User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Beautifully said

I share that wish most heartily. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks (and sorry not to reply before now, been a tad busy offline). Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations and Thank you

See also: User_talk:AGK § Well,_while_we're_waiting

Hi.

First, congratulations on the successful request : )

(And I know it goes without saying, but I did vote for you.)

And I wanted to thank you for the nudge to try for it. It was definitely an experience.

Congratulations, and Thank you again : ) - jc37 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth, welcome back! --Elonka 20:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeay! We get to work together again!  :-) Grats! — Coren ^(talk) 21:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks all. :-) Bit busy the next few days, so apologies if I don't follow-up on all the post-election stuff as promptly as I'd like. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Adding my voice to those who are pleased to see that you were chosen for another round of insanity and abuse ArbCom. KillerChihuahua 00:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Congrats and snowballs!

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec12}} to your friends' talk pages.

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 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 Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Carcharoth! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Some Christmas traditions are very difficult to explain. Kind of like Wikipedia policies.

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2013. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. For those of a more traditional inclination, I offer this rendition of my favourite carol.
Best, Risker (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Jack James (rocket engineer)

Hello! Your submission of Jack James (rocket engineer) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Robert J. Parks

I've responded to your question at on the BLP noticeboard talkpage. Hope it helps. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2013 starting soon

Hi there; you're receiving this message because you have previously shown interest in the WikiCup. This is just to remind you that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting on 1 January, and that signups will remain open throughout January. Old and new Wikipedians and WikiCup participants are warmly invited to take part in this year's competition. (Though, as a note to the more experienced participants, there have been a few small rules changes in the last few months.) If you have already signed up, let this be a reminder; you will receive a message with your submissions' page soon. Please direct any questions to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn 19:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!

Hello Carcharoth, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders: *The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page. *Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking. *If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself. *Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens. *Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked. Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Belated congrats

I hadn't been around in a while, so I've been poking around to see what everyone's been up to while I was gone. I'm glad to see you decided to grace ArbCom again. Congrats! ceranthor 23:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Only 36 minutes of freedom left... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup

Hello, Carcharoth, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started and completed the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 12:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Will Streets

Well, that's interesting. To be honest, I'd never heard of him until I went on the Western Front Association's War Poets trip to the Somme in July (and there's another one this coming July covering different ground, in case you're interested). Because he is so little known, I hadn't thought of putting him anywhere except at "most common name", which is how the author of the biography, Victor Piuk, refers to him. It seems to me that the existing arrangement is quite adequate, but I can see your point as well. Deb (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That trip and the one coming up sound very tempting. I will have to see whether I can organise myself to go on something like that, thanks for the pointer! As for the name, I do think the formal name is better in this case, but I am going to hold myself to a promise to work on expanding the article before doing anything like starting any formal discussion on the page title. First step would be a 5-times expansion for DYK if that is possible. But I have plenty of other articles to work on if you have any plans to work on that, or we could work together on some of these poets - I see you created Leslie Coulson back in 2010, and stopped by Ronald Arthur Hopwood (that has been worked on heavily already). Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an interest of mine (I am secretary of the Siegfried Sassoon Fellowship), but the sum total of what I know about Will Streets has already been said. Viv Whelpton, who wrote the monograph on Coulson for Cecil Woolf, is a good friend of mine and also leads the War Poets tour. Here is more info: http://www.battle-honours.eu/group-tours/tour13-wfa-poets/ Deb (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It is very tempting! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing a discussion

Hi Carcharoth, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Ending the Gibraltar restrictions will need closing by about 14:00 UTC tomorrow (having run for the usual week). As you are uninvolved in the Gibraltar controversy, would you be willing to close and summarise the discussion? It should be a fairly simple job as there seems to be a pretty strong consensus. Prioryman (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I won't be around then. Earliest I would be available is 07:00 UTC on Friday 4 January 2012. If you need someone to have a look before then, best ask around to find someone else. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, no problem - I'll see if Casliber is around. If not, I'll revert to you. Prioryman (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw the thread on Casliber's talk page. He is probably right that a few more days of discussion are needed. This, incidentally, is why it can sometimes be best to sort out when and how to close a discussion at the time it is opened, though some discussions need restarting or extending and you can never tell how they will develop. Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, in hindsight, but we are where we are. How long would you suggest leaving it for - how long is "a few more days"? Prioryman (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure. You could try and calculate how long the current number would last if all were reviewed and put in the queues at the currently allowed rate. Though I see there is also a discussion about changing the rate at which DYKs go up. Ideally, there would be something at the current discussion from all those that commented at the original discussion that imposed the restriction? Otherwise it could be seen as an end-run around that original discussion. Were the two discussions (the original one and this one) both publicised to the same degree? Carcharoth (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant the current number is but for the record there are 15 nominations at present of which 6 have been fully signed off. That would last 15 days if they were put in queues at the agreed rate of 1 per day. I seem to be the only one now producing Gibraltar DYKs, since ACP2011 seems to have quit Wikipedia (possibly driven off by the anti-Gibraltarpedia hate mob, which is shameful - she was an excellent contributor). The current discussion has been handled exactly the same way as the original one – publicised on WT:DYK and mostly involving DYK regulars. I think most of the people who commented then, including the person who proposed the original restrictions, have now commented. As it currently stands, 7 people support a full lifting of the restrictions, 2 support a partial lifting and 2 oppose any lifting. The latter, I might add, were not involved in the original discussions. Prioryman (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I exchanged some talk page messages with ACP2011 some months ago, and was hoping to work with her on some war memorial articles. It would be good if someone could follow up and find out if she has any plans to return. I need to get some sleep and do some other things this weekend, but if no-one else has commented by the end of the weekend, closing that discussion might be justified. It would certainly be silly to have it open for weeks on end. But I'm not sure how much difference it will actually make, seeing as there aren't that many of those DYKs left. You've asked me and Casliber. I'm wondering if asking one more person might help? Could you point Casliber at this thread and ask him what he thinks? It might also be a good idea to leave notes at the WT:DYK discussion pointing out who you've asked about this, just so no-one is blind-sided by this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Several people (including myself) have tried to contact her by various means but as far as I know, nobody's had any response since November. Some people from Wikipediocracy were trying to out her at the time and I fear this may have precipitated her departure. You're right that there's not many DYKs left, but the issue is more about what we do with future DYKs. I'm still working my way through the Sieges of Gibraltar and the personalities associated with them, and I have some work to do on the fortifications in conjunction with Gibmetal77. I can see no good reason to continue to restrict these since the original concerns about the now-ended Gibraltarpedia competition no longer apply. On a more personal level, the restrictions have been quite a frustrating experience. My DYKs are, as I think you know, of a pretty high quality and they normally get reviewed pretty quickly - within a few days at the most. Nobody has ever expressed any concerns about my Gibraltar-related DYKs yet I've had to wait anything up to two and a half months for them to be reviewed. I don't see how perpetuating that situation can possibly benefit anyone. At any rate, the discussion is currently at a standstill and I agree that closing it by the end of this weekend would be a good idea.

I asked you and Cas because you're both (ex-)arbitrators with experience of DYK, uninvolved in the previous discussions, and your judgement in the matter would be highly regarded by the community. I can't think of anyone else who fits that bill. Prioryman (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just following up to say that the discussion seems to have tailed off - it's run for 10 days now but nobody has commented in days. Could you please close the thread? Prioryman (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've closed it now. I'm going to drop a note at Casliber's talk page, and then I'll be offline until this evening if there are any questions arising from this. Hopefully the comments are clear enough. Carcharoth (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

They are, though I have to say that I'm both surprised and disappointed that you don't feel that a 10:3 majority constitutes a consensus. I'll consider what to do next, though in the meantime I thought I would let you know that I've proposed an amendment to the restrictions and notified that to several other pages - see WT:DYK#Proposed minor wording change to Gibraltarpedia restrictions. Prioryman (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Replying to this briefly: it wasn't a 10:3 majority. The views were split 7:3:3 between three options. The three people that supported a limited lifting of the restrictions, or suggested continuing the restrictions in some form, clearly cannot be counted as supporting a full lifting of the restrictions. It is possible that some form of limited lifting of the restrictions would gain a 10:3 majority, but that would have required a new proposal. Looking at how the subsequent discussion has developed so far, making clearer the overlap and differences between WikiProject Gibraltar and Gibraltarpedia might help. On the backlog, the bottleneck seems to be getting two reviewers for each nomination. You could ask for help to clear that backlog, along with clearing out some of the oldest non-Gibraltar-related nominations at the same time. Carcharoth (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Here's wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; reviews are always welcome at FAC, FAR and TFA requests. Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, thanks to many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I did notice things had been fractious. Let's hope everyone can pull together going forward. Carcharoth (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Jack James (rocket engineer)

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Robert J. Parks

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

RFAR

Sorry for my excessively long case request and comments. I hadn't been involved in arbitration previously and didn't understand the difference between case requests and cases. Ryan Vesey 15:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Magnus Carlsen

Hi Carcharoth, I'd like to take you up on your kind offer to source from Wonderboy. In particular, the sentence "Becoming an International Master, Carlsen was given a year off from elementary school to participate in international chess tournaments during the fall season of 2003." is not sourced. If you could add a citation/page number for that, then I think the article would be fully referenced and ready for its GA review. I've got the book on order (and the 2012 games collection by Mikhalchishin and Stetsko), so I'll be able to develop the article more fully before a future FAC. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a games collection? :-) I'll pop by the article and add the reference. You may need to tweak it to fit whatever citation style is there. Enjoy the book when it arrives. Carcharoth (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

French army officers

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

At long last I have discovered how to search the French archives page. If you head over to this page it takes you to the database of Legion of Honour recipients, click search (recherche) and it gives you options to list recipients by:

• Surname (male recipients)
• Surname (female recipients)
• 84 records which are kept separately at the Grand Chancellery or the Museum of the Legion of Honor (the other listings are records at the National Archives of Paris or Fontainebleau)
• Town of birth
• Department of birth

With a last bullet point giving you access to the advanced search.

The records are incomplete due to lost documentation but seem fairly comprehensive, containing correspondence, pension records and so forth along with the legion records and service records.

The ones you are interested in are:

• Emile Eugène Belin (1853-1937) Already at French Wikipedia
• Maurice Pellé Already at French Wikipedia
• Edmond Buat Already at French Wikipedia

Still nothing for d'Alenson though, you'd expect all the Chiefs of Staff to hold a Legion appointment. He is proving a very difficult man to pin down! Let me know if you start drafting articles for any of these men, I be more than happy to help with them - Dumelow (talk) 09:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It is also possible to view the French army officer lists and pension records. These are divided by branch of service (metropolitan army or colonial) and by date of leaving service and provide basic information about the man (date of leaving service, rank and regiment). So for example I can find René Laverdure, killed in Morocco in 1914, on page 61 of the 1900-1926 colonial records. But again no sign of d'Alenson - Dumelow (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I had noticed the French Wikipedia articles - may I ask what your approach is in general when a French Wikipedia article exists? Do you request a translation, or try and build an article yourself using the same sources? I tend towards the latter, though if it is a well-developed article I have requested translation in the past. I read some of the material on d'Alenson, and it is a fascinating episode in that period of the war. I'm wondering if some of what is written is under a variant spelling of his name, but probably (given his death from consumption(?) [TB] during the war and that he is described as 'dying' already during the period in question) and the failure of the Nivelle Offensive (of which it seems d'Alenson, as Nivelle's right-hand man was a principal architect) it is maybe understandable that not much was said at the time. It seems subsequent historians haven't said too much on all this either. I wonder what Nivelle's views were? Anyway, let me know if you find anything more. I'll let you know when I get back to working on this topic. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Conant FAC

Hi Carcharoth, FYI I have finished making comments on the chemistry aspects of Conant's article, if you want to have a look. Regards, EdChem (talk) 08:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you think about this edit of mine as an approach to reducing the amount of GK references in the Conant article? EdChem (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That looks great (sorry for the delay in replying). Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It's ok - I recognise that your re-election will have added plenty of extra work. Glad I could help with the chemistry of the now-FA. I'm willing to help with other FACs that need a chemist's perspective, so feel free to drop me a note if I can be of assistance again. EdChem (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Will Streets

Just to let you know that I managed to get in touch with Victor Piuk, Will Streets' biographer, via Facebook, to ask him about the name. I believe he's now intending to contribute to the article. Deb (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It can sometimes be harder to contribute to Wikipedia as someone who is published on a subject (especially if you need to reference your own writings on something, as that can get tricky), but it is always great when someone who knows about a topic like this is willing to help out. I'll try and look in on the article, but let me know if I can be of any help at any point. Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

ODNBweb

FYI I have finally got around to implementing a new version of {{ODNBweb}}. See Template:ODNBweb/doc I think it will meet your requirements. -- PBS (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That does indeed look perfect. Carcharoth (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In answer to your question

You may wish to see my comments at the bottom of WT:DYK#Number of DYKs. Prioryman (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

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) 12:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Leroy Chang

KTC (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved and ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

• • Then go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  • Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  • Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  • You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (Your account is now active for 1 year!).
• If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelpcengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 18:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email failure: Will resend codes

Sorry for the disruption but apparently the email bot failed. We'll resend the codes this week. (note: If you were notified directly that your email preferences were not enabled, you still need to contact Ocaasi). Cheers, User:Ocaasi 21:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello, I was wondering if you could review a discussion re: the exclusion of the National Women's Soccer League on Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and provide your feedback? Discussion is available here. I'm seeking some impartial feedback from an administrator. There is a little bit of additional discussion on my Talk page. Thank you for your consideration. Hmlarson (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't have the time or inclination for that. Hopefully some of the others that I see you have asked will be able to help. Carcharoth (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The King and I is at FAC

Hi, Carcharoth. The King and I has been nominated for FAC. I know that you have reviewed articles in the musical theatre area before. It would be great if you could take a look at the article and give comments at the FAC. Thanks for any time you could spare! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will try and have a look, but can't promise that I will have time. Carcharoth (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Questia email success: Codes resent

Check your email. Enjoy! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Housekeeping...

It's only been over six years since you did some housekeeping at Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Assessment...I left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth.2FAssessment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)