User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 34

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

Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35


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

WikiCup 2011 March newsletter[edit]


We are half way through round two of the WikiCup, which will end on 28 April. Of the 64 current contestants, 32 will make it through to the next round; the two highest in each pool, and the 16 next highest scorers. At the time of writing, our current overall leader is Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) with 231 points, who leads Pool H. Poland Piotrus (submissions) (Pool G) also has over 200 points, while 9 others (three of whom are in Pool D) have over 100 points. Remember that certain content (specifically, articles/portals included in at least 20 Wikipedias as of 31 December 2010 or articles which are considered "vital") is worth double points if promoted to good or featured status, or if it appears on the main page in the Did You Know column. There were some articles last round which were eligible for double points, but which were not claimed for. For more details, see Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring.

A running total of claims can be seen here. However, numerous competitors are yet to score at all- please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. The number of points that will be needed to reach round three is not clear- everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Charles Holden[edit]

Just to let you know that Charles Holden which you were kind enough to support, has been renominated. --DavidCane (talk) 01:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Better Than Today peer review.[edit]

Hello. If you have spare time, could you peer review a good article aiming for featured article status? It is about the song "Better Than Today". I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you in advance. I Help, When I Can. [12] 04:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry not to have followed this up. I'm making a pledge to try and do these peer reviews when asked, as I think these requests come from me having added my name to a list somewhere. It may be too late now, but if you still want someone to look at this, let me know, and I'll see if I have time. Carcharoth (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Still open. I Help, When I Can. [12] 05:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Marble Hill[edit]

I think it could happen; I have found a plan [[1] not much of one, but enough - I think a 3D model would be enough to make a proper article interesting - otherwise those flat dull facades all painted white - well, it could never amount to much. I'll start doing it ASAP, but it won't be quick. If you are ever in that area, perhaps you could pop in and buy a guidebook? Giacomo Returned 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I will try and get hold of any local materials that might exist. One thing I found very surprising was that I saw this building appear at the end of a program I was watching late at night on TV. I only caught the end of the program, as I was flicking through channels, but the external shot of the house (very brief) was immediately recognisable. It was an adaptation of Fanny Hill! :-) Have a look here for some of the other production credits. I rather suspect you abhor mentioning film production credits in articles about English country houses, but I thought I should mention it, as it seemed karmic that the house appeared on my TV screen so soon after mentioning it to you. Carcharoth (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC) If you are reeling in shock after I mentioned that work of, um, literature, I hope the capricci are more interesting!


Hi, we've been sprucing up the Frank Buckles article since you visited there. It's a subject of interest to me, plus I felt a need to try and earn the two (!) barnstars I got for that article. There seems to be some sentiment to take it to FAC, but I haven't really taken a position about that. On one hand, the article seems ready now. On the other hand, a documentary film (and maybe a written biography) is in the works which might provide further material. You previously suggested that it might be better to wait. But now the article has 100 very diverse footnoted sources, so I think the main points of his life are already published. In a way, not having lots of books to peruse is an advantage, because the currently-available sources make pretty clear what the main points are, instead of us having to pick and choose points from a huge book. Anyway, your further thoughts in the matter would be appreciated if you have a little time. I don't want to get involved in a FAC if patience would be the preferred course. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC) Oh, I just noticed the section above titled "Frank Buckles PR". Well, if you have anything to add based on (1) my comment above, or (2) the much-improved state of the article, that would be appreciated. Otherwise, I'll just have to go ahead and make a decision (I'd rather avoid and delay this decision!).Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to update: the Peer Review (being done by User:Wehwalt) was closed per his permission by me earlier yesterday (Friday) as he didn't "think there's anything to be gained by keeping it open". On the A-Class Review side (that is in case the FAC doesn't work out), User:HJ Mitchell (the reviewer)'s computer is "on the blink", so we are in a holding pattern. I will wait a couple days and then track down another A-Class Reviewer to review HJ's information and then re-review the article and take things from there if it appears the computer repairs will by time-consuming. Other than that, all is set for the FAC just as soon as the A-Class Review is finish, which Wehwalt thinks is a good idea. Take Care...NeutralhomerTalk • 05:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't looked, but what I would do is check the article talk page to see if any suggestions have not been acted upon yet. And also plug yourself in Google News and read the hundreds of news articles that were produced and see if anything had been missed. The first few pages will mostly repeat what you have already, but keep going and the later pages may throw up new material. Also, don't forget to look in sources that are not searchable via search engines, and hence may not be showing up on searches. Good luck with any nomination! Carcharoth (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Good advice. I noticed your archived talk page comment asking for more detail about the funeral, and so obliged. I also plugged into Google news archive, and found a good article from 2001 that I had missed. I can't find anything in non-searchable sources, though. Anyway, I guess I'm all aboard for the FAC. See ya there, I hope. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I did archive the talk page up to April 1, 2011, so if and when the FAC does happen, we don't have a backed up talk page. - NeutralhomerTalk • 02:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
That's fine with me, NH, no criticism intended. All the archived comments have been read and reacted to, even if they weren't explicitly replied to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
No worries, none taken. Just lettin' you and Carcharoth know. :) You can find the January 1-March 31 archives in archive 2. - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


I want to thank you for your review of Egyptian temple for FA status. I also want to thank you for FAC reviewing in general—I did it out of a sense of obligation while Egyptian temple was at FAC, and I hated it. Kudos to everybody who keeps the system working. A. Parrot (talk) 05:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. I didn't really do much of a review for that article, just asked about sources. There are others who do far more reviewing and work at FAC (as I'm sure you will realise) - I was only dipping my toes in briefly. What I would suggest is finding time to read some of the articles at FAC and chipping in if you think it will help. You should also post the above at WT:FAC to maybe encourage discussion of whether more people than just you find reviewing an obligation and don't like doing it very much, and whether that is just personal taste or something systematic. Carcharoth (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


I wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about your concerns, but that RL has been killer lately. I'm going to set aside time tonight to work on those images and try to get a little more on the geography and general organization of the area. ceranthor 22:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly is Calabozos in this? Is it the depression in the right center? ceranthor 14:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reorganized the article. Does it feel like the structure of the area is better described now? ceranthor 15:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I do like the way you've brought the structure into the geology section here. I haven't had a chance to review the other changes, but will try to at some point. I was hoping you would be able to tell what the pictures I pointed out at the FAC were showing! It's not easy to work out, but if you can find a clearly marked map and pictures, it would do wonders for the article. Carcharoth (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt we'll find a map for such an obscure complex. Do you think it's ready to be re-submitted? I'm looking over some of the stuff you asked for at the last FAC and it's just not available as far as I can tell. ceranthor 03:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

source pool...[edit]

I just stumbled over a page I meant to show you before when discussing comprehensiveness - for instance, another article I am developing is Xerochrysum bracteatum. Now I have harvested the sources from a Web of Science search. This article isn't big so I'd happily add primary sources, but if you cast your eyes over the list at Talk:Xerochrysum bracteatum, you'll notice a whole bunch of extremely specialised and obscure articles that I think have nothing to interest the layperson. Others are borderline and I will check. Anyway, I know this is very belated but I forgot about it for a couple of months... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Is that a plant? Sorry, they send me to sleep. No, seriously, I'm writing another biography article at the moment, and it is easy to forget how massively different the approach needed is between different topic areas. Some topic areas (even if on the surface about very different things) are very similar in terms of available sources and how to assemble and use them. Sometimes articles on similar things or topics are very different if the available sources vary. Thanks for the note. I may drop a note off to ask you to look at the article when done. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Cool, getting some GA/FA content under your belt I think you will find very enlightening. I think there is a valuble perspective to be gained. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, I have read GAs and FAs (and articles better and worse than those) for years. It is sometimes difficult to tell how much experience someone has of Wikipedia from their reading (i.e. how much they read Wikipedia, as opposed to editing it). There are some editors I feel like asking how much time they spend reading Wikipedia. :-) I've probably read Wikipedia articles on and off nearly every day for the past 7 years (I think that was when Wikipedia started to nudge its way onto my radar), as my day job involves looking up information, sometimes in books, but mostly using online resources - seeing the contrast between Wikipedia and other sources is enlightening in itself. That might shed more light on the fundamental underpinning to the approach I took recently at FAC, which was that of a reader first and foremost, not an editor. But you are right, that editing gives an important perspective as well. I tend to be too much of a perfectionist there, though, or I lose interest after making a start. Carcharoth (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

James E. Boyd (scientist)[edit]

Look what I found! diff ... an obituary and another image! —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So, do you think that's enough material to get it through FAC? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Congrats on finding the obituary and image. Don't worry too much about FAC - the important thing is to keep improving the article, FA status (if possible) should only be a bonus (you might also be better asking at WT:FAC to see if any regulars there are willing to advise you). I would also crop the image (to something similar to how it is displayed on the page it is used on where you got it from). I would take a closer look at the changes, but don't have much time at the moment. Maybe tomorrow. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just letting you know, I went ahead and put it on FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James E. Boyd (scientist)/archive2. The best way to salvation is through the fire, in my perspective. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I may try and drop by, but may not have time. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyrighted links[edit]

I was going by WP:ELNEVER: "editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Material that violates the copyrights of others... This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright". Then there's WP:YOUTUBE: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page." What do you think? - Biruitorul Talk 19:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the distinction there is between users uploading videos made by others (whose copyright they are violating - this is typically people uploading sporting and music video clips from TV recordings) and people uploading videos they made themselves (e.g. while on holiday or with their own camcorder). You have to judge the specific cases depending on the information available. What did you find when looking at the links in question? Carcharoth (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Was this guy violating copyright when he created this? Was this guy violating copyright when he created this? I don't know, but we should be sure the answer is "no" before restoring them. If you think not, then by all means, go ahead and reinsert the links. - Biruitorul Talk 00:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Vietnamese Government PD?[edit]

Hi Carcharoth. Since you appear to be an image expert, having conducted image reviews for FAC, could you weigh in at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Vietnamese Government PD? Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 April newsletter[edit]

Round 2 of the 2011 WikiCup is over, and the new round will begin on 1 May. Note that any points scored in the interim (that is, for content promoted or reviews completed on 29-30 April) can be claimed in the next round, but please do not start updating your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. Fewer than a quarter of our original contestants remain; 32 enter round 3, and, in two months' time, only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Scotland Casliber (submissions), who led Pool F, was our round champion, with 411 points, while 7 contestants scored between 200 and 300 points. At the other end of the scale, a score of 41 was high enough to reach round 3; more than five times the score required to reach round 2, and competition will no doubt become tighter now we're approaching the later rounds. Those progressing to round 3 were spread fairly evenly across the pools; 4 progressed from each of pools A, B, E and H, while 3 progressed from both pools C and F. Pools D and G were the most successful; each had 5 contestants advancing.

This round saw our first good topic points this year; congratulations to Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Assyria Nergaal (submissions) who also led pool H and pool B respectively. However, there remain content types for which no points have yet been scored; featured sounds, featured portals and featured topics. In addition to prizes for leaderboard positions, the WikiCup awards other prizes; for instance, last year, a prize was awarded to Democratic Republic of the Congo Candlewicke (submissions) (who has been eliminated) for his work on In The News. For this reason, working on more unusual content could be even more rewarding than usual!

Sorry this newsletter is going out a little earlier than expected- there is a busy weekend coming up! A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 19:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Alexander Rankine[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011[edit]

The Bugle.png
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Last year[edit]

Hi Carcharoth. Exactly a year ago, Ceranthor, you, and me brought David A. Johnston to the main page. That's without a doubt my favorite thing to have done on Wikipedia, so thanks to you both! Awickert (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a really nice note. Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 : ) Awickert (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You might be interested[edit]

User:Kingpin13/PCBLPs from a while ago though - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It was not so much for my use as for others who might need this information. Carcharoth (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Question from Xxanthippe[edit]

Carcharoth, on my talk page (25 April) you rebuke me for linking an Arbcom case to an AfD debate. You say that my action was "wrong". This is a word with many meanings ranging from "inadvisable" to "contrary to policy" or beyond. Can you clarify what you meant, and where in the spectrum of "wrongness" my offence lies? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

From what I can remember, I meant "wrong" as in "it would be better not to do that". The reasoning being what I said at the time, which is that what you said came across as "if you disagree with this action, you can go and complain about this editor at the arbcom case". It came across that you were attempting to canvass others to participate on one "side" of an ArbCom case. I hope that makes things clearer, though a link to what I said on your talk page would help (I could look it up, and I would do so, but not nearly a month later). Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Individual animals[edit]

As a user who participated in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 4#Category:Famous animals and subcats, you may be interested in a discussion related to this at Category talk:Individual animals#Recent Cfd moves. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


Thank you for the generally supportive comments. We may not agree 100% on things, but at least you are reading the case and considering the facts, which is the most important aspect.

There's one thing that I think is worth discussing, but I don't think is worth clogging up the Arbcom page. I agree that there were articles placed under PC where the thought process had nothing to do with a trial: the admin simply chose what he though was the most appropriate protection level out of the group available to him at the time. That really doesn't affect the fact that PC1 and PC2 were under trial. No matter what the intent was in the protecting admin's mind, the trial has come to an end, and consensus was to flip the protection to a standard selection for all the articles under PC. That means that someone had to evaluate the situation and do the appropriate switching. The original intent isn't the point: what matters is the event that triggered the protection. Someone still has to look over the article history and judge what the best fit is out of the protection mechanisms that remain.—Kww(talk) 01:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Kww, yes they do. And I'm sure your judgement would be as good as anyone else's - and I'm sure you took care. However, with articles that have had BLP problems, it isn't always straightforward to see what's been going on - that's why (as we're now doing) inviting the person who set the flag to get involved is advisable - so is having a couple of people look at it. You were no doubt careful, but you know yourself that you may have (and did) make mistakes (including missing an OTRS reference in one of the flag settings). BLPs (and particularly ones where the subject may have been libelled in the past) deserve an extraordinary level of care - we need to have every possible safeguard in place. Getting PR off all articles may have consensus, and may be an admirable thing to do, the delay in which might cause all sorts of problems and be detrimental for all sorts of reasons - and my arguing about it prior to this may well have deserved short-shrift for being unhelpful - but even still BLPs deserve the best. As I've said before, you were acting in obvious good faith - and given the difficulties over ending the PC trial (I hadn't looked at the RFC at the time - I have now) - I can fully understand why you were so insistent in doing what you were doing, and why my clumsy and sometimes bad-tempered efforts looked (and to a degree were) so obstructive, however I do believe the more nuanced approach we are taking to the BLP that were flagged for reasons of violations, is the right one.--Scott Mac 01:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
For the record, it seems clear to me that you were both acting in good faith. I'm slightly annoyed at myself if anything for not commenting earlier before this escalated, as I was actually posting to (or reading) Scott's user talk page at the time this blew up, and I decided to look back later, rather than saying anything at the time. Anyway, if there is ever a new trial of PC, it possibly needs to be made clear (with an edit-type notice) to the admins who may use the tool that it is a trial only and may be removed (or even switched off by developers) with no notice or warning. That seems to have been part of the problem here. Scott, can I ask what you would have done if the developers had switched off PC with the flick of a switch and automated some shifting of the articles to another protection or the previous state of protection? And did you really refuse to read the RfC closure (I must admit I have not followed the RfC that closely myself, but I did read the closing comments)? Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC) More tomorrow, if needed, I'm heading off now.
I was never a supporter of the trial of FRPC (or whatever the alphabet soup was) as I've always regarded the mass use of flagging to be useless wrt BLPs (see what I wrote back then). So, having been involved in long and circular discussions on such things as useless, I took no part in the discussion of it, or of the resulting polls and RFCs. My cynicism is that meta-solutions are doomed to the normal community inertia. I was just in the trenches doing BLP stuff. I used flagging on about 8 articles (I used other tools for more) - pragmatically because it was "the best tool to hand" for some articles and because I could monitor them myself. Had someone said "hey we're switching this off" - I'd have gone back to the articles and selected another tool (multiple watchlists is the best). But the flagging was removed not with "this is being stitched off" but "the trial is over, you can't use this - no exceptions". My objection (and yes, I was probably being somewhat awkward) is that we don't do rules that brook no exceptions. Particularly with BLP, we ask "what improves this best". So I asked for an explanation as to how removing it improved the BLP situation on the particular article - with two articles (Dustin Diamond and another) where there were long-term problems and some from sleeper socks. Had I realised (and its my own fault for not keeping up with things) that the tool was to be switched off, I would have naturally looked for another. I've done that now, and removed the flagging. I think most of this has blown up because Kww and I have been on two opposite crusades. Mine focussed on BLP, his on the flagged revisions trial and its prolonged mess. If my engagement had been a little more rounded then perhaps the mess would not have happened. Had we had a proper conversation, rather than a shouting match will admin tools in our hands, we'd probably have realised that the distance between us was actually slight. I'm sorry for not having handled this better. I think there's logic and policy behind all I did - but rounded hindsight shows up better options.--Scott Mac 02:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
PS, just another thought, since when did anything important ever happen "by flick of a switch" around here? It really never occurred to me that the devs might switch it off.--Scott Mac 03:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Carcharoth's talk page is the right place to have this discussion, but you will have to point at any place where I shouted in any form. I've been stern. I've been unyielding. I've disagreed with your basic premise from the start, and still do. I've done all of that, but I've tried to remain polite. The day you got excited, Wizardman and I were interleaving reprotections in the log. Dabomb87, JaGa, and NuclearWarfare had been working on it for days. Each and every one of us was doing exactly the same thing: placing some articles at semi-protection, and unprotecting others, based on the circumstances at hand. No pre-review committees, no extended discussion, just doing what admins do. I've done my best not to crusade against PC itself, simply the hypocrisy involved in starting a two-month trial and then refusing to stop it when the two months are over. Even then, I keep it from consuming me. Maybe a dozen edits to the RFC discussion in the months it was open.
By the way, I told you multiple times that PC was being removed from all articles, so "I didn't realize the tool was being switched off" doesn't count for much. Did you not believe me? Did you think, despite the evidence that a two-second examination of the log would have provided, that I was lying and was on a one-man campaign to undo it?—Kww(talk) 11:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I've failed to make the distinction clear. You certainly did tell me it was being removed from all articles and that the trial was over. No arguments there. I was responding to the question Carcharoth was asking about the developers. I wasn't aware the intention was to flip a switch and disable the feature. That's all I was saying. As for the crusade, I'm not accusing you of crusading against PC (interestingly I'm unaware of your views on it, and I suspect they are not relevant here). What I meant was that you were, ofr understandable reasons, determined and focused on ending the trial. (I don't think you'd argue with that.) For the record, I see that the RFC did support the removal of PC from articles, and I'm not arguing that your removals were not justified by that decision. My argument was 1) with a "this is a rule that brooks no exceptions" - which I don't think is supported by policy (granted, physically switching it off, can't brook exceptions - but I didn't understand that was the goal) and 2) mass removals from BLPs, with only one admin reviewing, was dangerous and would (and did) lead to mistakes. I wanted us to look at 2 and see if there wasn't a better way - but the mass-removals went on regardless. I fully concede that you were removing PC with as much care as you could - but I didn't think that was good enough for BLPs, some of which had had PC set for reasons of actual liable and complaints to Jimbo and OTRS. I guess my complaint was really with a bad "consensus" (on the means of removing PC) rather than with your carrying it out. (If there's somewhere you'd rather have this conversation, I'm happy to go there - but the RFArb doesn't allow threaded replies).--Scott Mac 12:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hang on. When I asked above: "can I ask what you would have done if the developers had switched off PC with the flick of a switch" - that was a hypothetical question. As far as I know, that was not ever the intention (you'd have to read the RfC and stuff to find out what the options were in reality). I was merely contrasting that hypothetical situation with the actual approach taken (of admins working through the articles to remove them from PC), and the more cautious approach you advocated of discussing BLPs first. As for this conversation, by all means have it here, or on one of your talk pages, but remember that the arbitrators may not see this, so if there is anything more they need to know, it is best said back there. Carcharoth (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Talking past each other again. I was informed yesterday, by an authoritative source, that the intention is for the devs to flip the switch, which left my pragmatism that blanket bans against using the tool (per IAR) rather pointless. As for the arbs seeing this it really doesn't matter. I've been in the BLP trenches with mounting frustration at the community's inertia for too many years - it's not good for me, it makes me sad, bad tempered, and grumpy. That my grumpiness may induce arbcom to wade through the trivia of blocks, is something I don't need, and frankly neither should they. But, yes, perhaps that's my own fault. Nevertheless, when the case open, I will quit the field, graciously, but permanently.--Scott Mac 22:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I have my doubts about the devs turning off the feature. Every indication has been that they will leave it on so we can run tests in userspace.
I am sad to see you say that "when the case open, I will quit the field, graciously, but permanently" You can still prevented the arbcom case that you initiated from being opened by simply admitting you were wrong and agreeing to never again use admin powers in a dispute you are involved in. You do valuable work in the area of BLPs. Real people - many of them quite famous - will be harmed if you "quit the field." Is it fair to them that they be hurt simply because you are too proud to admit that you were wrong and agree to Follow Wikipedia:Administrators ("Involved admins" and "Misuse of administrative tools" sections? Guy Macon (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Question withdrawn. Scott has made it clear what his answer is, and for me to press him further would be bordering on harassment, so as far as I am concerned this part of the discussion is closed. Guy Macon (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


There's nothing personal in it, I'm just sick of the whole thing, the article, Gunpowder Plot stuff, PBS's RFC, the lot. Apologies if that frustration comes across as an attack, it isn't meant that way. Parrot of Doom 16:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the note. Carcharoth (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Word limit and BLP and flagged revisions[edit]

Hi Carcharoth. This comment is made in my capacity as an arbitration clerk. I have removed your responses to other participants from the BLP and flagged revisions case request, because your statement was well in excess of the 500 word limit. As a reminder, the word limit is established in the introduction to WP:A/R/C thus: "All editors wishing to make statements should keep their statements and any responses to other statements to 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where possible.") I will leave it to you to re-add the material that you want to keep, but please ensure that your statement does not again exceed the length restriction. Thank you. AGK [] 21:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. More on your talk page. I saw the WT:RFAR thread about prolix former arbs. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Air-tractor sledge[edit]

Just a note to say I replied to you at the Air-tractor sledge FAC (I don't suppose I could get a declaration out of you; the FAC's a little bogged down at the moment?) I don't have any plans to work on Byrd's article at the moment (I'd be more likely to tackle Wilkins') but this whole area is under-covered on Wikipedia. It's just crying out for a History of Antarctic aviation article! Apterygial talk 01:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I will try and comment at some point. Thanks for the reply. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the old cyclones[edit]

There isn't really a standard, unfortunately. Once you go back a certain point (which varies by decade), there is no real consistency. In the western Pacific, there isn't even any data on most storms in the 1920s, so a storm in that decade would be better as a standalone article. In the Atlantic post-1868 or East Pacific post-1967, chances are the storm already has a section. If there isn't much info to be added, it should just be in the section summary. Conversely, if it's in any other basin, it comes down to how the season article is and how notable the storm is. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, older storms are hard for that region. I find our broader coverage is greatly lacking, such as the deadliest page, or List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes. It'd be so much more helpful getting one of those pages in line, as opposed to a storm article no one has ever heard of. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Aww, you can't plan for articles. You just gotta jump in headfirst. It's like working out. You can't think about doing it and then start; you gotta do it when you're most PUMPED! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bonfire Night[edit]

Hello, Carcharoth, I wonder if you would mind reading through the Talk:Bonfire Night page, if you haven't already? You strike me as a sensible contributor, and it isn't clear to me why you appear to support the Bonfire Night page being converted from its function of a disambiguation page into being the de facto "contemporary events" section of Guy Fawkes Night. If you do support that, do you feel it should also serve (as it does now) as a disambiguation page? Please see also this section of the FA review talk page, although it is in much the same vein. In my view, this is all very odd. Moonraker (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I am following the discussion on that talk page. I will try and comment if I get the chance, but it has been a while since I dealt with disambiguation pages and discussions related to them. FWIW, I hadn't realised it used to be a disambiguation page. My view in the long run is that it doesn't matter too much where certain material ends up, as long as readers can get from each article to where they need to go to find what they are looking for. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 May newsletter[edit]


We're half way through round 3 of the 2011 WikiCup. There are currently 32 remaining in the competition, but only 16 will progress to our penultimate round. Scotland Casliber (submissions), of pool D, is our overall leader with nearly 200 points, while pools A, B and C are led by Texas Racepacket (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Saskatchewan Canada Hky (submissions) respectively. The score required to reach the next round is 35, though this will no doubt go up significantly as the round progresses. We have a good number of high scorers, but also a considerable number who are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. Also, an important note concerning nominations at featured article candidates: if you are nominating content for which you intend to claim WikiCup points, please make this clear in the nomination statement so that the FAC director and his delegates are aware of the fact.

A running total of claims can be seen here. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)