User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 40

Talk:Victor Negus/GA1
I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A big NPT update
Hey! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding
 * Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
 * Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome on the NPT talkpage :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, drop me a line and I'll deal with it! Further questions or issues to the usual address. Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Stocking (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) 13:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Malformed RFAR removal
Thanks for delisting this and following up with the complainant. Nipping misguided requests in the bud makes the process much easier for all, and is appreciated! AGK [•] 21:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know: Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
 * Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
 * If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
 * If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi.  Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Re: Special date requests at DYK
As indicated in the instruction blurb at Template talk:Did you know, special occasion requests should normally be made at least 5 days before the requested date of appearance. While it is technically possible to modify the DYK queues up till the moment ‎DYKUpdateBot moves them to the Main page, from a practical standpoint it is rare to process newly made special date requests once the sets are prepared (usually 24 to 48 hours before they are moved to the main page). This is due to the practical considerations of how long it takes to perform a review and perform other tasks related to hook promotion, short-term availability of reviewers and admins at various times of days, and fairness considerations for other nominations that were submitted in a timely manner. I have seen a number of nominations made 2 to 3 days before a holiday/anniversary promoted but this is usually because reviewers knew a late nominations was coming in and arrangements for the needed people had been made in advance. In the case you are asking about, the new nomination that would have less than 14 hours from the time of your initial question and less than 8 hours from the writing of this response until the final set of the day is moved to the Main page. I just don't see there being enough time for a nomination that has not yet been made to be promoted. --Allen3 talk 08:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Halifax, Nova Scotia


 * United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Halifax, Nova Scotia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

yes
My watchlist is quite small at the moment, but your thoughts and views are always most welcome. user:Ched Davis will continue to watch their talk page. — Ched : ?  15:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 April newsletter
Round 2 of this year's WikiCup is over, and so we are down to our final 32, in what could be called our quarter-finals. The two highest scorers from each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers overall, have entered round 3, while 30 participants have been eliminated. Pool B's remains our top scorer with over 700 points; he continues to gain high numbers of points for his good articles on The X-Files, but also Millennium and other subjects. He has also gained points for a good topic, a featured list, multiple good article reviews and several did you knows. Pool E's was second, thanks primarily to his biology articles, with Pool H's  coming in third, with an impressive 46 did you knows, mostly on the subject of baseball. Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both scored over 600 points. Pools E and H proved our most successful, with each seeing 5 members qualify for round 3, while Pools C and D were the least, with each seeing only 3 reach round 3. However, it was Pool G which saw the lowest scoring, with a little under 400 points combined; Pool H, the highest scoring group, saw over triple that score.

65 points was the lowest qualifying score for round 3; significantly higher than the 11 required to enter round 2, and also higher than the 41 required to reach round 3 last year. However, in 2010, 100 points were needed to secure a place in round 3. 16 will progress to round 4. In round 3, 150 points was the 16th highest score, though, statistically, people tend to up their game a little in later rounds. Last year, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 points were needed. Guessing how many points will be required is not easy. We still have not seen any featured portals or topics this year, but, on the subject of less common content types, a small correction needs to be made to the previous newsletter: File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg, our first featured picture, was the work of both and, the latter of whom has also gone on to score with File:Map of the Battle of Guam, 1944.svg. Bonus points also continue to roll in; this round, earned triple points for her good articles on William the Conqueror and the Middle Ages, Casliber and Cwmhiraeth both earned triple points for their work on Western Jackdaw, now a good article,  earned triple points for her work on lettuce and work by  to ready antimony for good article status earned him triple points. managed to expand Vitus Bering far enough for a did you know, which was also worth triple points. All of these highly important topics featured on 50 or more Wikipedias at the start of the year.

An article on the WikiCup in the Wikimedia Blog, "Improving Wikipedia with friendly competition", was posted at the end of April. This may be of interest to those who are signed up to this newsletter, as well as serving as another way to draw attention to our project. Also, we would again like to thank and, for continued help behind the scenes. As ever, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. 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 (talk &bull; email) and The ed17 (talk &bull; email) 23:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

IRC?
Can you come on to IRC? I need to speak with you. Prioryman (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can do e-mail or Gmail chat, but not IRC (looked into it once, but couldn't work out how to use it). You can use the 'E-mail this user function' to send me an e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, Gmail it is. Email on the way. Prioryman (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Checking now. But Gmail chat might not work as I have it in basic html at the moment (need new computer or internet connection, not worked out which one yet, but full html on webmail is a bit slow). Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambuguation and Nachrichten
Thanks for explaining. The Wikipedians who specialize in disambiguation generally frown on the creation of a disambiguation page until there are multiple articles that need disambiguation. When topics that don't have articles are listed on such a page, the page is supposed to provide a blue link to an article that does have some sort of relevant content (for example, two of the six items at 1000 Words are like that). If some of the other papers named "Nachrichten" are discussed in broader articles, there might be a basis for a disambiguation page. (But note that I am not one of those Wikipedians who specialize in disambiguation -- I probably don't fully understand their "rules".) --Orlady (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update
Hey Carcharoth :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released
Hey Carcharoth! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Spirit Fruit Society
Hi Carcharoth.. I found your name at WP:PRV and noticed that you mentioned that you had a 'general interest in obscure topics'. I think the article on the Spirit Fruit Society might fit! I first submitted this article over a year ago and it passed GA in January. I'd like to see it make FA eventually, so I'm looking for other eyes to review it to see what needs work.

The Spirit Fruit Society was an intentional community/commune that was established in the late 1800s in Ohio. The society lasted almost 30 years making it one of the longest-lived communes in America. Some history, social science, a tiny bit of scandal. :) Anyway, I'd be very appreciative if you had the time and inclination to have a look and give your review.  In any event, thank you for your time!   Wikipelli  Talk   19:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

World War I Editathon update
Hi Carcharoth, just wanted to let you know that we've now got the details of the academics who will be coming along to the World War I Editathon. A number of them specialise in medical history, which you mentioned was one of your interests - do have a think about what particular articles might catch your imagination! Many thanks, The Land (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see he beat me to this notice, but I'm glad to see you're coming - it'll be great to see you again! Hopefully less need for iPads this time... Andrew Gray (talk) 14:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed
Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Titanic hooks have been merged
I wanted to let you know that after both hooks on the investigations were put into Prep 3, one after the other, Carabinieri subsequently merged them into a single hook. If you have a problem with this, or with the resulting double hook, you'll need to say something very soon. There's a discussion section in WT:DYK about it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC); updated 02:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for British Wreck Commissioner's inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for United States Senate inquiry into the sinking of the RMS Titanic
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Self contradictory
It's self-contradictory to chastise KW for addressing a third party on MF's talk page by addressing KW on MF's talk page -- your comments would better be placed here: User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Nobody Ent 11:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm....
 * Consider that I foresaw the responses to my comment, and judged that they would illuminate the issues needing illuminating.
 * BTW, "bucket of warm spit" is a euphemism for Harry Truman's evaluation of the Vice Presidency, "Boys, this job ain't worth a bucket of warm piss".
 * Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz  22:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I figured it was something like that, but why would you expect anyone to take the time to figure that out? Wikipedia is not a game of finding the most apposite comparison you can think of. That just turns Wikipedia into a debating club. PS. Responding here to what you said on MF's talk page: "Why do you care more about my comment than about Anthony's mistreatment of Malleus?" - the simple reason is that I saw your comment about some comment at some RFA, but not having read that RFA, and with no diff provided, I had to decide whether to go and look up what had been said, or not. And I couldn't be bothered to go and look up this comment you were referring to. There is some underlying presumption being made that if you care immensely about something, others will care enough to go and read this RFA. In practice, many people just won't care enough unless you provide a diff to follow. This goes back to what I've said in the past about how people often only see parts of the whole story, and this is why they have different views on something that might seem obvious. Not everyone has the time to check the contributions of everyone involved in a particular discussion to see what might be bothering them, or what they've been up to (mostly it is best not to do that sort of nosing around, and at other times there are good reasons to check to see if there is a reason why someone might be upset). But ultimately, it is not always possibly or desirable to second-guess things, and you have to take statements at face-value and not wonder if some IRC or e-mail or off-wiki interaction, or some disagreement or feud from years ago, is driving the latest round of angst and discord. Carcharoth (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (responding to Nobody Ent) Possibly. But it is a catch-22 situation. Do I just post to KW, and then watch others continue to post at Malleus's talk page who don't see the post to KW's talk page? In part, commenting in the thread at MF's talk page was a way to say to everyone who was posting there: "come on, let's stop the wrangling on this talk page and move the discussion elsewhere". I could have said so explicitly, but most people posting there would get what I was implying there. There is the option of just ignoring matters and moving on, but that didn't feel right here. The fourth option was to just post to MF's talk page "this is best continued elsewhere, I will comment to KW on his talk page". I've done that in the past on other talk pages, and it sometimes works out OK (in the sense of calming things down and/or making discussion more productive). I would probably have done that this time, but I had, to be honest, forgotten that way of doing things (i.e. that way of attempting to diplomatically manage such threads and their locations). And also, some people don't mind hosting such discussions on their talk pages, while others hate it when their talk pages end up being used by others for a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just post to KW's page. A fantastic way of ending a conversation is letting the other party have the last word. Nobody Ent 00:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

On a more general note, I don't think many people realise how critical it is to get the balance right between commentating and debating things, and actually doing things (writing, wikignoming, copyediting, admin stuff, and so on). I certainly don't get that balance right, but it is so easy for people who have the potential to be immensely productive to get sidetracked around here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Critical? For what? Nobody Ent 00:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Critical was probably overstating it. But for the production of high-quality content a sense of balance is needed because some of the high-quality content contributors get sucked into drama. That's nearly always bad. My theory is that they get sucked into drama when they get bored with writing, or run out of things they can usefully write about, but sometimes it is just because they prefer the drama, or get an inflated sense of their own ego. What some may not realise is that for every excellent content contributor here, there is someone out there who can write just as well, but they are doing so outside of Wikipedia, either in their career and/or job, or as a published author. Which is a good thing, because otherwise there would be no-one left to write the sources on which Wikipedia is based. But really, the principle of 'getting the balance right' on some level connects to what you said to Malleus, about needing to adapt to changes around here. It takes a certain flexibility and adaptability and balance to be able to edit Wikipedia in the long-term. Without those characteristics, burn-out, feuding, cynicism, and trying in vain to change perceived injustices, is more likely. Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Very nice. I like it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Which bits? All of it? So if some people got paid to stay away from drama, would they? Actually, no need to answer that. Very rhetorical question. I'll hopefully be less cynical after some sleep. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Most if not all. I won't speak of Malleus, but for myself, it's when I'm bored or aggravated, or have no taste for writing because I'm squeezed dry.  And yes, if I was paid to stay away from it, I would.  Twenty years ago, I won $50 in the lottery.  I have not played since.  So yeah, for moolah I'd avoid it and concentrate on Angry Birds.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Edmund Sharpe
Many thanks for all the detailed help you gave to make it possible for this article to achieve FA status. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 May newsletter
We're halfway through round 3 (or the quarter finals, if you prefer) and things are running smoothly. We're seeing very high scoring; as of the time of writing, the top 16 all have over 90 points. This has already proved to be more competative than this time last year- in 2011, 76 points secured a place, while in 2010, a massive 250 was the lowest qualifying score. People have also upped their game slightly from last round, which is to be expected as we approach the end of the competition. Leading Pool A is, whose points have mostly come from a large number of did you knows on marine biology. Pool B's leader,, is for the first time not our highest scorer at the time of newsletter publication, but his good articles on The X-Files and Millenium keep him in second place overall. leads Pool C, our quietest pool, with content in a variety of areas on a variety of topics. Pool D is led by, our current overall leader. Nearly half of Casliber's points come from his triple-scored Western Jackdaw, which is now a featured article.

This round has seen an unusually high number of featured lists, with nearly one in five remaining participants claiming one, and one user,, claiming two. Miyagawa's featured list, 1936 Summer Olympics medal table, was even awarded double points. By comparison, good article reviews seem to be playing a smaller part, and featured topics portals remain two content-types still unutilised in this competition. Other than that, there isn't much to say! Things are coming along smoothly. As ever, 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 WikiCup/Reviews. 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 23:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)