User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Commonwealth War Graves Commission assessment

Hi - you previously posted (3+ years ago!) on the talk page of the article Commonwealth War Graves Commission the following:

Currently re-assessing this article by the Military History Wikiproject's B-class criteria. The previous assessment is here (20 June 2008) and I compared this version with this version, with the difference shown here. In my view, the article has improved markedly (including the addition of an infobox), especially with the citations, and the use of the three books (Peaslee, Summers and Gibson) given in the references. I've also read through and see no major grammatical errors. Given this, I'm going to tick off the remaining two criterion for B-class here. The article could easily be assessed as being of a higher standard than this, and I'd be happy to do a longer review on request. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar w/ this topic or article before beginning to read it just now, but I was immediately struck by the quality of the work and expected it to have been declared a "Good Article." I understand we're some years removed from your comment above, but would you consider reassessing the article with a formal "good article review" (based on criteria explained here, for ex.) if I were to formally nominate said article for GA-status? I think it could merit GA-status as-is but wanted to get your feedback before nominating, but also ensure someone would actually review it right away, rather than allowing it to languish in pile of articles waiting for GA-review... Azx2 06:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Azx2. Thanks for this note! Unlike some notes I left years ago, I remember this one. I would love to do (or contribute to) a GA review, but I have edited the article in the past, so that may disqualify me from doing a GA Review. From memory, I added some of the architect and sculptor details. I may also not have time to do a review, as I've just returned from a rather long wikibreak (2 months). I think the link I left will ping you using the Notifications (Echo?) system. I also seemed to have missed out on lots of debate surrounding the VisualEditor, though maybe that is a good thing... What I'll be doing now and over the next few days is getting back up to speed on various matters, catching up with some old talk page posts, and working out what I need to prioritise over the coming week. Would you be able to find out whether the GA rules allow me to do a review or not? Carcharoth (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carcharoth. Thanks for the quick reply. I'm very glad you remembered this article and what you said about it! I understand your concern about the appropriateness (or lack thereof) of your reviewing an article you've contributed to, but I believe in this case there would not be an issue w/ your undertaking a GA-review if I nominate the article. GA-policy states: Reviewers may not review articles that they have edited significantly... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles) and Any uninvolved and registered user may review an article nominated at this page against the criteria. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAN). You've made seven "regular" edits to the article in question, plus two minor edits. The top-2 contributors to the article have made 49 and 37 edits, respectively...I would describe them as having "significantly" edited the article, and in no way could describe them as "uninvolved." By comparison, I would reasonably consider you to be uninvolved for purposes of GA-review. I'm going to go ahead and nominate the article, so if at any point in the future you decide the timing is right, the article will be available for review. And yes, I think it might not be such a bad thing to have missed much of the VisualEditor debate. Yikes! Azx2 06:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks

For noting the problems with the "proposed decision" re the Tea Party movement, especially with regard to lack of findings or evidence about those sanctioned. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree. Well done. Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I did see your response to my post on the PD talk page. I will follow up with you shortly. I look forward to your input, as I consider your thoughts some of the most valuable available. If you are willing to help and offer guidance, .. then I'm willing to continue trying. — Ched :  ?  02:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps a location such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/2013 RfC would be a good place? — Ched :  ?  15:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 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 the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

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) 23:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed decision

Hello Carcharoth, would you be kind enough to review my comments regarding the FOF on me at the PD talk page before you vote? I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I will make sure I look at that before voting. Carcharoth (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

C/E help

Hello Carcharoth, I looked you up on the peer review volunteer page; I need your assistance cos I'm in a bit of a pickle. I startedthis article from scratch and got too excited when it got GA status that i nominated it for FA without forgoing a peer review :s I'm a bit disadvantaged cos English is not my native language and god knows how hard I've tried to get better at writing here but apparently I'm always messing up as you can see here and as one reluctant reviewer said: "there are still areas that could be improved ... prose could be improved..." and I have no clue where to start because getting the article to where it is now was enough of a headache. If you can be kind enough to scan the article for obvious and deadly prose mistakes i'd be very greatful. I already asked for peer review but got no answer as you can see on the article's talk page. thanks -Eli+ 10:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, but I am unlikely to have time to help. I hope you will manage to find someone willing to help! There are several people around who may be willing to do copyediting. The only place I know of is WP:GOCE, though it is ages since I looked there. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks, no problem :) -Eli+ 09:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK process proposals/discussion thread

Notifying you that I have posted at WT:DYK some ideas how we can avoid problems of the kind we just had, in future. Contribute if you can, and thanks :)

Link). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 August newsletter

This year's final is upon us. Our final eight, in order of last round's score, are:

1. Hawkeye7 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer who has contributed on topics of military history and physics, including a number of high-importance topics. Good articles have made up the bulk of his points, but he has also scored a great deal of bonus points. He has the second highest score overall so far, with more than 3000 points accumulated.
2. Casliber (submissions), another WikiCup veteran who reached the finals in 2012, 2011 and 2010. He writes on a variety of topics including botany, mycology and astronomy, and has claimed the highest or joint highest number of featured articles every round so far this year. He has the third highest score overall, with just under 3000 points accumulated.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 WikiCup champion, who writes mostly on marine biology. She has also contributed to high-importance topics, seeing huge numbers of bonus points for high-importance featured and good articles. Previous rounds have seen her scoring the most bonus points, with scoring spread across did you knows, good articles and featured articles.
4. Sasata (submissions), a WikiCup veteran who finished in second place in 2012, and competed as early as 2009. He writes articles on biology, especially mycology, and has scored highly for a number of collaborations at featured article candidates.
5. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), the winner of the 2010 competition. His contributions mostly concern Naval history, and he has scored a very large number of points for good articles and good article reviews in every round. He is the highest scorer overall this year, with over 3500 points in total.
6. Ealdgyth (submissions), who is competing in the WikiCup for the second time, though this will be her first time in the final. A regular at FAC, she is mostly interested in British medieval history, and has scored very highly for some top-importance featured articles on the topic.
7. Miyagawa (submissions), a finalist in 2012 and 2011. He writes on a broad variety of topics, with many of this year's points coming from good articles about Star Trek. Good articles make up the bulk of his points, and he had the most good articles back in round 2; he was also the highest scorer for DYK in rounds 1 and 2.
8. Adam Cuerden (submissions) has previously been involved with the WikiCup, but hasn't participated for a number of years. He scores mostly from restoration work leading to featured picture credits, but has also done some article writing and reviewing.

We say goodbye to eight great participants who did not qualify for the final: Piotrus (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), Dana boomer (submissions), Status (submissions), Ed! (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions). Having made it to this stage is still an excellent achievement, and you can leave with your heads held high. We hope to see you all again next year. Signups are now open for the 2014 WikiCup, which will begin on 1 January. All Wikipedians, whatever their interest or level of experience, are warmly invited to participate in next year's competition.

This last month has seen some incredible contributions; for instance, Cwmhiraeth's Starfish and Ealdgyth's Battle of Hastings—two highly important, highly viewed pages—made it to featured article status. It would be all too easy to focus solely on these stunning achievements at the expense of those participants working in lower-scoring areas, when in fact all WikiCup participants are doing excellent work. A mention of everything done is impossible, but here are a few: Last round saw the completion of several good topics (on the 1958, 1959 and 1962 Atlantic hurricane seasons) to which 12george1 had contributed. Calvin999 saw "S&M" (song), on which he has been working for several years, through to featured article status on its tenth try. Figureskatingfan continued towards her goal of a broad featured/good topic on Maya Angelou, with two featured and four good articles. ThaddeusB contributed significantly to over 20 articles which appeared on the main page's "in the news" section. Adam Cuerden continued to restore a large number of historical images, resulting in over a dozen FP credits this round alone. The WikiCup is not just about top-importance featured articles, and the work of all of these users is worthy of commendation.

Finally, the usual notices: 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. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! 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) 05:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

RfC - Edit-warring

I've opened an RfC regarding a discussion that you were involved in.[1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote

The hymn mentioned on the decision talk is also for you, - thank you for stepping forward voting for the future --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Gerda, I am going to give you some advice here. The case is about to close. Once that has happened it is best for all the parties that have been sanctioned to step back and take a break (let others talk for a bit, things won't collapse if you step back). You then need to look long and hard at any parts of the final decision that relate to you and if you are in any way unsure about what you can or can't do, ask first. Don't assume that if there is any uncertainty that you can do something anyway, that's not how it will be interpreted. The same goes for all the parties placed under restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am ready, I learned a lot about "evidence". I learned that I will be restricted to not add an infobox to an article where I was the main contributor, so be it. I contributed to Franz Kafka which helps understanding, - visit the top of my talk for a bit more, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

As you may have seen, I asked the arb candidates about the "evidence" in the Planyavsky case, with results that let me hope. I also added an infobox, to my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your thanks! The page for anti-war plays seems lacking, and there are probably many more of these than listed. Do you know of more, or anyone who may know? Thanks again. Randy Kryn 22:36k, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Randy. Your best bet is to find a source that talks about anti-war plays. Open-ended lists like that are difficult to construct and maintain. Possibly a category would be better. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'll put some time into it. As for lists, to me I much prefer lists to putting the same data in a category. With lists you can "See also" them, which draws my eye much quicker than categories, which I very seldom even look at. Personal preference of mine, and I assume lots of others. And on a list page Wikipedia can include a very good summary of the subject as an introduction. As for the anti-war plays, maybe someone will come along who really knows the subject and the field. Until then I'll add a little more. Thanks again! Randy Kryn 21:30 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Favor

I started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes/2013 RfC draft. Could you please see to moving User:Ched/RfC - Infobox to a public place? I'm sorry I'm not able to be consistently active on the project right now, but I would appreciate your help in walking away from all things related to infoboxes. Thank you sir. — ChedZILLA 09:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to move it to. Maybe post at the talk page of the RfC draft and ask someone there to move it to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes? I do hope someone with sufficient time and knowledge of all this will step forward here, though as I said at the case pages, it is best to leave this for a bit so things can calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification of comments

You have indicated a desire for me to "clarify the points he has made on the talk page". I shall be glad to do so, but which comments, please? Also, please note that I have limited time online over the long weekend, due to offline commitments, and may not be able to respond until Tuesday. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The long weekend? I thought the August bank holiday was back in August? Anyway, I'm away most of this weekend as well, so I'll reply here to your question. What I meant by that comment of mine that you've linked to is that you need to ask the committee for clarification before you go anywhere near infoboxes. If you want to do any of the things you mentioned on the proposed decision talk page, you need to ask first. Look long and hard at the restriction and at the comments made by all arbitrators in the proposed decision. if you are in any way unsure about what you can or can't do, ask first. Don't assume that if there is any uncertainty that you can do something anyway, that's not how it will be interpreted. The same goes for all the parties placed under restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I do indeed intend to seek clarification of Arbcom's intent, as you suggest. I'd also like to point out that the Joseph Priestly infobox raised on the PD discussion page was added by me, before the case closed, as part of a number of improvements I made to that article. When I was reverted, I discussed the matter with User:RexxS in email, which he has kindly consented to me quoting here. His advice was to "Reply on the talk page - in a completely neutral tone - that 'Consensus can change' and that you feel that your contribution has been dismissed without any attempt to seek a new consensus, but you are disengaging", and that is exactly what I did. Unfortunately, RexxS has recently indicated that he intends to step away from Wikipedia, not least as a result of the recent case, and so I am looking for someone else who can offer such sage advice. Perhaps you might suggest someone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they found another way. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oh good grief. Carch - if there's a problem with me doing that, let me know. — ChedZILLA 13:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
• Let me ask you something Carcharoth - ... do you personally actually condone this sort of behavior - or this? I wonder how NYB or Risker would feel about this sort of crap. Or any adult for that matter. — ChedZILLA 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • What should have happened here was that Andy should have taken my advice above.

    "you need to ask the committee for clarification before you go anywhere near infoboxes. If you want to do any of the things you mentioned on the proposed decision talk page, you need to ask first. Look long and hard at the restriction and at the comments made by all arbitrators in the proposed decision. if you are in any way unsure about what you can or can't do, ask first. Don't assume that if there is any uncertainty, that you can do something anyway, that's not how it will be interpreted."

    Before Andy asked anyone to add an infobox to an article he created (you indicated this in your edit summary 'per request of author'), he should have said to himself: 'hang on, I'd better either check whether this is OK, or go ask ArbCom whether I can add infoboxes to articles I've created or ask people to do this for me'. Only when he had an answer one way or the other, would he then be OK to do that. Just doing something and seeing if there are any objections is not a good way forward (it is commonly called 'testing the boundaries'). So, Andy, if you are reading this, ask first at WP:ARCA if you are unclear about anything. And Ched and others, if Andy asks you to do something that involves his restriction, tell him 'no', because the person that will be most affected by this blowing up again will be him. Carcharoth (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• OK ... I will talk to you tomorrow or the next day .... because right now I am really, really REALLY pissed off. Ain't no way some little snot nosed little bullshit should be allowed to fly here. If there's something going on behind closed doors ... just tell us. I'm not real good with games sir. I just want to know the rules. — ChedZILLA 00:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Werner Voss

Hello,

Your past editing history shows you may have an interest in this ongoing A-Class review. Would you care to participate?

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Am afraid I will have to give this one a miss as not enough time. Hope the review goes well. Carcharoth (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Norman Moore

I was interested to see a couple of days ago that Sir Norman Moore, 1st Baronet is one of yours. It's a name I know very well: in fact I went through all his DNB articles not long ago, one step in the direction of getting a topical list of DNB medics to work on.

I have just created Robert Ross Rowan Moore, the father, from the DNB article by the son. An odd experience, somewhere between strange and actively unpleasant. Put in the bit about the engraved inkstand, and say nothing about your womanising father running off before you are born. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating. Not much of a family (two years). And then the son writes about you later... I did actually notice that you had come across the medical historian Moore, as when you linked it from an article, it showed up on that nifty notifications thing. I am also about to create a talk page for that article. I suspect there are bots that eventually do that, but it feels vaguely useful to do that manually at times. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The current and raw list for Moore is here. Probably he started off doing people associated with Barts; and he has a sideline in Irish history. It is 151 articles, so two-thirds of his DNB articles have been matched. It is the sort of list that could fill gaps in the list of FRSs. D'Arcy Power did many of the surgeons, there is Joseph Frank Payne who could have an article here (s:Payne, Joseph Frank (DNB12)), and others I can't remember right now. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Talking about the history of medicine and FRS, I came across someone creating one-line stubs on medical surgeons and Fellows of the Royal Society. I then noticed List of Fellows of the Royal Society by election year and the creation of the last thirteen articles linked there. Some examples of the stubs are: St Clair Thomson, Sir Kenneth Blaxter, Sir James Watt (surgeon) (and lots more). I did mention some of this to them here, but they didn't reply. I don't want to press the issue right now, as I don't have time to follow it up, but would you be able to give a second opinion? Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

My view of this kind of stub creation is that it may be "controversial", but it's not "wrong". In two cases I know about (MPs and archdeacons), the first is just OK, because MPs attract a degree of automatic notability (but don't quote me on that for the 14th century). The second is a bit more iffy, but has been to AfD in some test cases. FRSs is more like MPs, definitely. There are a few duds early on, but basically we want an article. In the era of Wikidata even more so, really.

I know that encountering a stub of this type usually prompts me to expand, so there are articles around that wouldn't otherwise. "Glass half empty" people argue the other way. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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! Kirill ^[talk] 16:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 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 the American Civil War

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) 23:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article Review of Albert Ball

Hello,

I have nominated Albert Ball as a Featured Article candidate. Because you were a major influence on the present text, I have mentioned you on the FAR nomination page as such, with a notation that you are are being invited to become a co-nominator. I would be delighted to have you on board as such.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't mind being mentioned, but I don't think what I did was co-nom level of participation, though it was long enough ago that I can't remember for sure. I will try and look in on the review if I get time. Carcharoth (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)