Jump to content

User talk:Carcharoth/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter

We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions), Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions) and Australia Sp33dyphil (submissions), all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 12:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period Jul-Sept 2011, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Buggie111 (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a note for the record (and for myself rather than being any sort of reply) to say that despite the impressive looking medal and all that, it wasn't that much reviewing. Others did far more. Carcharoth (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Death-related art, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

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

Concerning Albert Ball

Hello,

I have never before taken part in an ACR. I have just interspersed some feedback in the discussion, to address some of your concerns. I hope I have done so in proper form. If I have erred, please forgive me.

Thank you for your time, energy, and incisive commentary in this review. You have even inadvertently pointed out a problem with Lothar von Richthofen's bio.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. No problem at all with the comments so far. I should explain that my background is more memorials and 'aftermath' and 'legacy' materials, teasing out bits of information that I like reading about. I may go overboard on that, and I hope someone will rein that in if I go too far, and that someone will also take the time to review the actual military and aviation aspects of this article.

One reason I find stories like this so fascinating is the enduring nature of the social and personal responses, and of the intensity of the feelings at the time, hardly lessened by distance and time. There are many, many stories of parents (from that general strata of society) who lost children in the Great War, dedicating themselves to memorializing those who were lost (many published memorial booklets like the 1918 one mentioned in the article). Here, you have the added element of the public adulation as well. The erection of that marker in the French field is particularly evocative, as is the fact that the model of the statue was kept by the father and later passed on to the National Portrait Gallery. And building those Memorial Homes, that is a really grand gesture, and resonates with me particularly because a similar thing (on a larger scale) happened near where I live. I'm referring to the Star and Garter Home in London being built as the Women of the Empire's Memorial of the Great War. There were many projects like that all over the UK following the war, but the story of these Albert Ball Memorial Homes is a really nice one. Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the encyclopedic process has muffled the cultural aspects of Ball's life, though my point of view differs somewhat from yours. The driving impulse of my persuading Ian to edit and promote this article stems from my own experiences. Albert Ball, the man-child impelled to war by his convictions, reminds me vividly of the teenage soldiers who served beside me during the Vietnam War. Reading between the lines, Albert must have been suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and would have lived a hellish existence if he had survived the war. The strain to a sensitive, talented youth forced to over-ride his inner nature to become a killer must have been horrendous.

I also believe that the present-day public's trope of the gallant British schoolboys of the RAF shooting down the horrible Huns stems from the British public's adulation of Albert Ball.

How to make these aspects shine through in an encyclopedia article? I am not quite sure it's possible, unfortunately. That's why Albert Ball has become a character in my novel in progress.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Though I disagree that the encyclopedic process should have, or needs to, "muffle" the cultural aspects of Ball's life. If you cast the net widely enough for sources, there should be enough there, both on his life and what followed his death. The article does need to summarise, but there are lots of details that I would include and I'm unsure whether they have been excluded for a reason or just not been considered or even known about by you or Ian. This is a perennial problem I come up against when reading up on an article when I review it. I read about stuff and think "why isn't that in there?". Too much of the process of considering and discarding material is silent - i.e. readers and editors that come to the article after you and Ian have edited it don't have a way of visualising how the article was produced and what was included and what was not. I was looking at this some more today, and came up with the following additional material (this is only a brief summary):
  • Several authors comment on and compare Billy Bishop and Albert Ball when writing about Bishop. One example is descriptions of when they met, as here. Another example is this analysis of the musical I mentioned at the review, Billy Bishop Goes to War.
  • There is a fairly extensive literature on memorials and remembrance. One example relating to Ball is here (I have a copy of this book). There are likely other examples of mentions in the literature like that. One thing of particular note there is the references to the local newspaper report on the unveiling of the Albert Ball Memorial (the statue).
  • As well as the literature on memorials and remembrance, and the literature on WWI flying aces, there is the literature on the Victoria Cross. There is a new edition of the book Supreme Courage that was published this year. Part of the entry on Ball can be seen here, and that also gives a different perspective, in particular the details of the German inscription on the first wooden cross erected on his grave.
  • Funds from the 1918 biography went towards the memorial fund.
  • There was a brass memorial with oak leaves, probably in the church.
  • There was a memorial service held in Nottingham . One picture is here. There are several descriptions of this memorial service around. Certainly enough to warrant a mention in the Wikipedia article.
  • You and Ian are probably already aware of this. Whether the details there can be verified to reliable sources is something I would personally follow up, but I get the impression that these details are not so important to you two, or am I misjudging the editorial decisions being made here?
  • I did find a really great site with lots of pictures relating to Ball. It is the 'Picture the Past' website for Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, which can be found here. Go to their image search page and search for ALBERT BALL, and you should get nine pages of results, including some of the aircraft he flew (I've not included those on the list below). When I find a resource like this, I try and work it into the external links somehow. For now (it doesn't seem possible to reliably link to the images), I've gone through the images, and the ones that really stood out for me were:
    • NTGM012296 "Albert Ball with Charles Shaws' sons"
    • NTGM012290 "Presentation of a silver rose bowl to Albert Ball, donated by the citizens of Lenton, December 1916."
    • NTGM012291 "Albert Ball Memorial Service Procession, 1917"
    • NTGM012289 "Albert Ball receiving Freedom of Nottingham Award, 1917"
    • NTGM012288 "Albert Ball with Parents and former Headmaster, Nottingham, 1917"
    • NTGM012282 "Albert Ball and his mother, Harriet"
    • NTGM010936 "Ball and his dog"
    • NTGM010921 "Group at unveiling of memorial statue in the castle grounds"
    • NTGM010913 Albert Ball, Sr "Mayor of Nottingham 1909-10, Father of Capt. Albert Ball"
    • NTGM010911 "Opening of the Albert Ball memorial homes, 1922"
    • NTGM010909 "King George presenting VC to Albert Ball's parents, Old Market Square, Nottingham, 1917"
    • NTGM010906 "Albert Ball Memorial Service, St Mary's Church, Nottingham, 10th June 1917"
    • DCHQ504599 "Photo by Cicely Drew; 1916-17" (that might be the one no-one could work out where it came from)
  • Albert Ball, Sr. was knighted in 1924, so precision on title is needed (shouldn't call him Sir before then).
  • Albert's younger brother Cyril (seen in uniform in one of the memorial procession photos) was also an aviator and was shot down and became a prisoner-of-war. That should really be mentioned. There is also a painting of his sister Lois here and one of Albert here (both by Noel Denholm Davis).
  • Ball also appears on this memorial (Nottingham Castle Victoria Cross Memorial)
  • Finally, there is the annual parade that you mentioned. I'd look for the name of the organisation that arranges that, to see if there is any reliable information relating to that.
I'm not going to add the above to the article talk page or the review page just yet. I want to give Ian a chance to respond first to what I've already put there. But I think the basic tension here is between a comprehensive article that covers all (or most) of the above (plus what I have already pointed out at the review), and one that only touches on these matters. I would chose the former, but others chose the latter. The difference here is that Ball's status as one of the really famous aviators of that period of the war justifies writing more on all this, in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys, don't think I'm ignoring this, or the most recent comments at the ACR, just a matter of allocating time among a few different things. In short, I think the article already "touches on these matters", i.e. it mentions in the lead and afterwards his status as the first famous British ace, and it describes various memorials and other aspects of his legacy. As I said in the ACR, I'm happy to add some more on the legacy part, and there's always a few other things one can add on character traits and impact on society (as I've said, it is missing reactions to his death and I definitely want to add those, but let me trawl secondary sources before we look at newspapers). However I don't think we should overbalance the article with too big a tail end. Fortunately you've come up with all this early in the review so hopefully we can expand on it enough to cover the most important things, and hear other reviewers' perspectives on it as well. I'll also respond to the recent ACR points as soon as I get a chance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Since I've got time right now, though, I'm going to make some of the more obvious changes and you can make changes where needed if you think I go too far. Carcharoth (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi, tks for saving us work making changes to the article based on your comments. I was under the impression from the ACR page that you were done editing it though -- can you leave a note here or ping me on my talk page when you're finished? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm done on the article for the next 10 hours or so. Am getting sleepy now! Body clock all over the place due to getting up early to watch the rugby. Not that there was much point, as England were awful. Anyway, just a note to leave on the talk page and that will be it for today. Apologies for hogging the page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, although I'm still in the process of adding a few things to the article, such as reactions to Ball's death, I think between us we've actioned pretty well all the specific points you made on the ACR page, except relationship with Bishop and other aces (am currently reviewing a source for that sort of thing). It would help if you could go through the points yourself and, if you're satisfied with their status, hide them in a collapsible section (rather than strike them, as I think we need to clear the page a bit). If there are still ACR points you think need to action, just give me brief pointers here so I can deal with them quickly and we can get to the stage where we close off your comments there. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll jot down the notes I have and consolidate at the ACR what I think is still left to cover. But first I need to put a chunk of text in a new talk page section. Carcharoth (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(od) Hi there, now effectively done as far as I'm concerned with expansion of the article to cover the main points we've discussed. With the amount of Ball references out there we could easily go on but this is after all a summary and I think we've captured the big picture and a plethora of interesting details. Even though this additional material is far more than one normally expects during an A-Class Review, I agree the article has improved and, unless anything major still stands out, I'd like to throw our efforts open to other reviewers and give the article a shot at achieving a successful assessment there -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've been following along and made a few corrections. If you could check those, that would be great. I'm very happy to give the article a successful shot at the ACR - are you saying that the ACR was effectively on hold while you were adding and adjusting the additional material, as such additions are normally expected to have been made before ACR (or are you saying the normal process would have been to add between ACR and FAC)? If the same applies to FAC, I'd like the chance to discuss the material on the talk page before any FAC (have a few more notes to add there, unsurprisingly, since as you say the little references out there relating to Ball are seemingly endless), but am happy to wait for the ACR to finish first. Do I need to say anything at the ACR other than striking the points you've addressed? I'll do that now, and check back later in the weekend. Carcharoth (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Would you care to join us?

Hello, Carcharoth,

You have made tremendous contributions to Albert Ball. I am overawed by your research skills, and admire your writing and editing talents. Ian and I have agreed that you deserve credit for your efforts to improve this article. Will you join us as a co-nominator of this article?

Please don't let false modesty hold you back. Step into the limelight and take your bow.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely -- we just wish we'd known your interest in the article before we went for ACR.... ;-) To clarify, let's proceed with the ACR as we've started, with George and I as co-noms and yourself as reviewer (and more than that of course but we can't really do a retroactive co-nom on the ACR!) Once that's done, however, since we've all in effect agreed to collaborate on some further improvements before FAC, it would make sense for you to be co-nom with us on that if you'd like to. BTW, experience shows that the quicker one nominates for FAC after an ACR, the more interest that FAC generates from within the MilHist reviewing community, which helps push it along... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, anything to do with WWI interests me. :-) I just watched a documentary (that I missed back in April) on the Livens Large Gallery Flame Projector. I would be happy to come fully on board with the Albert Ball article after the ACR and help prepare the article for any FAC nom. If my support at the ACR needs more clarity, please let me know, or point to this edit. FWIW, I had a quick look at the 1921 Briscoe book today, and it was indeed written very specifically for children. The photos in the 1918 Briscoe book includes a credit for what looks like that photo you might have been having problems with (not that this is very important, given the number of images you have already). The Cobbold book was available as well, and was, um, interesting. Let's just say I can see why Cobbold is not better known. The standard of poetry is, even to my eye, variable. The Kiernan book was also on the shelves, but didn't really get a chance to look at that properly. Will spend more time on that next week - though I'm uncertain exactly how useful it will be for the article, it was interesting on a personal level to be able to leaf through those four books. Carcharoth (talk) 03:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
That's great, mate. We can use the article's talk page to plan our attack... Re. the books, I know what you mean. The Briscoe/Stannard one that we have in the Mitchell Library in Sydney (I never found my notes from it that I'd taken a while back so just went back and had another look to make my recent additions) is the original edition from 1918. Further Reading entries occasionally seem to set off fire alarms in some reviewer's minds so if you can access Kiernan, even one snippet or quote from it might be a good idea. However as discussed, unless other reviewers at the ACR request specific changes, we can leave that till pre-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Further reading shouldn't set off alarm bells unless it is masquerading as 'further editing'. It is common for people to put sources they don't have access to in 'further reading' both to say to readers "you might want to read this" and to say to future editors "you might want to track this down and see if it can be used in future editing". But really, the latter should go under a "further editing" section on the talk page, and the former should only be done if an editor has looked through or read the work in question. A proper 'further reading' section will consist of works that at least one of the article editors will have looked at and thought it suitable for inclusion. Really, readers of Wikpedia articles, if they are using the articles to construct a reading list for a topic, need to first list the main sources and then list the entries provided for them in the further reading section. The problem often being that the sources mix up in-depth books on a topic with references used in passing to support a few points, and readers are expected to extract what they need from that.

To my mind, further reading sections of Wikipedia articles should be much more like those found in books. Something intended to guide the reader onwards for a more in-depth reading on the topic. This is why I would add at the top of any further reading section "the works given below should be read together with the main sources used for this article" (this may seem obvious, but in articles with hundreds of sources, where do you start?). The question of whether a further reading section is needed is, in my view, best answered by asking the following question: "After reading the article and the main sources provided, where should the reader go to next for more reading on the topic?". That should be the fundamental principle behind a Wikipedia 'further reading' section. Carcharoth (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, just an observation that not everyone seems to see it the way it should be seen, and I have to admit that the pragmatist in me just can't always be bothered spending the time to educate people on things like that... ;-) Just on the Briscoe/Stannard, do you mean the Birket shot? If so, that's now the second place (along with ODNB) that bloke gets a credit. However I haven't been able to find details or life dates for him so don't know if he died more than 70 years ago or was a government photographer or what. For the images, I think I may just have to ask the IWM to clarify what they beieve is PD and what's not, though as I said to HCHC at the ACR, I swear all the IWM ones had "public domain" on them at some stage... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
(replying belatedly to George) Thanks for the kind words! It's not false modesty, more wanting to respect the work you and Ian have done on the article. And also trying to play to my strengths, which mostly involve ferreting around with various web searches. Actually fitting stuff into articles and getting the balance right is something I don't always do right, which is why I've left that mostly to Ian. But as I said, I'll come back to this after the ACR. Carcharoth (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, Carcharoth. It's good to have you with us.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Should Albert Ball be promoted to A class or should he be shot down (so to speak)? Please indicate your preference on the A class review page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Carcharoth/Archive 37! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 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. EdwardsBot (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

News clips on Albert Ball

Could you please forward these to me via my email?

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'll send those to you and Ian now. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Entombment (Bouts)

Carcharoth, you made the cmt in an edit summary today that you'd revisit the FAC over the weekend but can I ask you to hold off for a bit. You left a lot of salient points, most concerned with clarity, and I want to get through them, but it needs time and careful editing. I think the article will be much improved after I get through your comments, and for that my thanks. Ceoil (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm ready to meet you on all cmts except the tempra point. I need some more time on that, but not too much. I'll be preoccupied during the week, so if you could respond on the other bits today when I have time that would be great. I will hopefully have the tempra thing fixed by tonight (reading). Ceoil (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It does look much better, though the piped link from 'soft tempera' to distemper (paint) threw me a bit. I'll try and look again late tonight (Thursday GMT), but want to finish something else off first. Carcharoth (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
This is turning into a long one, but no matter. I'm away from home and away from the books today, so likely I wont be able to get to your asks until at least mid week. The sources do cover, sometimes overly so and neglect other aspects of the work. So its just a matter of rolling up the sleves and digging in. I'll ping you when happy, and once again thanks for the view and careful attention. Uh, you do realise that I'll be banging on your door for reviews for other articles I push, if thats ok. Ceoil (talk) 13:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok can you take another look. Ceoil (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Will do. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Death-related art, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Paintings on the theme of death

Category:Paintings on the theme of death, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Carcharoth, have you noticed the Funerary art article? Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter

The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions), who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: Dreamafter (2007), jj137 (2008), Durova (2009) and Sturmvogel_66 (2010). The final standings were as follows:

  1. Zanzibar Hurricanehink (submissions)
  2. Australia Sp33dyphil (submissions)
  3. Greece Yellow Evan (submissions)
  4. Principality of Sealand Miyagawa (submissions)
  5. Ohio Wizardman (submissions)
  6. Scotland Casliber (submissions)
  7. Canada Resolute (submissions)
  8. Russia PresN (submissions)

Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

2011 WikiCup participation

Awarded to Carcharoth, who reached round 2 in the 2011 WikiCup.

It was good to have you on board this time around- we hope you enjoyed the competition! In case you are interested, signups for next year are open. Thanks, J Milburn and The ed17 20:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I hereby grant thee, Carcharoth, the diplomacy barnstar for posting one of the most well-thought out discussions on paraphrasing and DYK I have ever seen. Good one! Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Regarding your recent comments at WT:DYK, check out Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed - I haven't been able to check every hook every day, never mind for a whole week, but IIRC there was one queue of 6 articles where 3 had problems serious enough to warrant removal. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about that page. But what bugs me is the focus purely on the problems that people have time to point out. I'd like to know which articles are good enough to pass the standards being applied. I'd like to assume that everything not criticised is adequate or better, but I expect it is more of a vague "I've checked some, and there are other problems, but I only have time to point out the problems with these ones", followed by hand-wringing and "why is no-one doing anything". It would be far more helpful to say "x DYKs independently reviewed over this period of time (a day if a week is too much), of which y were inadequate, and z were adequate". This would yield percentages, and would help identify those doing good work, as well as those doing substandard work (my guess is that people do a mixture of both). Ideally, there would be stats produced for DYK to show what percentage those at 'removed' are of the entire workflow, including both those removed by regular reviewers and those removed by those catching stuff let through by regular reviewers. Anyway, I'm out for the rest of the day here, so hopefully someone will have time to do something like that. I rarely have enough time these days to do something like that, and if no-one does then that is a good argument for reducing the number of DYKs (no workflow should outstrip the ability of others to carry out independent reviews). Carcharoth (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

WP Academic Journals in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Academic Journals for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you've asked Crusio, Headbomb and John Vandenberg in addition to me. Those are the three I would have said you should ask, and I hope you get a suitable range of answers from them. They've certainly done more than I have on that project. Thanks for the notice, though, and I'll keep an eye on the page in case I can help out at all. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your message.

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

Reinstating "unreviewed" tags

Wilhelmina says she begin reviewing in March, and Δ says that the bot solution "would require a little elbow grease, but doable." There have been no further comments at The ANI thread. I think we should go ahead, but I would like to see more consensus that this is the thing to do. If you agree, would you say so at the ANI thread? If you and Fram agree, do you think that would be enough, or should we seek some further permission? Δ may need to do that anyway, I haven't followed all the ins and outs of his editing restrictions. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. If Wilhelmina agrees to this, no further permission is needed. I'd go ahead and ask Δ to do this, though as you say his editing restrictions may complicate matters. It's up to him, really, to work that one out. If he feels unable to do it, there may be others who can. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Reminder to self

Possible essay on this. Plus reminder that the text there was archived without being read, so any issues there are still unresolved. Unless the practice spreads, no need to take it further, but if it continues, raise it again. Carcharoth (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

CWGC/Richmond Cemetery

Possibly a bit late, but I have responded to your question at Talk:Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Repopulating unreviewed backlog

FYI: User talk:Δ#Replacing many "unreviewed" templates. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Paintings depicting death

Category:Paintings depicting death, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Replying about Committee size

Hi Carcharoth. I saw your comment to me, about how many Arbs should be elected, only after the discussion was closed, so I feel as though I ought to reply to you here. Actually, I agree with you that there's nothing much wrong with leaving a seat or two empty for a year, and I wouldn't have minded if the decision had gone the other way. It's not a big deal. But, for what it's worth, the hypothetical situation that you posed to me is worth a reply from me. If, very hypothetically, the Committee had resigned in its entirety, it's not at all so clear as you would make it that it would be a mistake to fill all the seats (but only, as we all agree, if enough candidates had enough support!). If we're going down the road of ad absurdum scenarios, what if the community had been expecting only a single vacancy before the election, and then the whole Committee resigned? Would we elect a single person as supreme dictator? It comes back to doing what's practical to keep things running smoothly, and, in my opinion, minimizing any changes in how things will eventually run, relative to what the community had been expecting. And perhaps we both agree that things could run pretty well whichever way this decision had gone. All the best, --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 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 remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wilhelmina's reviews

Δ has replied at User talk:Δ/20111101#Replacing many "unreviewed" templates that he has listed the pages involved - 3,594 of them - at User:Δ/Sandbox 4, but is "unable to currently tag them". I have not asked him why, or whether he expects to be able soon, and I am about to be away and out of touch for most of the rest of the year, so with apologies I am dumping the problem back in your lap and Fram's - sending this to him too. JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Got delayed myself in responding to this. Will follow-up with Fram and ask where to take the request - someone else is likely to be able to do this. Carcharoth (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carcharoth/Archive_37&oldid=1190236369"