This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

On 1 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Serge Voronoff, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I have a couple of questions for you if you have a few more minutes. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth. I saw your post on WT:RFA about malformed noms, and I was wondering about a related question. My RfAs are non-uniformly named (xiner links to my first, Xiner is a redirect to my second. I'm not sure if it's advisable or even against MOS to get rid of the redirect (which would involved modifying talk pages). Any thoughts? Thanks. Xiner ( talk, a promise) 16:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you've noticed or not, but Kingbotk ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and a friend's bot, Reedy Bot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), are busily tagging for WPBio. We're doing dead people categories, as you requested, and stubs. I've supplied the lists for Reedy Bot, he's just feeding them into AWB. Going well, no substantive complaints, 5 figures done, 6 figures queued up. -- kingboyk 18:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, no, thanks for letting me know. Good news! By "5 figures done", do you mean over 10,000 articles being tagged?? Carcharoth 19:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, well over. -- kingboyk 19:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Enough for several more assessment drives? :-) Do you think you might be near the end of finding all the articles that need tagging? Oops. I said I was off to eat. Carcharoth 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of them already have tags and are just getting new parameters, some of them have tags and are getting auto-assessed as stub class, some of them were previously unknown to the project, and some of them are getting edited more than once because AWB is list-based not a page-reading spider (and it's very difficult and time consuming to do intersections). I'm not keeping detailed statistics on this, but the WP1 bot stats together with the article count in Category:Automatically assessed biography articles tells the story. (For the record, when we last checked - last night I think - Category:Automatically assessed biography articles contained 33,000 pages; we await with interest an update to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality statistics).

This run will catch most of the stray articles, but certainly not all of them. Last month I finished off Category:Living people, I've now done or have queued up all the deaths by year categories, and also some of the large people stub categories. That leaves:

• articles created since I made my lists
• articles which aren't properly categorised
• articles in small or badly organised categories, which I've skipped.

If we really want to catch those, we'll need more hands on deck, in particular to work through the fiddly categories. All that's needed is some time, a copy of AWB, and a copy of my plugin. -- kingboyk 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgot one:

• Articles which don't have the proper birth/death categories nor a stub template. I can't imagine there are too many of those though :) -- kingboyk 13:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The "created since" thing is probably the thing that would be most helpful - there is a limit to how long you can spend looking for miscategorised or uncategorised articles. Ideally, the subcategories of Category:People would be all you need, so you could identify a reliable process that, if the category structure is kept well-maintained, you (or others) could periodically run scans over the subcatgories for untagged articles. The production of such lists, and the tagging, could be automated, and all you'd really need is people to weed out the false positives. Glad to hear though that over 100,000 articles are being added to the pile. Makes the 700 unassessed articles at WP:M-E look like a cinch! :-) Carcharoth 19:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

<-- Maybe try this: User:AlexNewArtBot -- kingboyk 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think you've misunderstood me. Most of the articles have been created, and we aren't worried about obscure articles taking a while to be found. We just don't have the manpower or motivation to do the work quickly. Slow and steady wins the race, I guess. Carcharoth 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hang on. You meant use it to find new people articles? That would make sense, yes. But then someone would have to read that page and work out how to use it... (yes, I'm not volunteering myself!) Carcharoth 20:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jump in numbers -- kingboyk 22:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

50,000 increase in 9 days. I consider that a big jump, don't you? :) Also, note that Stubs are up by 30,000 (mostly this will be due to the bot tagging class=Stub, auto=yes). The largest category, Category:20th century deaths, is still to do, but my main computer has broken down and I'm on the laptop, so the bot is a bit slower than normal. To compensate, 2 other bots have been helping me. -- kingboyk 11:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's great. Thanks for the update. I also checked out the assessment drive page, and "Through the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive, 44,324 articles were assessed, reducing the number of unassessed articles by an astounding 33% - from 135,345 to 91,021" looks a tad out of date now... I suppose it would be cruel to add: "...and then someone opened the door to another cupboard and over 50,000 articles fell out and completely wiped out the gains" :-) Seriously, I'm trying to work out exactly what the change in unassessed articles has been, and which data points were used to calculate the 44,324 assessed figure. Carcharoth 12:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect by the time the bots are done, we'll be up to 200,000 unassessed and will need a summer assessment drive!

You might want to look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Relationship_between_WPBio_and_WPOpera_.2F_WPComposers and User_talk:Martinp23#MartinBotII_problems. I don't know if replying would be productive, as the guy has WP:OWN issues and won't take no for an answer, but you should at least have a look :) -- kingboyk 12:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Ed Poor#Geographical context

Just in case readers cared about the country of the publisher, your change makes perfect sense. -- Uncle Ed 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ex-squeeze me? I'm no random stray. You're barking up the wrong tree, here, pal. ;-) -- Uncle Ed 15:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tut, tut! You've linked to a disambiguation page. Now, I wonder which one you meant... :-) Carcharoth 15:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> I need to concentrate here. I thought you were Mr Poor. Hang on. You are. I give up. When I get Ed Poor and Uncle Ed (the same person) and Uncle G mixed up, it really is time to go home. Carcharoth 15:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Introspection is good. You are a fine writer. -- Uncle Ed 15:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. OK. Thanks! You too (from what I've seen). Carcharoth 15:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi there. Just a quick note to say I've replied at Talk:War of Wrath. Carcharoth 11:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, put this on my talk page first, think it goes to yours.

If the subject of the article is a character or event that takes place in more than one fiction book and the books differ as to the aspect of this - how many ways are there to approach this? Since we are not writting solely about WoW in LoTR specifically and solely, or Silm. - for that matter, but about WoW - throughout. My last read of M.e. cannon article implied there was no final answer to 'what is canon'. For example, how to treat say, Beren who exists throughout. Or, how to treat the Lays of Beleriand, or material therein. My point beyond that is that I don't know what, or even if, Tolkien had a final intent here on this event. Generally, I think, for example, if 'later annals' is the last version of this event in that form (published and in print as well) - that is final. That JRRT might have again changed it, while likely as we know him, is speculative.

"Towards that end, I would strongly recommend splitting the article into sections according to the source. ie. A section on the published Silmarillion (or the Quenta Silmarillion [meaning the text in HoME - I forget the exact name] if they are practically identical), BoLT2, and so on. Be careful not to say too much - otherwise you may breach copyright"

I am keeping them in separate paragraphs, have you a suggestion for distinguishing beyond paragraph? Lines? Bold headings?

I will introduce the commanders as they appear in the text, the box as it was originally was misleading.

I'm thinking that the way, I'm doing it now serves both an in-universe and ex-universe purpose and also covers it, a bit in the body and again in the footnotes, as literary development, and it will be more readable (given the article's previous hyperbole is reduced -say). I'm not sure what you're worried about in term of copright infringement. I'm using refs and quotes and moving the overall synopsis lang. away from a Silm. style. If you can elaborate?

I took a pause on the article, because I'm coming to Vol.II & I on this and am concerned about another wholesale deletion.Tttom1 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I've replied to your question concerning the image rights of buildings at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. Regarding how copyright law tries to "futureproof" itself against technological developments, the short reply is that it tries to! For example, U.S. copyright law states:

“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed...

17 U.S.C. 101

while the equivalent provion of U.K. copyright law states

Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form. This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 17(2)

I am afraid that a discussion of the effect of the invention of photography on the development of copyright law is a subject more suitable to one or more doctoral theses than to a talk page answer! :) Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response at Wikipedia_talk:Link intersection. I'm interested to know how you manually filtered the "what links here" data to get an intersection, and what sort of results you got. It would be very helpful to add this sort of information to the proposal as an example of what it is capable of. I wrote the page mostly imagining what might happen if the feature were available. If you could add a real example that would be great. -- Samuel Wan tman 09:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Um. I'll try. Having been put on the spot like this, I fear my examples might be a tad strange. I'll try and come up with a good example in the next few days. Carcharoth 12:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you've volunteered to merge pages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4‎. I don't know if you're just talking about these pages, or the while category. I sincerely hope you're willing to do so, and if you'd like to share your plans at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess I'd be much appreciative. Frankly, I hope you are intent on doing this, the almost 200 pages in Category:Chess openings need a lot of work, and if you're sufficiently informed to make decisions on your own, perhaps it'll go easier for you. FrozenPurpleCube 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In danger, though it does need work. By the looks of it Middle-earth Cycle may soon follow. User:Blackthornbrethil edited these articles into much of its present state, and he's inactive - and the project's not particularly active either right now... Tolkien's legendarium is probably safe though. Uthanc 20:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:WOTTA. There you go. >Radiant< 11:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! aaaarrrghhhhhh!!!!! :-) Carcharoth 11:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be tempted to make page for Wikipedia:has too many pages. But, well, you know :) >Radiant< 12:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks. NawlinWiki 11:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Martin is claiming that BAG actions involved "conspiring to protect their own power base" (ludicrous and untrue, I have had no off wiki discussion on the matter with xaosflux), and has referred to us and me as "much less qualified and competent" than the self appointed IRC participants who decided to approve CydeBot without telling us. I am really quite shaken up and upset by the baseless accusations of bad faith, incompetence and idiocy, and believe it might be appropriate to file an RFC citing Kelly Martin and David Gerard, and possibly gmaxwell and Cyde. To file an RFC, two members need to certify the dispute and show diffs where dispute resolution was attempted. As somebody who has attempted to resolve the dispute, I wonder if you would be willing to so certify? If you are, perhaps we can work in my sandbox. -- kingboyk 14:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Can't look right now, but will do so later on today. Thanks for the pointer. Carcharoth 14:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I crossposted to several other people who have attempted to calm things down; alas you may need to check my contribs trail for a full view. (</disclosure>). Cheers. -- kingboyk 14:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I think it's best to just let the issue fade away. Thanks for your time and sorry to bother you. -- kingboyk 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Given your substantial rewrite of this article I have relisted the AfD. In the circumstances, I don't think it would be a problem if you contacted those who have expressed opinions in the debate to see if they still hold the same opinion in light of the rewrite. WjB scribe 00:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks muchly. I'll hold off until I've finished the rewrite (hopefully tomorrow). Carcharoth 00:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Article count is up to 360k, but unassessed is actually down to 124k. That'll be because we've been tagging some very large biographical stub categories. (Kingbotk is finishing the stubs task off now with Category:People stubs; the only job left after that is the biggest one, Category:20th century deaths). -- kingboyk 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC) PS Aren't you listed as a WPBio member? You don't seem to have received the newsletter?

Nup. I waft in and out of various WikiProjects. I used to join, but lost interest... I'm afraid I get distracted too easily! :-) Thanks for the update. Carcharoth 22:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you're one of the fairly active editors on the 2006 Lebanon War article. If you have a chance, please take part in the requested move discussion going on there. The move is in regards to whether we should use uppercase "War" or lowercase "war" in the article title. Whether you agree or disagree with my position, your feedback and vote would be appreciated. Cheers. — George Saliba ^{[ talk} 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, people are interested in lists of injured and documentation of injuries.

The person who wrote List of victims of the Columbine High School massacre included the injured. The timeline at Columbine_High_School_massacre includes the injuries sustained by the victims. WhisperToMe 15:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I realise that. The Columbine victims article gives their names and ages. That is sufficient. More is excessive. I'm also uncomfortable with the way the Columbine (and indeed several other school shooting articles) give detailed step-by-step accounts. That is the sort of thing a detailed book would do, not what an encyclopedia article does. I know Wikipedia is not paper, but this is more a question of style, rather than space. I can't stop you writing stuff like that, but I can say I am uncomfortable with it. Carcharoth 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth, information that easily applies to a VT tech list that cannot/cannot easily apply to Columbine list:

• Cities of origin (All Columbine victims lived in Jefferson County)
• Majors (People do not have majors in high school)

Now, as for the injuries, I would wait until an official timeline is established before moving the injury info there. WhisperToMe 23:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Party.gif

• You are too modest! You did all the work! :-) I enjoyed watching and helping out. I'll put the funny clothes away for now, but you'll make a Jacobean historian out of me yet! Carcharoth 00:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, you are too modest (hits with wet fish). Have this:

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, qp10qp, do verily award this here Order of the Barne to Sir Sherlock Carcharoth, Ist Earl of Cool, for dillygent effortes in featured salvatio per articulo James I of England, whereof "the many vexations have so overtaken one another as I know not what to resemble them so well as to the plaques of Job". qp10qp 14:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I like it very much. — Alde Baer 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Great edit! -- Guinnog 16:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've even used it as an example in the essay. I do like the rewrite, but I also agree with your comments about how the original intent was to discourage use in infoboxes. Your point about non-use in featured articles is interesting. My big moaning point is flags in historical people's infoboxes. Ethnic Germans in the Holy Roman Empire such as Gutenberg, for example. See the edit I made here. Carcharoth 16:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. It's pretty close. (Annoyed that image turned out suspect: there's a genuine one of him looking ferocious which I'll try to poach from somewhere.)

By the way, I want to apologise for seeming to constantly dismiss your ideas (now I've found myself doing the same with Egil). I'm not as pernickety and moany as this in real life, but I was trained this way as far as history is concerned, and I just can't help myself.

I hope you'll stick around the Jacobean topics. I'm going to try and use James as a base to improve some articles in the vicinity, such as Gunpowder plot and Thomas Overbury, up to a decent standard, spawning various daughters along the way.

qp10qp 13:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is Cerberoth the hybrid offspring of Cerberus and Carcharoth? That would be scary! :-) Don't worry about dismissing ideas - your edits lead me to trust you are a trained historian and as I'm not, I will gladly defer to you in these cases. If you are editing pages not on my watchlist, drop me a note if you want me to comment or copyedit, and they will get on my watchlist that way. While you are off looking for images of that ferocious Morton bloke, do you think you can get any of those James images we discussed? Carcharoth 13:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noted your comment regarding the various chess openings, and I thought you were able to articulate the issues very well. Since it seems to me that the members of the wikiproject have in large part developed a hostile mindset towards me, I wonder if you'd mind taking a look at Category:Chess openings and sharing your thoughts. I notice a lot of work has been done, though I think it's far from complete, I do at least hope there's a chance for things to continue to progress. Anyway, I just thought you might want to give things a once-over yourself. FrozenPurpleCube 14:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Sorry I didn't look at this before (when I said I would). I'll try and look at them in the next few days. Carcharoth 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No hurries, things are rarely in a rush, just wanted to make sure you remembered. FrozenPurpleCube 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. Feel free to copy that discussion over to wherever you like. Thanks for regrading Savage, by the way :) Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 19:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Ideally let's try to avoid the composer infoboxes discussion per se again because I bet everybody is thoroughly sick of that debate by now. Maybe from where I say "I think the basic problem with WP:BIO is its absurdly overambitious scope..." onwards would be best? Thanks. -- Folantin 20:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also probably advisable to tone some of it down a bit in its new context otherwise it looks as if we're going into their domain mobhanded. The stats I used are not precise and some may take offence at being referred to as "some editor" rather than by name. I'm not looking to start a war with WP:BIO, but a civilised discussion would be OK. Contextualise it in some way if you can: "This is what it looks like to an outsider", for instance. I've had enough conflict over the past few days! -- Folantin 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Carcharoth 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nicely handled. Thanks. -- Folantin 08:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey did I accidentally squish your edit (edit conflict)? Sorry about that! I need to watch where I'm going. :-) Ling.Nut 13:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments, I have posted some responses. IvoShandor 13:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In all the banter about the propriety of WP:WPChi bot tagging efforts, my suggestion may have been lost. Let me know what you think about my suggestion to alter your banner. TonyTheTiger ( talk/ cont/ bio) 17:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alter my banner? I'm not sure what you mean? What you said over there seemed sensible. I don't have much more to add, but I'll go and reply over there as well. Carcharoth 23:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I get what you mean now. You were talking about your original questions. I've now posted a note asking people to look back there and answer them if they can. I'm not really a WikiProject Biography member, so it's not 'my' template (which is why I was getting confused). Hope that helps. Carcharoth 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse-- ragesoss 06:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see from your post at the reference desk, which I saw from your post at Talk:Kenya Airways Flight 507, about times for locating wreckage (by the way, I posted a list of biggies I could find record of that have never been found) that you have read the above article. I have recently started converting some stuff ther that was still in present tense to past tense, in preparation for a push towards the article becomming our first air disaster FA (not counting Challenger, of course) and was wondering: as someone who knew nothing about the crash before, and has just read the article, do you think it's possible? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean Challenger disaster? :-) I'm almost certain there are other featured air disasters as well, but to answer your question, Adam Air Flight 574 looks very nice. Though as you say, the present/past tense stuff needs a lot of cleaning up. I'd say go for it! Have you had it peer reviewed yet? Carcharoth 16:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, damn. Forgot to capitalise 'Shuttle'. Check your link, it redirects there ;-). No, It's not been peer reviewed yet, I intend to do so after fixing the tenses and expanding the lead a touch. You'll know when it's being reviewed, as I'll leave a note at the Disaster Management Project. As for other FAs on air crashes, I checked the aviation project's assasment page for just that reason, got a few planes, airlines etc. at FA, but no disasters. Disasters really are underepresented at FA level (except hurricanes). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm torn between disasters and the history of science... :-) Carcharoth 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done it. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Adam Air Flight 574/archive1. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review comments. I'll start working down them at some point (one billion projects on the go as allways). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I had to reassess Faramir to B-status due to the fact that it's not a Good Article, though you could nominate it if you wanted to; that's one of the collaborations on Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth, which you are a member of. I doubt it'd succeed, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qmwne235 ( talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Assessment seems to have quite a good outline for an assessment for A-class articles, and seems to imply that A-class is defined as better than GA-class, but I guess it doesn't quite work that way. Anyway, I would be interested in setting up a formal assessment, but unfortunately, I'm not quite experienced with the inner workings of Wikipedia so I probably wouldn't know what I was doing. -- queso man 21:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rock Springs Massacre is basically ready for FAC pending some copy edits. Could you take a look to see if anything additional needs to be done? IvoShandor 13:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and edit. : ) IvoShandor 15:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links too. North American Review is a particularly good one to have. : ) IvoShandor 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it. But the Stuarts, they're like buses, I tell you: you can only get on one at a time. To be honest, I'm close to the late end of my range of knowledge with James, and my interest in Charles rather peters out at around 1635 (I hope to work on sir duke lord Buckingham some day, and Siege of La Rochelle, maybe. The second half of Charles's reign and the Civil War is a very specialised field which would call for an enormous number of books, and I don't feel equipped to address it (though I could googlebookblag it)—also I find it somewhat uncongenial because I DONT LIKE PURITANS. So I'm going to give that one a rain check—though I'd certainly like to work on the early part of it one day (I actually quite like the young Charles: whisper it not, but I think he was a nice little guy: have you seen that lovely gauche Peake of him I've stuck in Anne's "children" section?). Unless someone gets cracking, though, I fear Charles is for the chop. qp10qp 14:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Responded at User:Kim_Bruning/rfatest#request_for_response_by_Carcharoth. -- Kim Bruning 00:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Carcharoth 00:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen this thread on the Main Page talk, I've commented there (near the end) about the picture that was used at the last minute for the Main Page blurb for the Baby Gender Mentor article. ShadowHalo kindly pointed out the edit here that put that picture in. I didn't realise until very late in the day what had been troubling me about that picture, but when you Johntex replaced it with the diagram related to the Y-chromosome, I realised that the smiley picture of the pregnant woman had contributed (in my case) to the impression I (and others) had of the initial blurb (plus picture) looking like an advert. I understand that it is difficult to find replacement images at the last minute, but would it be possible to bear that sort of thing in mind in future? Also, as others deal with this sort of thing as well, where do you think is the best place to raise this for future reference? Carcharoth 12:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You think that replacing a brightly-colored (including a yellow background!), manufacturer-supplied promotional image with a PD photograph of a pregnant woman made the section look more like an advertisement? To me, this screamed "advertisement!". It was created specifically to advertise the product.

I have little involvement in the FA process. I do, however, try to check Main Page/Tomorrow to ensure that the upcoming thumbnails are properly configured. (They frequently require cropping, resizing, et cetera.) This is how I noticed that a non-free promotional image was being used, so I replaced it with the best thing that I could think of on short notice. Others, of course, were welcome to find alternative replacements, but this didn't occur until late in the day.

My recommendation for avoiding this sort of problem in the future is for the users who submit proposed TFA blurbs (and Mark Pellegrini) to be more careful about the images that they include. In this instance, the non-free image was easily replaceable with a free photograph of the product removed from its packaging, and the fact that we lacked such a picture (because no one supplied it) was no excuse for placing a non-free image on the main page.

I imagine that Talk:Main Page is the best place to discuss such issues. With some foresight, the selection of an appropriate thumbnail could be discussed on the talk page of the featured article itself. — David Levy 13:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the image you replaced was more unsuitable. Remember that I never saw that image because you had replaced it before it appeared on the Main Page. I am merely saying (after becoming aware of the editing history) that the smiley pregnant woman didn't reduce the connotations of advertising. I wasn't suggesting you should have left that packaging image there, but I am saying that going straight to the Y chromosome image would have been preferable, in my opinion. BTW, talking of yellow backgrounds, do you know why copyright has a bright yellow version of the copyright symbol? There is even a red version of that symbol as well. Is there a reason why the black version isn't used? Carcharoth 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't view the original picture (clearly visible in the revision history) before claiming that I switched to a "public relations-style photo" in an effort to make the product "look nice"?

As I said, the shot of a pregnant woman was the best image that I was able to come up with. It isn't as though I considered and rejected the Y chromosome diagram. I simply didn't think of it (nor, it appears, did anyone else until late in the day). Sorry.

I don't know why the yellow copyright symbol appears in that article. — David Levy 14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Look, I can understand why you might feel that I said you were trying to make the product look nice, but please believe me when I say I wasn't. This is a simple misunderstanding. Have a look again at what I said:

"Hmm. Can you find the discussion and editor who did that? I'd like to point this out to them for future reference. Smiley, public relations-style photos really aren't suitable for making dodgy pregnancy test products look nice." - Carcharoth, 13 May 2007

I said that such photos are not suitable for making the products look nice. I was saying that the photo, on its own, was making the product look nice. I never claimed you switched to make it look nice, but that someone had changed it, and that it also looked nice (ie. the change and the niceness were not necessarily, and from what you've said, definitely, not connected). Forgive me for speculating on your thought processes here, but the way I see it, your first impression was seeing the packaging picture, thinking "advert and non-free image" and then changing it. My first impression was seeing the smiley pregnant woman picture and thinking "ah, how nice", scanning across to the prominent brandname and (later) thinking "that picture helped advertise the brandname". Do you see how that creates a different impression of what is going on here? I would have said the same thing regardless of what the previous image was. Carcharoth 14:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi there; you make a fair point, but the skill is, as you say, vanishingly rare. I have no evidence to substantiate this point, but I suspect that a genuine poyglot would not feel the need to boast about it on a userpage. I could be wrong.-- Anthony.bradbury 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the hunting trophy redirect, it turns out it was only on one "end" there was a problem - in the trophy hunting article itself, and I have fixed it. -- Fyslee/ talk 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, It's only been the second week since I added removed featured pictures so i am still getting used to it. The Placebo Effect 17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you still interested in helping with this: Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_sales_catalogue_or_price_guide? Just wondering, as I hadn't seen you post there for a bit (unless I missed it). I'm still hoping a policy can be introduced, so the prices on video game lists can be removed as it's not encyclopedic. RobJ1981 21:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I put up the appropriate merger tags on the articles, but I also placed the topic in "Proposed Mergers". I think it may be slightly controversial on the basis that we have a lot of people with a differing opinion of what satisfies "crystal ball" policy, and where information should go when it falls into a grey area.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a little bit of code that allows a picture to be put anywhere you want on the page. I could give it to you if you want.-- ROASTY TOAST 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Raul654 seems to have unprotected the TFA archives that you've put editprotected requests on, so you should be able to make the changes yourself. -- ais523 16:48, 18 May 2007 ( U T C)

I just noticed... Thanks. :-) Carcharoth 16:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I should point out that the page was never a guideline. Rather, it was a proposal for a guideline, for which debate had died down with no obvious consensus. Inactive proposals are generally marked as such to indicate that, well, they're inactive. This should not prevent people from reinvigorating discussion and/or drawing in more feedback by advertising it. >Radiant< 21:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you'd like to see that I've attended to Fry and its network of related pages following the closure of the LoPbN M/AFD. I shudder to think how long it would take to revise all of the disambiguation pages Wiki-wide, though. Ah, to dream... Serpent's Choice 09:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I was unresponsive mainly because I wasn't on-wiki for a few days. Happy editing ;) >Radiant< 11:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to have presumed anything else. If I'd stopped and thought (or checked your contribs), I'd have guessed it was something like that. Carcharoth 11:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

You recently nominated Image:Inselian.jpg for deletion, but mentioned that you would withdraw the nomination under certain conditions.

Where do stand on the nomination? Although it appears there is consensus to keep the image, I thought I'd ask for your feedback before taking any action.

Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page regarding this matter. -- Aarktica 15:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought you might find this discussion interesting. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed you did! -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that this IP and their friend in Germany are harrassing me, trolling me, and efforting not to improve Wikipedia, but to scuttle my work the way I am trying to do it. This has been going on for months. I left a lengthy explanation on the Admin noticeboard under their question. -- David Shankbone 05:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The one problem I see with using categories of catalogs for astronomical objects just for the catalog identifiers is that the main article itself will not contain the appropriate category. So, for example, if Messier 104 appeared in Category:Messier objects but Sombrero Galaxy did not, then it would not be possible to get to the category from Sombrero Galaxy. Does this make sense? Dr. Submillimeter 10:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds really bad. Although it would fix the problem with objects with common names, it would cause problems with objects known primarily by their catalog numbers. Messier 83, for example, would end up in both categories. This would cause a lot of confusion regarding navigation, as the users would find two sets of categories for navigation instead of one. Dr. Submillimeter 11:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any interest in becoming an admin? I took a quick squiz at your contributions (good) your edit count is enough to satisfy all but the most extreme editcountitis and I was extremely impress by how you handled this issue. Get back to me when you get back from holidays :) Viridae ^Talk 00:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested, I would like to co-nominate. I'd also like to suggest that it is time to archive this page! I've started using Werdnabot, it was quick and easy to set up and works well. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 01:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, if you think this nmeeds archiving - take a look at mine. I have been meaning to to it for ages. Viridae ^Talk 07:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion. I'm still mulling things over from the last time this was suggested! I still think I like editing more than I think I would enjoy doing admin tasks, and I still want to get more organised as I know how much drama some admin-related stuff can generate. I'll let you know if I ever get round to dealing with my personal backlogs enough to consider an RfA (I know others have said in the past I shouldn't let personal organisation and unfinished stuff be a big deal, but it is to me). Oh, and thanks for the reminders about archiving. I'll do that now! Carcharoth 16:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Gah! I'm two archive pages (and four months) behind. I prefer manual archiving, but maybe submitting to an archive bot is a better idea. Carcharoth 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)