User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 55

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014
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) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Op-Ed & WWI Timeline editing
Howdy. Its always nice to see someone that enjoys reading what I write, all the more so since in this case its not written for the encyclopedia such as it were but for other members and guests to read and ponder on. I've a good many Op-Eds that I hope to write over the next several years in honor of World War I, which I hope will be equally well received by community. By a remarkable set of coincidence you've also asked the editor who changed the bugle's layout and design from this to this, which resulted in our current article news format which I felt did better justice to articles that had achieved GA, A, and FA-class by allowing the community to sample of summary of the newly promoted content. It is my hope to rebuild the WWI timeline page to better reflect that in the next month or two, the only reason I have not done so already is because I'm a little too busy at the moment and I feel that these early actions in the war, while significant, can be better covered in the Op-Ed section for emotional impact (such as it were). Once rebuilt, the timeline should be able to cover expanded summaries and audio-visual information easily.

As to the suggestion about Great War Centennial and covering more on what people are working on, that gets a little tricky, not so much out of concern for material but if you cover what people are editing in general then the concern shifts to the question of whether or not people are editing just so they will be mentioned. Its not out the realm of possibility though, so if you were to firm up you idea and create something so I could see what you have in your mind's eye we may be able to make use of it. For the record I note here that you may have better luck using the WWI Task Force stats since that task force is a broader interpretation of WWI, so it may lend the appearance of more activity, which in turn may entice more editors to work for the GWC special project. The other issue here concerns the publication itself: surprising as it may seem, I;m not part of the bugle's editorial team (meaning I'm not one the project coordinators assigned such as it were to the newsletter), therefore the issue of jurisdiction comes into play only insofar as changes would need a green light from the two that are listed in order to be added to or altered in the current bugle incarnation. If these concerns were addressed though it is entirely possible that we could move forward with that idea. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou! 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) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

GGTF arbitration
I'm requesting that you talk with your ARB colleagues about limiting responses on the workshop. Carol's prolifigate contributions there are not surprising. That is her M.O. I for one will feel comfortable about not reading most of her bullet points, even the ones made about me. Others might not feel the same.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 06:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Memorial tablets to the British Empire dead of the First World War
Hi Carcaroth, I guess no one has yet taken up the request to photograph the tablet in Amiens Cathedral, but I wanted to let you know that I took a better photo of the one in Nantes - the old one was a bit grainy and off-colour. Hope that helps! Adam Bishop (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Adam. The new picture looks much better. I do now have some pictures of the tablets in Amiens, as I visited the cathedral myself over the summer, but I haven't got round to uploading them yet . I'll try and remember to ping you when they go up, or you could add the article to your watchlist. Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results
The 2014 WikiCup champion is, who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. , 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. , WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
 * wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
 * wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
 * wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

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 participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. and 22:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Peace
Thank you for your user page on Armistice Day. I wrote a new article, Da pacem Domine, part of a memorial event. - On a smaller level: I think it's time for armistice in the so-called infoboxes war. No battle that I remember since 2012, former fighters acting peacefully together: what needs to be done to formally end something that factually ended long ago? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. I'll try and reply properly when I have more time. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Take your time but let's try to not make it a ten-years war ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ps: poster "nie wieder Krieg" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Seemingly unrelated reminder of the Eric I know (well, when he entered his second edit to my talk, I didn't know his first name yet): "OK, later. Have to warn you though that I'm not really a Wikipedian, have never been a Wikipedian, and I scare away women, children and new editors. Allegedly. But I'll try and be gentle. Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And was I gentle? Eric   Corbett  08:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Gentle, supportive, collaborative, entertaining, and with an oppose against the main stream that made me stay when I was ready to leave (one of three times). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Back to the original question, I asked the arb candidates again and published their interesting answers as no foul, play on, feel to follow the discussions for inspiration, to ease playing on. Another comment, just as short, didn't fit that case (changed to "decline" after discussing where there may have been sin), but would perhaps suit the other one: "go and sin no more". I reduced the display of my sadness . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * A good day for peace, de:Da pacem Domine (Pärt) on the German Main page, and ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Flip statement
It's extremely rare for me to say anything critical to you, so I hope you will indulge me one time. This was not the best way to phrase things: the impression I have so far is that DP is asking for more understanding from others about his actions than he was prepared to give to those he took actions against. I think it would be better to say, "DP should make sure he always provides others as much understanding as he is now asking them to provide him." That's applicable whether he remains an admin or not, and I hope it's a statement he would readily agree with, rather than argue (as he is now doing). If DP was impetuous or assumed bad faith on occasion, there is no justification to do the same to him. Far better to ask all concerned to maintain high standards. Jehochman Talk 16:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender Gap Task Force/Proposed decision
I note that several arbs including yourself you have voted on the proposed decision without waiting for my statement. I have now posted a partial statement Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Proposed_decision specifically addressing the diffs that were presented. I hope to be able to post a summary statement later today.

I am very surprised that these accusations were made against me at all, especially since I specifically offered to provide any additional diffs that might be needed during the workshop phase, but at that time no one seemed to be taking any of the accusations seriously.

I know that in the final decision, there are usually some diffs cited as rationale for the decision. Could you provide me with some indication of what diffs appear to be at issue, so I have a chance to respond to them?

I am also quite concerned that a lot of different issues are being shoe-horned into one finding, and that arbs are voting for the finding as a whole without necessarily agreeing with all the separate points. Perhaps the issues could be separated. In particular I am very distressed that I am about to be censored for raising the issue of using diagnostic names of mental disorders as insults, particular the phrase "passive aggressive". I have also seen the word "retarded" used on talk pages as a personal attack, and have seen the users who objected to such terminology being subjected to bullying and ridicule themselves. Wikipedia has had a number of individuals with mental disorders who have been able to participate successfully. Aaron Swartz comes to mind, and there was another who committed suicide within the last year, whose name I do not wish to mention here. While there may be individuals who do not agree with me, I do not believe anyone should be banned for raising this issue, or that the Arbcom should approve of specific words to be used as personal attacks. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014
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) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Your comment on PD page
Re: your comment about earlier oversights. The "comments that were oversighted" were related to a possible emergency situation, and proper procedures were followed. There are obvious privacy issues here. If the committee needs more information about this, it would be better to contact me by email.

The answers to questions about the retirement banner, my future intentions, and whether the committee can assume good faith are very personal and also hard to answer without giving personally identifying information. Clearly I am not a vandal. I have written several articles, and worked on the unromantic maintenance side of the project with move requests. Over the course of a year, I also wrote a weekly column, the Arbitration Report, for the Signpost. Of the three editors who posted retirement banners at the same time I did, one left completely and only returned to present evidence in one of my appeals, and another returned to editing after one of my appeals was partially successful. I was once asked about the retirement banner by a new user, and answered at length here. Again, if the committee has more specific questions, I can respond at greater length by email.

The categorization of my approach as "consistently combative" I find troubling, and not particularly helpful. Although I'm sure it was meant well, it doesn't give me a very good perspective of the committee's concerns. If this is still a concern, a more concrete example might be useful. —Neotarf (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, YGM, meant for the committee list. —Neotarf (talk) 06:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Your questions
Good ones. I didn't answer the squabbling Arbs question, but I'd love to discuss that with you after the election. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)