User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 35

Thoughts on "other projects"
Hi Carch, while catching up I noticed your comment at WT:AC/N wherein you say "My view is that the only way back for such editors is a long period of productive work and high-quality content production elsewhere" (22:56, 28 May 2011). I'm very uneasy with this, and with the equivalent wording at WP:OFFER. Basically, what we're saying is that we've determined that someone is such a low-percentage bet that we don't want them to make any edits at all, but we think it's not only OK, but mandatory, that they go work on a sister project which almost certainly has far fewer resources to deal with disruptive editors. It seems rather chauvinistic to me, those are actually stand-alone projects that don't (or at least shouldn't) have to worry about en:wiki's problems. They're not a penal colony or a minor-league affiliate team, but using wording like "only way" is equivalent to transporting prisoners or assigning a "conditioning stint" with the farm team. It just doesn't seem respectful of the volunteers doing hard work on other projects to hand off our problem editors.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that such a demonstration is of great value when combined with other indicators of genuine change. But if we routinely send the problem cases off to sink or swim somewhere else, we may be inflicting damage on other wikis. I've been thinking about this more lately as I recently saw a post by a Simple admin querying this very point. Franamax (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. I always forget that. The reason people keep saying this, though, is because there are editors working (possibly productively, I can't always tell) on other projects despite being banned from en-wiki, so clearly it can happen. It also makes a difference if they were editing on other WMF wikis before they were banned here. Maybe a better way to put it is that editors banned from en-wiki should consider disclosing that fact in full to other communities they edit within (or intend to participate in), and depending on the reaction they get, to then consider productive work on those other wikis as one way to demonstrate that they still have potential here. But the en-wiki community can't ever require or force such things, as it has no jurisdiction outside of en-wiki. The only in my original post was more concerning "demonstrate good work", rather than the location. The location can be anywhere, but you have to demonstrate some potential advantage to a return before it is considered. Does that all sound about right? Carcharoth (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ
Had a question about the Delta board if you have a moment. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of its continued existence is. Looks like from the talkpage that you had thought it could serve as a place to remove Delta related drama from ANI back in 2008. It was mostly quiescent for 2 years until revived in 2010 when he changed his name, and then went mostly quiet until very recently. It just seems a bit unfair to have a subpage of ANI / AN solely for one user (and I'm not aware of any other users who have one). If he was continually on ANI, I could maybe see its continued use. You have any thoughts on this? Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My impression at the time was that that subpage was a staging area for threads that would eventually be moved into the main AN/ANI archives. As it is, they've ended up as a separate archive (not good for searching purposes) and as a bit of a scarlet letter. I'd support those subpages and their archives being dismantled and reintegrated into the main archives (unless links already exist in the main archives), as having a noticeboard dedicated just to yourself is (I agree) a bit much really. But it will take a lot of effort to do anything about it, unfortunately. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Yeah, I predict a lot of heel dragging (not necessarily malicious, mind you) if I bring this up. Syrthiss (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your feedback requested
I'm a fairly new editor and one of my Wikipedia interests is research on Transcendental Meditation. I've edited that article a bit and am wondering what it would take to get it to Good Article status.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation_research Is there any chance you could take a quick look at it and get me started on the process? Any initial feedback would be helpful. Thanks.Early morning person (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I'm unlikely to have time to help. Maybe try New contributors' help page? Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

British Library follow-up
Thank you for participating in the English and Drama Editathon at the British Library on June 4. I hope you enjoyed the day and got something useful out of it.

If you are new to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects, I hope you had any questions or problems answered and maybe found being a contributor as addictive as many of the regulars do. If you've got any questions or need help, please feel free to ask any of us on our talk page or by e-mail (Fæ, Tom Morris, Sadads, James F., RHaworth, The Land, AdamBMorgan), ask on the British Library collaboration page or through the Wikipedia Help Desk.

If you are interested in working on Wikipedia, you might want to consider joining one of the WikiProjects. These are places where team work between editors interested in a particular topic can be coordinated. Some suggestions for WikiProjects that may be of interest to you as a participant in the event on Saturday include Literature, Poetry or Science Fiction. A full list of literature and language related WikiProjects can be found here, and a list of all WikiProjects is here. The WikiProjects often have things that need doing, and if you need help you can often ask in their talk page.

But there are other places you can get involved. If you are interested on working on images, such as improving image descriptions, categorisation or uploading new media, consider getting involved in Wikimedia Commons. Wikisource also needs people willing to help make available original source material, and Wikiquote is trying to compile a directory of quotes which you may be able to contribute to.

If you want to continue some of the work we got started on Saturday, here are a few potential things to help with:


 * Following on from work on Ella D'Arcy on Saturday, work has started to make all of The Yellow Book available on Wikisource. If you go to the page on Wikisource and pick a volume then click on 'scan index' you can start helping to proofread pages from the journal - simply click on the page you want to work on, and go through to check that the text on the left reflects the text on the right. If you need any help with getting started, please ask User:Tom Morris.
 * If you created any new articles at the event, you might want to submit them to Did you know?.
 * If you are able to translate into other languages, why not pick one of the articles we worked on, translate it and post it on another language version of Wikipedia: there are now versions in hundreds of languages. On Wikimedia Commons, it is also possible to provide multilingual descriptions of images and categories: this enables editors on the other language versions to better find images and media files they can use in their project.
 * If you need images from the British Library to illustrate articles, please add them to the image requests page. If you would like a British LIbrary curator to help collaborate on an article, please add it to the collaborations page.
 * You might also be interested in attending GLAMcamp London.
 * To explore more articles related to the British Library, visit Portal:British Library.

Whatever you do, please tell us about the positive and negative experiences you have. On behalf of the organisers of the event, thanks again.

—Tom Morris (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Purple...nah...blue haze...all in my brain
TCO (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * P.s. This is minor, but I don't agree with the Sandy comment on language templates.  We should not drive the eventual view for the reader so much off of her scanning a page for a close.  Plus, she KNEW Carabane was bad and still let it get a star.  TCO (talk) 18:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw that discussion. I agree that the link to doi is unnecessarily repetitive. The key problem, IMO, is not blue haze, but alerting readers to whether we have an article on the author, publication, publisher. You would be surprised how many we have articles on, and how helpful it is when doing an initial assessment of sources. I would love to be able to hover over a word and be told if there was an article, without there being a blue-link that would get some people worked up about blue hazes. Or purple ones for that matter! Currently, the closest I get is to highlight and right-click use a Firefox gizmo that searches en-Wikipedia for what I've highlighted. But that is not something all readers would use I did notice you saying in that discussion that you had "been guilty in the past of wikilinking authors" - it is the author links that provide most value, IMO. I would tend to link that first, and then if there is no article on the author, to link the publication, and if there is no article on that, to link the publisher. And to leave unlinked if there are no links. That way the reader gets something to follow if they want to do so, and if one of the three articles exists. Carcharoth (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * P.s. Not been following any discussions on language templates and never heard of Carabane. Are you sure you shouldn't be mentioning that on her talk page, rather than here? Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bryan Gunn
All done, methinks. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mount Cleveland (Alaska)
It's a little late I suppose, but I finally went back over your comments from Featured article candidates/Mount Cleveland (Alaska)/archive1, can you just check back and make sure all of your comments were addressed? Thanks. I intend to retry once I'm back from my two weeks of vacation.

In regards to the Myers source reliability, I messaged AVO and they said: If you use the reference as it stands-- unpublished data, and are quoting the manuscript correctly, then there from our perspective that is perfectly fine. As an organization we aren't claiming to have vetted anything, but are providing research material for your use. Having said that, we do try to put what we feel is good reference material on our site.

Since Google Books now has a copy of Baker 1906 on their site (did they have it back then, too? Did I check? I don't know, but it's there now haha), I went and cited the "native naming" material through it instead. Res Mar 03:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not getting to this earlier. I will try and look, but would suggest that you ask others about the AVO response (I think that concern was raised by others, not me?). Carcharoth (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 June newsletter
We are half way through 2011, and entering the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; the semi-finals are upon us! Points scored in the interim (29/30 June) may be counted towards next round, but please do not update your submissions' pages until the next round has begun. 16 contestants remain, and all have shown dedication to the project to reach this far. Our round leader was who, among other things, successfully passed three articles through featured article candidates and claimed an impressive 29 articles at Did You Know, scoring 555 points. Casliber led pool D. Pool A was led by, claiming points for a featured article, a featured list and seven good article reviews, while pool C was led by , who claimed for two good articles, ten articles at Did You Know and four good article reviews. They scored 154 and 118 respectively. Pool B was by far our most competitive pool; six of the eight competitors made it through to round 4, with all of them scoring over 100 points. The pool was led by, who claimed for, among other things, three featured articles and five good articles. In addition to the four pool leaders, 12 others (the four second places, and the 8 next highest overall) make up our final 16. The lowest scorer who reached round 4 scored 76 points; a significant increase on the 41 needed to reach round 3. Eight of our semi-finalists scored at least twice as much as this.

No points were awarded this round for featured pictures, good topics or In the News, and no points have been awarded in the whole competition for featured topics, featured portals or featured sounds. Instead, the highest percentage of points has come from good articles. Featured articles, despite their high point cost, are low in number, and so, overall, share a comparable number of points with Did You Know, which are high in number but low in cost. A comparatively small but still considerable number of points come from featured lists and good article reviews, rounding out this round's overall scores.

We would again like to thank and  for invaluable background work, as well as all of those helping to provide reviews for the articles listed on WikiCup/Reviews. Please do keep using it, and please do help by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup.

Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here, for those interested, though it appears that neither are completely accurate at this time. 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

2005 Qeshm earthquake
Hi Carcharoth, I hope all is well. I nominated 2005 Qeshm earthquake at FAC yesterday, and it could use a review. Interested?  ceran  thor 19:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll have a closer look at some point (I've read through it already). There are a couple others I want to look at first, though. Ping me around Friday if I haven't got to it by then. Carcharoth (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine; thanks!  ceran  thor 16:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple supports at WP:ITN/C
I quite disagree with you that "It is quite possible to make your point in a less disruptive fashion." What I did (and I was hoping people, obviously including people like yourself, would notice) was to copy a point already made by another editor. It had been ignored, by several editors. So, without doing something more dramatic, exactly how could I have made my point?

The quality of conversation at ITN is appalling. Most of the time there is none. There are people who make posts, and there are other people who make posts, constructive and outrageous, but far too often ignoring what the earlier posters have said. Consensus is not achieved by just posting and voting. It is achieved by conversation. Ignoring what others post is NOT conversation. My multiple edit really was an attempt on my part to be constructive, to try to get other editors to get the point that they need to pay attention to what others say.

Did you post similar notes to the one on my page on the pages of those editors who had ignored the earlier point about ITN/R? In my mind, they were very disruptive long before I tried to point out to them the error of their ways. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just about to head off for the night now. But you seem to miss the point entirely about how to bring about change around here (hint: being "dramatic" or "more dramatic" is not the right answer). I would suggest starting a thread at WT:ITN, either to gain consensus for your multiple supports to be re-added (which would be unlikely), or to suggest another (even more dramatic?) way to draw attention to your concerns. It might be simpler, though, to just start a thread at WT:ITN expressing your concerns. In fact, I'll do that for you, as I agree that the level of discourse at WP:ITN/C can be appalling at times. Let's see what the suggested solutions are. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Good move. HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Cenotaph, Whitehall
Thanks for the offer, if you could let me have the names and author details of those books, I can see if I can access them the next time I'm in the British Library (usually about once a month). Miyagawa  (talk)  12:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Noting here that I'm replying on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Poor little newbies
This dialogue gave Bunchofgrapes, the creator of the image, a good chuckle. Poor little IPs trying to orient themselves! Bishonen | talk 11:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Heh. Actually, I shouldn't have assumed Bishzilla is prehistoric. She might not have the detailed backstory that Godzilla has, but is clearly getting there, and the support cast is growing. Have options been taken out on a film? Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Canoe River
You might want to look over work done to date (I'm not quite done yet) and give your thoughts. I've asked Ed to look over the article. With the exception of the mysterious 1998 roadside thingy, I think I've tracked down the memorials.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With the exception of a couple of things set forth on the FAC page, I've done as you asked. I have the Barris book early, for once, and I've had Ed look over the article and I'd appreciate it if you could reconsider your oppose.  Thanks much.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I will take a look now. Was out seeing a film last night. I may end up striking the oppose, but probably won't support until I've had a chance to have a proper look and read-through. Carcharoth (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's do it
You, TK and me. Declaration. The two of you all are heavy hitters and I will pinch hit with images or scut work or the like. No reason to go with the single hero approach (I find we are prone to content gaps at Wiki, often stemming from that approach...also because people review too much on prose and not enough on coverage...and we don't try to get experts enough). But with 3 people at least we are not single point safe.TCO (reviews needed) 00:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I've never read the article before. So that's not a good start. (OK, that's not strictly true, I have read it in passing.) I am willing to post an action plan on the talk page and see what happens. No need for just three people. Just need to get lots of people doing whatever they can, and have some people sticking to it all the way through to ensure high standards are maintained. And then see if the end result is good enough. Starting points would be reading the article and the talk page and its archives, and any previous reviews. I'll see if that leads anywhere, or whether that is too overwhelming. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Having now read through the article (and abandoned the idea of posting to the article talk page), I think the article tries to do too much. I was expecting a concise history of the document, its origins, its purpose, and its later history. Parts of the article do supply that, but in addition I also got a primer in the American history of that period, of the wider process of declaring independence, rather than an article about the document. To make that clearer, look at the 'Independence and Union' section of the article on the American Revolution. I would expect two articles here, really, one on the period during which independence was declared, and one on the document itself. Compare and contrast the approach taken with the 'Declaration' article with the approach taken with the Articles of Confederation article. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I will look at that Confed article. I agree with you (honest was going to say so, before you told me) that there is too much duality of the text and the act.  And at times the article wants to be about the text, not the act.  Obviously both should be covered, but some shift in emphasis is needed.  For instance I think the article does a good job of giving perspective on how the document happened while war was waging, but skimps on the effect it had to the war effort (one reading to the troops and the comment on some reply drummed up).  We need a bit more on how people at the time felt about the act.  It had to be a galvanizing thing, given the state delegations and the scrunch factor to go through with it...so a bit more connection to the early Rev War is needed.TCO (reviews needed)  01:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Crap. Re-reading your comment, I think I disagree with you!  I think coverage of both text and act will be inconvenient if separated.TCO (reviews needed)  01:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably why collaborations are good in principle, but often fail in practice... :-) Anyway, despite my enthusiasm above, I would need to read a lot more about this before doing more than commenting from the sidelines. One important thing about an encyclopedia, is that as well as contextualising the information it provides to the reader, it breaks things up into identifiable and digestable chunks. It doesn't always happen. There are plenty of examples of earlier encyclopedia authors (e.g. Britannica) writing articles that are either very short (leaving the bulk of the meat of something to another article, and maybe another author), or very long (trying to cover too much). Probably the editors of said encyclopedias did not have the authority or time to ask their contributors to rewrite those articles, but the complete opposite happens on Wikipedia where works are always (to some extent) a work-in-progress. But for this article, have a look at how long it takes the lead to get to the actual document, and compare that to how long it takes the article to get to the actual document. What I think needs to be decided is whether that article is part of a series on the American Revolution, or whether it is an offshoot of such a series, and an article that concentrates on the document. But I have no intention of proposing such massive changes on that talk page without more of an idea of what I'm talking about. So I'm afraid I'll have to pass on helping out here, though I'd be happy to read over it at a later stage. Carcharoth (talk) 09:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sarcastic userbox removed
It's done. I commented at the page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

email
thou hast – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgot about this. Sorry. Will reply on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)