wish to mention here. While there may be individuals who do not agree with me, I do not believe anyone should be banned for raising this issue, or that the Arbcom should approve of specific words to be used as personal attacks. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on PD page

Re: your comment [1] about earlier oversights. The "comments that were oversighted" were related to a possible emergency situation, and proper procedures were followed. There are obvious privacy issues here. If the committee needs more information about this, it would be better to contact me by email.

The answers to questions about the retirement banner, my future intentions, and whether the committee can assume good faith are very personal and also hard to answer without giving personally identifying information. Clearly I am not a vandal. I have written several articles, and worked on the unromantic maintenance side of the project with move requests. Over the course of a year, I also wrote a weekly column, the Arbitration Report, for the Signpost. Of the three editors who posted retirement banners at the same time I did, one left completely and only returned to present evidence in one of my appeals, and another returned to editing after one of my appeals was partially successful. I was once asked about the retirement banner by a new user, and answered at length here. Again, if the committee has more specific questions, I can respond at greater length by email.

The categorization of my approach as "consistently combative" I find troubling, and not particularly helpful. Although I'm sure it was meant well, it doesn't give me a very good perspective of the committee's concerns. If this is still a concern, a more concrete example might be useful. —Neotarf (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carcharoth&oldid=635332011"