User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

WikiCup 2013 September newsletter

In 30 days, we will know the identity of our 2013 WikiCup champion. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) currently leads; if that lead is held, she will become the first person to have won the WikiCup twice. Sasata (submissions), Hawkeye7 (submissions)—who has never participated in the competition before—and Casliber (submissions) follow. The majority of points in this round have come from a mix of good articles and bonus points. This final round is seeing contributions to a number of highly important topics; recent submissions include Phoenix (constellation) (FA by Casliber), Ernest Lawrence (GA by Hawkeye7), Pinniped, and red fox (both GAs by Sasata).

The did you know (DYK) eligibility criteria have recently changed, meaning that newly passed good articles are accepted as "new" for did you know purposes. However, in the interests of not changing the WikiCup rules mid-competition, please note that only articles eligible for DYK under the old system (that is, newly created articles or 5x expansions) will be eligible for points in this year's WikiCup. We do, however, have time to discuss how this new system will work for next year's competition; a discussion will be opened in due course. On that note, thoughts are welcome on changes you'd like to see for next year. What worked? What didn't work? What would you like to see more of? What would you like to see less of? All Wikipedians, new or old, are also warmly invited to sign up for the 2014 WikiCup.

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) 22:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Grammatical error

Hi Carcharoth. In this edit you introduced what would be widely viewed as a grammatical error into a proposed principle. Your edit summary indicates that you were changing the verb to the "singular" form. However, the verb was already in the singular; what you've actually done is change it from the subjunctive mood to the indicative mood. It was correct the way Kirill originally wrote it and there was no need to change it. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

On re-reading this, I see you are right ('requires' is singular as opposed to "We require that"?) and I'll change it back (would putting an 's' on the end of 'material' make any difference - it was that being singular that threw me). Thanks for pointing that out. Carcharoth (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Note left in page history

For the record: FYI from User:My very best wishes . Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Just in case, if you are going to review old FG-2 case (as John Carter said here), you should be probably aware of this. Please keep in mind that I made few to none edits on Chinese subjects, and none about these religious issues. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S. that was my Evidence statement, and that was my Workshop statement - for your reference. Please tell if you consider any of them problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Just not be lost somewhere... I think JC believes that everyone who criticizes him holds some kind of an personal acrimony against him (based on his statements). Not so. Yes, I have an unfavorable view of him as an administrator, just as you may have an unfavorable view of participants of a case, however there was no any personal acrimony from his or my side, as should be clear from our recent conversations prior to the case [1][2],[3]. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men#Cabinet Cyclopedia

Things can move slowly, but five years on, I have hacked together List of works in Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopædia. Work in progress still, but there are numerous overlapping sources for the list and I'm now winning. So the application of summary style really should now proceed. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Though reading what I wrote on that talk page five years ago less so. Maybe that is is a sign of progress? :-) I was going to point out that William Desborough Cooley is in the DNB, but I see you have that all in hand. Good luck with finding the first publication dates. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a bigger picture, and I have left a note at User talk:Wadewitz#Talk:Lives of the Most Eminent Literary and Scientific Men#Cabinet Cyclopedia. The Cabinet Cyclopædia parts were basically monthly, meaning the publication dates can often be "inferred", not that I would want to do that in public here. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

peer review

Hi Carch. Please review and fix "Fluorine". Kick us in the butt on content, etc. Like your reviews. 71.127.137.171 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible recommendation for an FA peer review.

Hello User:Carcharoth; Recently you were mentioned as someone who is occasionally able to help with FA nomination reviews. Possibly to do a peer review for theology/religion articles. I am thinking of recommending a page upgrade for a GA article to FA article status which may involve the reading of one key book if this might be possible for you. The book is the theological best-seller "Evil and the God of Love." Any possible interest? AutoJellinek (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Restriction

Re (Clarification): "The restrictions on adding or removing infoboxes are not because the articles should or shouldn't have infoboxes, but because the editors given those restrictions have demonstrated poor judgement over the amount of discussion needed (both too little and too much) and how to carry out those discussions." - Thank you for clarifying that, - so far I took my restriction as punishment I had to take for defending Andy, insofar deserved and unquestioned. Did you know that Smerus and I arrived at a compromise while the case was still open, see Symphony No. 1 (Sibelius). Brianboulton and I arrived at a compromise afterwards, see L'Arianna. Can we get past these smallish discussions about whether making a redirect an article is creation but expanding a one-line stub isn't? - I will have to understand why the readers get restricted (by no infobox) only because I show poor judgement. For articles where I am responsible for the content (having created 80% or more, by DYK standard) there is no contention, no discussion. I hope this was short enough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you see or not that I am able to discuss matters with users you may think are on the "other side" of a war that I would hope is over and best forgotten? Look for Brianboulton, Smeat75, Tim riley, Smerus, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To add to the larger picture: I also enjoyed good conversations with Bencherlite, Cassianto and Voceditenore (who helped with the infobox for Quattro pezzi sacri), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. I only "helped" with the infobox you added in violation of your restriction to make it less misleading. I think it is highly inappropriate for that particular article as it was designed for a unified composition. The only reason I didn't remove it outright was the inevitable "discussion" that would have followed, and I'm thoroughly sick of them. Voceditenore (talk) 12:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: I thanked you, Voceditenore, for your help, and I thank you even more hearing that you had reservations that I didn't feel. - "inappropriate": the template was designed for any kind of musical composition, even a not unified one. - "in violation" - we are in the process of clarifying if I created an article if I created 80% of its content, I thought so and am not the only one, I certainly didn't mean a violation. - Discussions with me can be short. If a user tells me he doesn't like an infobox, the discussion is over. I nominated three composers for TFA without even proposing an infobox on the talk (Bizet, Alkan, Britten). What makes me sick are arguments such as "The infobox is redundant" (yes, of course) or "The infobox doesn't add to the article" (it does, just not for the one who says so), but I think I improved in ignoring them ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hi Carcharoth, A barnstar for your very thorough and astute proposals at Ebionites3. Well done! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, too. I have several differences of opinion about a few points but the assessment is undeniably fair and it's clear you read through a lot of evidence to reach this point (most of which I'm sure was unpleasant and pretty esoteric). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 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 Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

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) 22:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

reply

I understand what you are saying, and I even agree with much of it. Still, I think there is much in what I've said. It is late in my time zone - but I will follow up on this if you want to talk about it. I have a TON of respect for you, and I really do appreciate that you are willing to talk to me. — ChedZILLA 01:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ched. As an aside, you don't need to say you have respect for me. That's not really important in the long run. In some ways it is more important to be able to calm down and talk to those you don't have respect for. Not to dissemble, but to be able to converse without things flaring up. I get the feeling that people sometimes group together too much into circles of 'respect' and glare angrily at everyone else around them. It is unnecessarily confrontational and aids and abets an 'us and them' attitude. It would be better if everyone was less overtly friendly (bizarre as that may sound) and treated everyone (even the annoying people) with the basic level of courtesy needed to just get on with what needs doing and (where necessary) to work together with others. That would be better than angry moments that leads to long 'water cooler' threads (to use the phrase Montanabw used on your talk page). Those threads do help to some extent, but sometimes reinforce the divides and 'groupings' of like-minded editors that will spring up again next time something like this happens. Another way of putting that, I suppose, is that you need to be 'potential friends' with (nearly) every editor out there, so time spent building up excessive friendship and respect for some, and very low opinions of others, works against that need to be an 'everyman' sort of editor. An even shorter way of putting that: if you wear your heart on your sleeve on Wikipedia, it gets bruised very quickly. The whole environment requires a large degree of pragmatism and the ability to move on from past events and to take up new challenges and be aware of one's own weaknesses. Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree we all have to start talking and find common ground - seriously, we all need to pull together on this one. talking is good, see? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with having friends...unless it means that one turns a blind eye to their misbehavior or a group of Editors descend on a particular article or topic area and drive out those who aren't part of their like-minded group. Luckily though, I truly believe that this is a small group of people and edits. Speaking as a formerly casual Editor, the vast majority of Editors are loners who, at most, ally with a WikiProject. But, the thing is, you don't run into these folks on Noticeboards (and, likely, they don't know that noticeboards exist). I don't have the stats to back me up, I just have begun to notice that it is really a small group of regulars who keep reappearing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Locus of the dispute on Ebionites 3

Carcharoth, the problem with not including Gospel of the Hebrews is that the dispute currently resides there. It is temporarily dormant pending the outcome of arbitration, but the dispute will resume there if a remedy is not enacted that includes this article within the scope. Ignocrates (talk) 21:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you put this on the PD talk page, please. I will reply there once I've finished the other changes and additions I'm currently making. Carcharoth (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Ignocrates (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 October newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our champion, for the second year running, is Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Our final nine were as follows:

1. Cwmhiraeth (submissions)
2. Hawkeye7 (submissions)
3. Sasata (submissions)
4. Sturmvogel_66 (submissions)
5. Casliber (submissions)
6. Adam Cuerden (submissions)
7. Miyagawa (submissions)
8. Piotrus (submissions)
9. Ealdgyth (submissions)

All those who reached the final win prizes, and prizes will also be going to the following participants:

• Casliber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for four featured articles in round 4, worth 400 points.
• Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 20 good articles in round 3, worth 600 points.
• Another Believer (submissions) wins the FL prize, for four featured lists in round 2, worth 180 points.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the FP prize, for 23 featured pictures in round 5, worth 805 point.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize, for 2 featured portals in round 3, worth 70 points.
• Hawkeye7 (submissions) wins the topic prize, for a 23-article featured topic in round 5, worth 230 points.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 79 did you know articles in round 5, worth 570 points.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 23 in the news articles in round 4, worth 270 points.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 24 good article reviews in round 1, worth 96 points.
• The judges are awarding the Oddball Barnstar to The C of E (submissions), for some curious contributions in earlier rounds.
• Finally, the judges are awarding Cwmhiraeth (submissions) the Geography Barnstar for her work on sea, now a featured article. This top-importance article was the highest-scoring this year; when it was promoted to FA status, Cwmhiraeth could claim 720 points.

Prizes will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

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 achieved this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition. While it has been an excellent year, errors have opened up the judges' eyes to the need for a third judge, and it is with pleasure that we announce that experienced WikiCup participant Miyagawa will be acting as a judge from now on. We hope you will all join us in welcoming him to the team.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. Brainstorming and discussion remains open for how next year's competition will work, and straw polls will be opened by the judges soon. Those interested in friendly competition may also like to keep an eye on the stub contest, being organised by Casliber. 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 • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ebionite 3

Sorry about that. I've never been this involved in an ArbCom case, so I'm not familiar with all of the proper steps. Nor with how to contribute signal instead of noise. -- llywrch (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup award

In recognition of your participation in the 2013 Wikipedia:WikiCup, in which you reached round 2. J Milburn (talk · contribs) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) 13:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible redaction

Please feel free to redact the comment here and change the link on my user talk page as required. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I would not be comfortable redacting that, but thanks for letting me know and thanks for redacting the material on that page in your userspace. Carcharoth (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I say. Good show.

	Military Veterans Legacy Award
	Surely, Albert Ball's legacy would not shine so bright without your invaluable help. Georgejdorner (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Albert Ball to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA you may have helped to write) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,336 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 11:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Werner Voss Peer Review

Hello,

As you have previously shown interest in biographies of World War I flying aces, you are invited to critique the above.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thank you for how you ran the Ebionites 3 case, it was the best organised and the easiest to clerk I've had so far. Hope drafting one by yourself didn't turn you off, and you'll keep drafting! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your fairness and equanimity, Carcharoth. There was a lot of information to sort through but also a level of calmness about the proceedings that I don't see present in other cases. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Same goes for me - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for responding to my email. I believe I am about to be wrongfully banned. I very much appreciate your taking the time to review my edit history and advising me. Thanks again. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm logging off for the night and won't be able to look at this for around 24 hours. Please leave a link to where this is being discussed, as I can't tell from looking at your edit history. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

In addition to my edit history, please see my talk page, in particular Recusing myself from Wikipedia because of allegations of disruptive editing. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I've looked and that appears to be mostly concerning matters from earlier in the year. I can see it is related to the Ebionites 3 arbitration case that recently concluded, but I don't see what you are asking for here. What I do see is you stating things like "My protection is very much up to those bureaucrats who patrol Wikipedia". That is not how Wikipedia works. Bureaucrats have a very specific function that is not what you seem to think it is, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. You (and others working in the same topic area) need to be able to explain the basis for your edits if challenged. If you can't work out your differences with others, then engage in dispute resolution. If you want someone to review your edit history and advise you, that will have to be someone else. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. Carcharoth (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Thing seemed to have calmed down. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 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: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

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) 05:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Werner Voss Peer Review.

Hello,

I am soliciting feedback for the above article. Of especial interest to me would be feedback on Werner Voss#Last stand. If you should review that section alone, I would be grateful. If you review the entire article, I would be even more grateful.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi George. Thanks for the note about this and apologies for not responding to the earlier notes. I will try and find time to look at this. Need to get some other things finished first, though. Carcharoth (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Looking back at User:Ealdgyth/2012 Arb Election votes, I see that my concerns about your editing and engagement were not borne out by the actual efforts you have put forth this year. Thank you for your service, both on and off ArbCom. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe you could start a tradition of scrutinising the performances of arbs halfway through their terms? If I did that, I might be less complimentary about myself than you have been. Though running the rule over the candidates for the current election is difficult enough as it is. You and some of the other guide writers should be thanked for the efforts you put in, though I sometimes think there must be a better way of doing this than the current system. Carcharoth (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking back over my past guides, I notice they are growing in size. It's also a big task to look up the stats and just weigh everything. I cannot imagine trying to do it for sitting arbs... although its a thought for next year, I suppose. Report cards for your midterms? (Heh.) This year's election should be interesting. There are a number of candidates who are obviously going to make it and some that are obviously not going to make it, but a large chunk of the middle is up for grabs. If nothing else, it's entertaining... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Memorial tablets to the British Empire dead of the First World War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dominions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Memorial Tablets

Thanks for message. Very interesting.

I am just about to leave home until the weekend and when I get back I shall look into your query.

Weglinde (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Amiens memorial tablets

Hi Carcharoth,

I left a message at the talk page of the French article for Amiens Cathedral, and at fr:Wikipédia:Atelier photographique/Objets non communs. Commons has a Picture requests page, but I don't know how active it is, and it says that requests should be in English anyway. Hopefully someone on the French Wikipedia will respond! Adam Bishop (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam! I'll keep an eye on that. Hopefully someone will help out. Failing that, I could get there myself at some point. If it helps, the six tablets in question are apparently all "on the walls or pillars nearest to the south door" of the cathedral (it is the largest in Europe, so knowing roughly where to look helps). I can point to online pictures of five of the six tablets (I don't think any are available under a free license). The sixth one, the South African one, I don't have any details of what it looks like, but I do have a book that quotes the inscription, and it includes the Latin phrase "AVE ATQUE VALE" and is in three languages (English, French and Dutch/Afrikaans). The other five tablets are: Britain and Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland. To complicate things still further, there are in fact more than six memorial tablets in that area of the cathedral. There are eleven in total. The other five are one to American forces (the 6th Engineer Regiment), one to Raymond Asquith, one to Marshal Ferdinand Foch, one to General Marie-Eugène Debeney and one to French colonial troops. There is also a twelfth memorial, a Second World War one, to General Leclerc. That is a lot to ask anyone to photograph, but if anyone replies then that is extra detail that can be provided. I wonder if it might be worth asking at the French Wiki Loves Monuments pages? Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to ask at WikiLovesMonuments, but you'd probably have to wait until the contest is running again, next September. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Lords of Metal

Hi Carcharoth, great alias. I contributed to Wiki a while ago with an article about Lords of Metal. It was deleted because I couldn't prove it is Notable. The thing is, as soon as I start bringing in evidence of the fact that those guys run a website that is very important in Holland and outside, it starts to look like promo. Unexperienced as I am, I could do with some aid on this one. (a preliminary) THANKS! --Ravahe (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ravahe. Thanks for the message. I'm not really the best person to ask about this. The best advice I can think of is that if this is not notable enough for its own article, consider using the best available sources as references for a brief sentence in an article on the general topic. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the answer anyway. But "the best" ferereneces I could find were declined, I'm affraid. I can't vote for you, yet. But all the best with the nomination, still. Cheer, --Ravahe (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You say "I can't vote for you, yet. But all the best with the nomination, still." That is bizarre. I've also just looked at the deleted article (what I should have done at first) and it has no content and is from 2005, though as someone who started editing in November 2013, you wouldn't be aware of that. Looking at your contributions, I see that you are probably referring to the edit where you added this to the article Conrad Lant. i.e. you added Lords of Metal to the external links there. I can't see anything in your deleted contributions (there are none) about any article you tried to create. Adding a line to an article is not creating an article, though you did create the Eric Corton article. Anyway, Lords of Metal seems to be a Dutch webzine, presumably about heavy metal music of some kind. That's not really an interest of mine. Best of luck finding someone to help you with that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Odd, I think I saw your name on a list of people to vote for as moderator or something. My bad then, sorry about that. I think I might have tried to create the Lords of Metal article before I got this account. I thought a little too light hearted about making a contribution, the novice I am. Mea culpa. But it was not notible enough. And when I did make it notable, it looked like promo too much. I incidentally ran into your account, not because of my assumption you would like metal, but because of your experience I consulted you. Thanks fo the answer anyway and again, sorry for the confusion. Cheers, --Ravahe (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Photos - Vancouver

Per your message, I work fairly close to Christ Church Cathedral (Vancouver). You're looking for some sort of memorial tablet? Is it inside or outside? The Interior (Talk) 15:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi The Interior, thanks so much for following up and making contact following my message. The memorial tablet is the one shown in this photo, which I've used in the article memorial tablets to the British Empire dead of the First World War. What I'm looking for is a better photo than that one, and maybe any additional information the cathedral provides about the memorial. It is inside, quite where inside I don't know. I suspect that it was originally mounted somewhere more prominent than where it is now, as it appears to be in some form of display cabinet. That photo was taken by Jmabel, who might be able to say exactly where it is, but I don't think it would be too hard to find. If you are able to go visit and/or take a photograph, that would be wonderful. I shouldn't really ask for more than that, but the sources I've found on this tablet are here (an online version of part of a history of the Cathedral) and there is also a copy in the City of Vancouver Archives of the booklet produced for the service at which the memorial was dedicated. The equivalent booklet used in the service at the church in Hamilton is online (see here), but the Vancouver one I can only access the archive record here. Maybe that will get put online at some point in the next few years? I was also wondering if there was coverage in local newspapers of any changes and rededications of the Vancouver memorial when the WWII and Korean War dates were added. Possibly the cathedral authorities would know, but whether the details were ever published is another matter. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• It is indoors and not at all well-lit. I don't remember the exact location but it shouldn't be hard to find once you are there. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I guessed the lighting is bad from your image. I'll email the building manager to see if he has a worklight he could set up or something. I'm going drop by Wednesday morning to see if I can improve on your image, Jmabel. As to the archived booklet, I'll look into it - the archives are a short stroll from here. The Interior (Talk) 18:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)