User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 27

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! 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 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, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fromelles

 * Original message

Sure, certainly, merge them in. I was thinking this would be good for ITN as well: it's not often you get a new cemetery for WWI dead... There's a fair amount of material at Battle of Fromelles which should probably be taken over as well. On a similar note, have you seen our new articles on V.C. Corner Australian Cemetery and Memorial and Peter Corlett? Physchim62 (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, I had plans for that one as well (V.C. Corner Australian Cemetery and Memorial - see also the list here). The trouble was that it is very difficult to find out the background history to that memorial (to the missing) because all the news coverage is of that statue you've pointed out (though even that is now being drowned out by the coverage of this new cemetery). I tried for ages to find out when it was unveiled, and gave up. The location you give for the statue is slightly off though. The statue is in the Parc Mémorial Australien de Fromelles, which is actually just down the road from the cemetery and memorial (see the map here). Things will get even more confused now with this new Fromelles cemetery! Carcharoth (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This aerial image shows how close the two are! I reckon that to be just over 100 metres. I've corrected the article V.C. Corner Australian Cemetery and Memorial to point out that the two sites are actually separate. Physchim62 (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added some details of when and who opened it. As for the V.C. Corner one, the only source I found saying when it opened is here, which says "constructed between 1920 and 1921". I suspect that was the cemetery, as the memorials tended to be later, though other sources do hint at a date in the early 1920s. Carcharoth (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection of Super Bowl players BLPs

 * Administrators%27_noticeboard

Please read and comment on my observation of extensive vandalism to Nate Kaeding's article two weeks ago, and on my request to semiprotect all the articles of players in Super Bowl XLIV for the next two weeks until a week after the game ends. Chutznik (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully something will be sorted out at that discussion. I'm afraid I have other things to attend to tonight. Carcharoth (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet
I would like you to perform a checkuser on to see if he have created another account to bypass the block as he said he would in his unblock request. Thanks! --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 13:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please follow KnightLago's advice here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * EVen though I don't know his puppet User names? --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. The checkusers and clerks there will tell you if a check is needed or not. Carcharoth (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery

 * Credit for the nomination should really be shared, as both Carcharoth and I had the idea to nominate independently, and Carcharoth did most of the hard work to get the article up to a standard where it could be posted. Physchim62 (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, no problem. I missed Carcharoth's request at ITN/C but that seems fair enough - Dumelow (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, both of you, good to see the article up there. Carcharoth (talk) 00:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo request (Fromelles (Pheasant Wood) Military Cemetery)
Carcharoth, Why don't you put this request on fr:wiki? I did on a couple of occasions & got results. Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Déjà fait! ici ;) Physchim62 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, Frania, and thanks again Physchim. I did find some pictures on Flickr, so another idea would be to write to people who uploaded pictures there, and I also found this website, which has some great pictures. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You are one of the six editors advancing into the final round of the Henry Allingham World War I Contest. The final round started at 00:00, 11 February and ends 23:59, 10 March. The top three ranked players at the end of this round will become winners of the contest and receive special prizes! Keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You are advised not to reply before 2011
I stumbled upon User talk:NoSeptember/Leaving a few hours ago and decided to continue what is turning into a remarkable time-lapse discussion. I suppose there are several factors at work here, but it got me thinking about a more general matter: replying to messages on talk pages (mostly of articles) which may be one, two or even four years old. In high-traffic pages they will have been long archived, but if this isn't the case, is there anything preventing one from replying? Not, of course, for the sake of the inquirer (even though there is no guarantee that they will not happen to return after a long time to check), but for those who may read the talk page and have the same questions. I have mostly refrained from doing this, but I am now wondering whether I should be doing it more often. After all, these fora are all public, and the idea of a discussion between two or three individuals is illusory, even if nobody else intervenes at the time. Waltham, The Duke of 09:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't 2011 yet, but do you think three months was long enough to wait? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Add a "public interest" clause to Oversight
A proposal to add a "public interest" clause to Oversight has started at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

List of tallest residential buildings in the world
I have nominated this article for Feature list, "LIST OF TALLEST RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN THE WORLD" i need your help regarding, gramatical mistakes,and copy editing my purpose is to make this article perfect or close to perfection, so that it would for sure become a feature list.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI
i am confused by your message on ANI. are you saying that it's unclear as to whether tothwolf has violated his restrictions? also, you said that he shouldn't rehash the same allegations over and over without providing new evidence, and his next message was exactly that. the community has done nothing to stop his behavior because he posts 2000 word manifestos which never address the issue, and which exhaust people's patience. so his behavior went to arbcom, and he was restricted from making these unsupported allegations. and yet that is exactly what he's back to doing. in that ANI thread he accused me of harassing his friends off wiki. how can this be acceptable from someone who is specifically restricted against this? Theserialcomma (talk) 03:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that if you think arbitration enforcement is getting it wrong, ask for clarification from ArbCom. They will either tell you that AE got it wrong, or that AE were right and you are wrong. Did you file a request for arbitration enforcement? What I'm also saying is that if Tothwolf thinks the case decision was wrong, he needs to appeal the case, not carry on with the same accusations. Carcharoth (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Note on allegations of plagiarism
I've been following the discussion here (thread as of time of writing, archive link to be added later) with interest, mainly because it came to my attention that in at least one fragment of the IRC discussions mentioned at that AN thread, one of the IRC participants raised similar concerns about articles that I've edited and created. Rather than post in that thread (and increase any attendant drama), I am posting a note here to indicate that I'm aware that such allegations have been made on IRC. Like Roger, I take such allegations very seriously, and like Roger my view is that such concerns should always be raised directly first with the editors concerned, on article and user talk pages, to enable them to respond, before matters are escalated to a noticeboard as was done in this case (and certainly not allowed to grow as rumours on IRC or off-wiki sites). Regardless of that, now that I am aware of such concerns, I intend, over the next few days, to go through a list of the articles I've created and heavily edited (though I don't have a complete listing of the latter), to see what improvements and changes can or need to be made. Ideally, everyone would do this regularly anyway, and/or when concerns like this are raised. While that is being done, I would ask that anyone with concerns please raise them with me first, or point me to the talk page of any articles that need discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Disasters
Hi Carcharoth, I hope you are doing well. :) Were you in the process of addressing points from this discussion? Cirt (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured portal review/Disasters
 * I haven't found the time. I would make a new promise to do something by Wednesday (I have some free time coming up next week), but I've learnt not to keep promising to do something when it turns out I didn't have the time after all. :-( If you want to do something, please do. If it needs to be de-featured, that's not a problem (clearly it can't stay featured in its current state). I'll say something similar over there. Carcharoth (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. 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; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well it seems like I missed that due to my currently very limited wiki time, but I promise that the name of the winners as well as the finalists will appear in the March issue. Thanks for your interest! --Eurocopter (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for help
I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated.

Request to WP:AN
"I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more).  I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows:


 * User:Peter Damian (old)
 * User:HistorianofLogic
 * User:Logicist
 * User:Here today, gone tomorrow
 * User:Renamed user 4

I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else").

Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

re:WWI Contest
Hi, I'm glad that you liked this contest and thank for your active participation. Of course I'm planning a summary of the contest which will be posted soon on Milhist coordinators page (so people will now how effective is such an activity and organize it in the future as well). Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship
Carchoroth --

During the Edo period of Japanese history, the hortatory precepts of the founder of the Tokugawa shogunate were widely known. After the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the aphorisms of Tokugawa Ieyasu faded from public prominence.

In our unique "mentoring" relationship, perhaps it may be construed as helpful to recall these words:
 * "One who treats difficulties as the nomal state of affairs will never be discontented."

I hope this becomes a helpful reference as we work together and face whatever lies ahead.

Sincerely,

Tenmei (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry.

One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented.

Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy.

Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure.

Blame yourself rather than others.

It is better not to reach than to go too far.

— Tokugawa Ieyasu, 1604

ArbCom -- BLPs
Thank you for these comments. That is helpful. Maurreen (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your summing up. However, with only  four  interested parties left on  the workshop page, I'm not  sure where the natural  leaders should emmerge from! --Kudpung (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Poets' Corner
I've left a few suggestions at the talk page. As for completeness, this booklet might be worth getting; I'm not sure where you're based, but as I work in central London, if you'd like me to wander over to the Abbey shop and get it to save you the postage, I'll be glad to do so. BencherliteTalk 14:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replying on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Meetup/Cambridge 6
Talking about March 27. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Now confirmed. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Evaluation of Climate Change probation
This discussion is not particularly encouraging. Jehochman Talk 12:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for suggesting that and for pointing it out. I'm not going to comment, though, and I would suggest you follow up there, rather than here, though do please point me to an update later if there is one. Carcharoth (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Poets' Corner
Yes of course, glad to help. A very attractive article - much more so than the place itself which I have found to be quite depressing and about as far removed from poety as one could imagine! Sorry that I have not taken the time to discuss much - as you will see I tend to skip about quite lot. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion of lead sections
The technique is mentioned in WP:Summary, and discussed several times on that guideline's talk page. It has drawbacks such as making the history harder to follow, as you point out. But I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks in cases where there is a lot of controversy and high risk of forking, which has happened with the Ghost article. Until I recently cleaned it up, most of the content in Ghost, which showed Spiritualism and Spiritism as main articles, was not in fact present in either child. Editors had added the content to what should have been a summary of these two, but had not updated the detailed articles, thus creating a fork. It is easy to understand how this happened.

I am not a strong advocate of the approach in general. With more stable and less controversial subjects, it is probably better to copy the intro from the child article into the parent and then edit it to flow better with the parent article context, perhaps rearranging and expanding a bit. But in this case, where there is great passion about the "pseudo-science" aspect, the approach serves to discourage forking and to focus debate where it belongs, in the child articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you ever seen an Arbcom case? There were several about pseudoscience, fringe science etc., and we might soon have another one. Hundreds if not thousands of links to page history. Can you imagine how much more complicated such a case would be if every link needed an annotation and additional explanations/links? E.g.: "X reverted back to this version [1], except at that time the section titled "Pseudoscientific aspects" was transcluded from the lead of this [2]." I think transclusion should only be done in non-contentious areas. Hans Adler 19:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Best to discuss here. Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Carcharoth. Thank you for your comment. As you will see in my comments in, Elonka is attacking me for illustrating the Mongol forays into Palestine in a certain way, although she actually has been developing and supporting a basically identical depiction of these forays in another map (please read the full paragraph). This is a clear contradiction: she makes accusations against me, that involve misrepresenting facts she herself knows are actually true. Best regards  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  18:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would prefer you discuss that with Elonka. The support for the renewal and extension of your topic ban is based on more than just what Elonka has said. Carcharoth (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And what do you think is it based on? I have not seen any actual presentation of what I would have done wrong.... Cheers  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is better discussed back at the arbitration pages. Carcharoth (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing that Elonka's accusations come to nothing, I would really like to know what you actually consider worthy of a renewed ban. I think my contributions have been truely examplary in the 2-3 weeks I was able to contribute again to Mongol-related articles. Best regards  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  20:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will answer that, but you need more answers than just from me, hence me saying go back to the arbitration pages and ask there. Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cheers  Per Honor et Gloria   ✍  20:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Pederasty in Ancient Greece
One result of the Haiduc case has been that several well-meaning and concerned editors have been removing his edits, even when (as on this article), they appear to be factual and verifiable. This seems an undesirable result, and one I doubt ArbCom intended.

Where are the actual findings of fact and sanctions in Haiduc's case? Do they need to be tweaked? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Haiduc is banned (anyone wanting to discuss that should follow the instructions that should be in the block log), but edits made before his ban should not be automatically undone, but rather evaluated on the same basis as any other editor's would. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Haiduc has cherry-picked from primary sources to express a "pederasty is/was ideal" POV. We well-meaning and concerned editors believe that secondary sources should be used to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, particularly in a contentious area which we know is visited by those wanting to promote a certain POV. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed a bit out there: "...evaluated on the same basis as any other editor's would on the talk page of the relevant articles" (i.e. not here). Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)