User talk:Karanacs/Archive 11

COI'd and conflicted

Stanford Memorial Church and 2004 World Series are all yours; I don't think anyone on Wiki would argue I can be objective about the Red Sox, and MemChu even less these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'll take over those. I already figured I'd get the baseball articles :) Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Texas Revolution Reverts

I just spotted your comment while reverting the changes made by an anonymous user. While you are correct that novels are not appropriate sources of history for Wikipedia, the user was mistaken in characterizing Fehrenbach's Lone Star as a novel. It is actually a history of Texas written in 1968, and was the canonical political history of the state for some time. While the book is problematic in some regards, the only thing novel-like about it is its excellent prose. Ben (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

FA

Thanks for promoting Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver! I worked hard on it and it's great to see it get the star. ^_^ The Clawed One (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on Franklin Knight Lane, it has been a long saga.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You guys both did great work. Congratulations! Karanacs (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just small question

Hi, shouldn't Cirt, Awadewit, Jayen466, Jennavecia, and Casliber be involved parties in the case? --Caspian blue 20:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No idea. This is the first arbitration request I've filed; it's not really so much about a specific incident as a pattern of behavior, so I wasn't entirely sure how to do it. Karanacs (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think these editors are definitely involved editors (I'm not quite sure about Casliber) in the matter concerning Mattisse. You can consult it with Durova or Casliber since they're quite knowledgeable of such procedures.--Caspian blue 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I will ask Casliber. Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking

Good Day to you, I was wondering of the Arbs had voted on whether to continue delinking dates or if we will leave them alone?--Kumioko (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

They haven't started voting yet. I don't think there is a problem with delinking of dates during normal editing; the injunction applies to large-scale or automated/semi-automated edits for the sole purpose of removing dates. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse request for arbitration

Hi Karanacs. I have a question about the Mattisse RFAR. One of the things that the arbitration committee need to decide on (after reading the other statements presented) is the scope of the case and whether any other parties need to be added. If you have any further views on this in addition to those presented in your filing statment, please let us know. I have asked Mattisse the same question. Carcharoth (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gilbert Foliot FAC

Can I beg a favor from you to add on Malleus as a co-nom? I would but I'm afraid to mess up the format/etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'll do that right now. Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin help

To Karanacs and TPS; OK, who knows blocking policy? 142.33.38.189 (talk · contribs) is a vandal-only account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him for 72 hours. --Moni3 (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, dear ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC extension?

Is there any way that the FAC for Ralph Bakshi could be extended? I felt that the last FAC ended too quickly, and the current FAC is being opposed by an editor whose main concern seems to be that I am not focusing on individual episodes of a television series, which is hardly a major issue considering how extensively the article has been researched. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

I'll take a look at it tomorrow. We try to weigh all the opposes on the merits - if you have good arguments against implementing any requested changes, that can certainly lead us to hold the oppose in lower standing. Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The changes requested have been implemented. I have asked the reviewer if he would strike his oppose. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

I have made all the changes requested, and the reviewer still hasn't struck his opposition. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC))

Reviewers often need more than a few hours notice. You don't need to update me on the progress - I read the FACs through on Tuesdays, so I'll see it. Karanacs (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been pretty clear that the two editors who reviewed this article have not put any effort into reviewing it, and seem to have some sort of predetermined bias either against its subject or its nominator. I have no time to deal with editors who are not serious about reviewing this article. I have to move on Tuesday, and my computer access is going to be extremely limited. I do not wish to deal with petty bickering from people who do not understand what legitimate encyclopedic content is. The article is clearly up to standard, and it should have been listed ages ago. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

I saw your most recent post on the FAC (aimed at Laser brain) and was just about to leave a note there advising you to calm down. Most nominators firmly believe that their articles meet the criteria (otherwise we'd scold them for nominating them in the first place!). However, the point of having uninvolved editors review is to have different perspectives on what, if anything, the article needs to meet the FA criteria. I commend your dedication in continuing to bring this article to FAC, but I have seen several nominators (this and previous FACs) complain about your attitude toward making improvements. Consensus in previous FACs has been that the article does not meet the criteria, so it can't be promoted. If consensus is the same this time, you have two options: a) truly engage with the opposing reviewers and try to understand their perspective rather than do the minimum work necessary to try to make them strike the objection - then change the article; or b) accept that your vision of what this article should be will not be promoted to FA status.

Regardless of what happens, bashing reviewers is neither productive nor particularly classy. One of the reviewers in this case has provided a lot of documentation for you to look at, as well as detailed explanations of his reasoning. The other is a frequent FAC reviewers whose opinion on prose is widely respected on Wikipedia. While you may disagree with their conclusions, it is inappropriate to label them as "petty bickering" or lacking in understanding of "legitimate encyclopedic content". Karanacs (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that the editors are not uninvolved and have some sort of bias in one way or another. The article has been changed. It is up to standard. But even after satisfying all of the requirements set forth by the first reviewer, he has not taken another look at the article, and the second reviewer has clearly not looked at the article at all. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

You are way off base Ibaranoff24. I just took a quick look and immediately came across this: "After Paramount closed down its animation devision on December 1, 1967 ...". At a minimum the spelling in an FA has to be accurate. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

One minor typo that can be easily corrected is not a problem. The overall article is excellent. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

I have given you another, more serious problem, on my talk page. This article is simply not ready. Everything's probably there content-wise, but you need to try and recruit the help of a good copyeditor. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that

This is late, but sorry about being so sloppy with my phrasing for my statement. It seems to happen to me on WP... now I have to draft almost everything I write in mainspace in writing, and then I have to type it again. ceranthor 17:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Karanacs (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Route 41 in Michigan

It's back at FAC. I received some newspaper clippings right as Sandy closed the last FAC. (Literally, she closed it while I was at work and the scans from the library were in my email in-box.) As I stated in the renomination, the one set of newspaper articles allowed me to expand out the Interstate Bridge stuff a bit and eliminate the need to cite to a press release. The Peter White Public Library, located in Marquette, could no locate any newspaper articles on the turnback of the business loop at the time of the transfer, so the one press release is needed to confirm the date of transfer, but not other circumstances. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 08:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Misguided FAC

Hey mate. Just thought I'd bring this to your attention. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Maturity issues

I've posted on Moni's talk page previously, and now I would like to start a conversation here. At my RfA you opposed mainly because of maturity problems. I really only want the best for the project, really, so don't think that I'm doing this to change myself so that I'll pass an RfA; that would be, in a way, cheating the process. I'd just like to try and fix any major issues before they end up in me damaging the project or driving away editors. I figure that you still think my maturity gets in the way of my editing, so I'd like to try and get some constructive criticism on how to improve it, I guess. If you feel this should become an e-mail discussion, feel free to shoot me one. Thanks, ceranthor 00:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ceranthor. I admire your efforts to try to improve - I wish more editors were open to feedback! "Maturity", at least in the way I use it, is something that often comes with experience and time - it is not a quality that can be easily picked up. I don't have a lot of spare time at the moment to go through your contributions in any detail, but my overall impression in the few areas that we overlap is that you obviously mean very well, and you do have the good of the encyclopedia at heart. (I have not seen any behavior from you that would "driv[e] away editors".) At times, however, your reactions (as I've seen on talk pages) seem a little hasty and perhaps not well-considered. (Sorry I don't have examples, again, this is just my impression!)

The best advice I can give right now is unfortunately generic and bland, but useful in both online and real-world activities. Figure out what position you want, then watch closely people who are already in that position and are widely well-respected. Try to determine how their behavior and yours are different (in many cases, it may be minor differences in how things are worded, or what squabbles they step into...) and see if you can learn from their successes. Sometimes, just watching how an individual solves problems can be an eye-opener and provide a perspective that you would never have thought of before. You don't always have to learn from your own mistakes/successes - it is often less painful to learn from those of others too. Try to incorporate the behaviors that you like in others into your own editing, and avoid those behaviors that you don't like to see in others. Over time, you will see a difference in how you are perceived by others. Karanacs (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Generic and bland maybe, but good advice nevertheless. We all need good role models. I'd add to that though; watch closely people in that position and see where they go wrong, and make sure you don't make the same mistake. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just watch me for a while, Ceranthor—a good rule of thumb is to do the opposite of what I do. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany and arbitration

Thanks for looking up those diffs: that will save me some time. I hope the arbitration will work, but it is a rather complicated case and may require rather imaginative solutions. I don't see good ones right now, and really hope we can find them. All the best, Geometry guy 22:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also hoping the arbitrators have something really creative up their sleeves - I've run out of ideas of how to help. Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Persecution complex

I wanted to bring this up as it seems to be the main problem as I see it: "persecution complex". Lets assume that the above is part of the seeming paranoia, believing others are grouping together, and that there is a connection of the actions. Okay, we have that. How do you solve it? There are two ways that I can see - try to end the belief that there is persecution and find a way to ease what would provoke paranoia or remove the person. Blocking/banning would only verify in the individual's mind that there was persecution, and persecuted people normally have two results: acceptance or fighting back. Acceptance would mean that the individual is gone and can't benefit, and fighting back would mean that it would all be future negatives.

So what do we do? Especially when the evidence is pushing in one direction, that of verification of the persecution within the particular mindset? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why I took this to Arbcom. I am hoping they can get the full picture, including that Mattisse may genuinely believe some of this (I am of mixed feelings as to whether it is a genuine belief or not), and that Arbcom may have new ideas for us. I have no idea what else to do to help Mattisse, and nothing that we've tried so far seems to have gotten through to her. She hears the "good" of what we say (which I am glad of - she needs to know that she is appreciated) and totally ignores any constructive criticism as persecution. This leads to a poisonous atmosphere. I had hoped that John Carter or someone else would investigate the behavior of those Mattisse feels are most against her. I, for one, would like to know if I've taken specific actions that have created this atmosphere and how to fix that. Karanacs (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

But ArbCom is exactly the verification. Blah. It's like saying "people in white coats are going to take me way" enough times until it happens. Self-fulfilling prophecies, but it reinforces the original belief. Sigh. I don't know what the answer was. It could be by mistake that I was left off her recent list. I don't think it was my comment at the last RfC, because we have been oppositional since then. I think that one of the problems is feelings of a lack of acceptance. It tends to happen in cliquish environments (i.e. all of life). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely comfortable with this suggestion that it may somehow be someone else's fault, but I'm at a loss though know what the next step ought to be. Mattisse seems hell-bent on either self-destruction or vindication, with no middle ground. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) To Ottava - I've tried talking to her nicely to explain the problems. I've tried an RfC, hoping that would be a more neutral forum, and that blew up. I've noticed a lot of people have tried ignoring the bad behavior, but it hasn't gone away. I had hoped she would feel that Arbcom was more neutral, and that she would welcome the chance to prove that her perceptions are more correct, but that apparently is not the case. Wikipedia is not therapy, and I'm not sure how long the community needs to walk on tenterhooks so that Mattisse can cling to improper assumptions and exhibit bad faith. If nothing else, ArbCom may clarify that.

To Malleus - I honestly don't think that this is anyone else's fault, and I am conflicted as to whether I think she can control the behavior or not. I thought that Mattisse deserved the chance to present her perceptions to see whether she would be vindicated or not. Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I've tried to simply ignore it, and if it only affected one or two other editors as well it wouldn't bother me at all, but there's clearly a wide-scale problem here. It just isn't healthy to adopt the attitude that everyone who disagrees with you must be an enemy, in cahoots with everyone else who disagrees with you; sometimes people just disagree. My own, perhaps rather extreme, view is that you never really know someone until you've been in a disagreement with them. Anyone can be nice when the sun's shining, it's how you deal with the rain that tells. People are too afraid of disagreement, and so often don't handle it well; perhaps that's a part of Mattisse's problem, I don't know. What I do know though is that I'm glad I'm not on the arbitration committee.

And before anyone else says it, yes, I know, I should be a little more afraid of disagreement myself. But I'm not, so there. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How boring the world would be if no one ever disagreed! Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed :-) In response to Malleus, I'm hopeful that the disagreement between Mattisse and myself in February had an impact. As you will see from Karanacs' diffs, Mattisse was pretty pissed off with me over that. Yet now she frequently comes to my talk page for friendly advice. That shows she is able to appreciate that someone with a really quite opposing position on an issue need not be a long-term enemy. Geometry guy 19:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope you're right. I don't intend to involve myself in the case in any event. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC reviews

Love your FAC reviews. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Economy of the Han Dynasty

Hi Karanacs. I originally had a "&nd ash;" between every page range for citations, but a while ago someone changed them to the "–" dashes without the &nd ash; code. I have always used "&nd ash;" for page ranges and date ranges, but what is the difference between that and the other dash? The person who replaced all the "&nd ash;" with "–" asserted that there was no difference between the two.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

They look different on my screen. To me, it looks like the refs were using hyphens instead. What does it look like on your screen? (If they look the same to you in the sections I didn't do vs those that I changed then I'll revert myself; it could be my eyes.) Karanacs (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

On my screen they look identical. Here it is with the wiki code: "–". Here it is without the wiki code: "–". On my screen, they produce the same result.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should clean my glasses then. I'll revert myself. Sorry! Karanacs (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I just delinked some stuff in the article. I hope I didn't get rid of any valuable links.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:FAC

Thanks for the kind words, Karanacs! I'm grateful that the Tender Mercies FAC gave me so much good material for improving the article in the future, even if it wasn't ready for a pass. And of course, thanks for promoting Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo! — Hunter Kahn _(contribs) 21:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Tay-Sachs disease

Karen,

Wikipedia does a terrible job of weeding out trolls among its editors. Eubulides clearly had no intention or interest of approving of this article as a featured article candidate. I'm not going to waste my time with what are not good faith editors. I"m not going to use my time providing entertainment or therapy for some kid. Wikipedia needs to attract more editors with advanced professional and technical skills for articles on subjects such as Tay-Sachs disease. Most persons like myself don't want to waste time dealing with such troll-like behavior. Metzenberg (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been meaning to respond to your post on my talk, but haven't gotten to it. So I'll do so here. Eubulides is not a kid, not a "troll" and is a professional editor with broad medical genetics experience under his belt, including multiple Featured Articles. Not only that, but he behaves consistently as a scholar and a gentleman. Referring to him as a troll is not only a personal attack, but it prevents you from seeing advice and feedback from one of Wiki's finest medical editors. I urge you to re-evaluate your position, and strike the personal attacks from here and my page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandy,

If Eubulides is one of Wikipedia's "finest medical editors" then its obvious why Wikipedia isn't a very good medical reference and has few quality medical articles. If this is going to be a good encyclopedia, then let’s talk about what kind of editing improves the encyclopedia.

I consider posing and pretending to know something, for example, listing a bunch of articles and claiming that they should have been cited, to be disruptive and troll-like behavior. What am I supposed to do ... read each one of them and tell Eubulides why they are not included? That would take at least several hours, and be a waste of my time, because he would then come up with a list of ten more. He obviously hasn’t read any of those articles. There are thousands of published articles about Tay-Sachs. I am not here to entertain. And that’s not just troll-like behavior ... it’s kid-like behavior. It’s sophomoric.

Eubulides did not ask a single question that showed any insight or knowledge about medical genetics. He doesn't know what a lipid is, and he doesn't understand that not all mutations are genetic mutations. He has no substantive knowledge about this subject. Yet he was completely monopolizing discussion so that no other editor (perhaps one who knows something about the subject) could possibly participate.

If you want serious writers to contribute expert knowledge to Wikipedia, change the process so that we not constantly subjected to trolls. Do you really think that endless quibbles of what the name of some section should be is going to improve the article?

Why not limit the length of comments in the featured articles discussions to 250 or 500 words? If the reviewer wants to change the section headings, he should suggest it in the Talk page. Good editing is not throwing a lot of shit against the wall to see if any of it sticks. Metzenberg (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Metzenberg, I've read over that FAC, and there was nothing troll-like in any of the comments. It is typical at an FAC for reviewers to leave detailed reviews; this does not usually intimidate other reviewers from offering their own opinions. It is also not unusual for reviewers to ask about additional sources. Further, FAC is not like a real-world peer review. Reviewers likely won't have the same level of knowledge that the nominator does about that particular topic (often the FAC nomination is the first time that a reviewer has ever been introduced to the topic), so it is always possible that some of the requests are not reasonable. N ominators are welcome to rebut the suggestions (in a civil way); often this give-and-take between nominator and reviewer results in the reviewer withdrawing some of his or her objections (or the FAC delegates would disregard those objections). I suggest that you read through other open or recently closed nominations to gain a better perspective on how FAC actually works. I further suggest that you strike some of your comments above; personal attacks are not welcome on my talk page. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Eubulides really hadn't read the article carefully, and he is not informed enough about the subject to make the suggestions he was making. His suggestions failed to pass a simple test: Would this make the article a better article? For example, if he had looked at the Peer Review, he would have seen that I had already changed the headings and organization of sections to conform to what a different editor thought were the right sections based on Wikipedia guidelines for medical articles. Should I reorganize them yet again for a reviewer who really hasn't read the article line by line and doesn't understand the terminology or the subject matter. The first editor's ideas actually were helpful. Should I undo them.

Wikipedia may be the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, but that doesn't mean anybody should edit anything. To imagine otherwise is an absurdity. I'm not going to waste my time on this Featured Article process. After I patiently and civilly answered an entire round of Eubulides's uninformed questions, he started a new round, frankly full of questions that were pure semantic exercise and sophistry.

His entries were a complete monopolization of all discussion, which really gives no other editor a chance to offer an opinion. That's not what editors do. Eubulides would never be hired for this kind of editing in a professional environment. I don't consider these opinions personal attacks. I am stating my opinions, of course, but let's be frank that there was very little that was useful about Eubulides's edits. They were bad edits, and he should have known better. I'll repeat ... his editorial approach was to throw some shit against the wall and see if any of it sticks, while expecting me to clean up after him.

Do you want me to contribute to Wikipedia? I'm not interested in attention and excitement and arguments. I want to quietly write good, well researched articles on medicine and population genetics. If I ask for a review, I want a qualified reviewer, that's all. Give me an editor with at least a biology degree, or a few courses. If the reviewer isn't qualified, then limit him to a few hundred words so more qualified opinions are not drowned out.

If Wikipedia values the contribution of people who actually know something, who have the expertise to write technical and scientific articles, then Wikipedia should find some better process. In featured article reviews, a limit of 250 words, with anything more going onto the Talk Page, would accomplish this. Unfortunately, Wikipedia attracts people who want to edit where they get a lot of attention. Why not tell Eubulides to go write a few articles himself before he starts telling people who know much more than he does about how they should rearrange articles, on material where he hasn't even scratched the surface and knows nothing. Metzenberg (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Map request

My apologies for not responding to you in a timely manner! I have a bad habit of reading a post on my talk page at work and then forgetting about it later when I get home... I would be delighted to take a look at creating a map for Fredonian Rebellion, but it may need to wait until next weekend - I've had little time to do anything but flip through my watchlist of late. There is no need to improve one of my favorite articles; you've been specifically targeting them for years.. :) Kuru ^talk 22:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you :) Karanacs (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

I don't want to make it seem like people shouldn't speak if they feel a situation warrants it. I just want people to know that it can lead to problems, especially when it is a group of people that say the same thing against one person who feels intimidated. In such situations, it would seem appropriate for only one or two people to speak up (i.e. don't use too much force). You want the other side to focus on your words and not be distracted by other matters, no? Anyway, the focus is on being objective instead of subjective, and perception is key. Once another side things that you are attacking them, the situation cannot be resolved until it is deescalated. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion probably belongs on the workshop page, but while I agree that it shouldn't seem that one is attacking the other side, I think your proposal is unworkable. If a lot of people genuinely feel that there is a problem with X's behavior or disagree with Y's policy interpretation, they need to speak up (calmly and neutrally), otherwise it seems like it's just A vs X, and X can ignore A because A is obviously in the minority. Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor

Hi. I've recently been developing this article, very tough writing an article on a Bollywood actress and the amount of reliable sources on the subjects is pretty restrictive! i was wondering if you could have a look at the Kareena Kapoor and let me know if it is worth putting up for FAC. It possibly needs a further copyedit as do a lot of articles at FAC but let me know if you think it has any potential anyway. The content is similar to Preity Zinta article which is an FA, but I think it may need a final polish for grammar/MOS errors and a copyedit by fresh eyes? If you could raise my awareness of any issues now that you think would prevent it from being promoted I'd be deeply grateful if you could look into it. Best regards. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I will definitely take a look, hopefully by the end of the week. Karanacs (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll try to get one or two others to copyedit it in the meantime. Best.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi did you look at the article? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry, unexpected illness on Friday and then visiting family. I'll get to this no later than tomorrow - today if FAC promotions/archives don't take too long. Karanacs (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, hope you are better. Thanks Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have good timing - I am actually halfway through the article right now. Comments to be posted shortly. Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. Good points on most. Rediff.com is one of the very few sites which meets our guidelines for Bollywood. It is used in the Preity Zinta article for instance. Very few sites on Bollywood related articles are reliable as you can imagine so finding sources was difficult but there shouldn't be any problems with them. I'm not Indian myself but I believe you have identified a number of culture differences which make some of the article seem redundant to us westerners such as the kissing scandal etc. You must have heard about the Shilpa Shetty Richard Gere incident? Also it is the norm for Bollywood actors to appear in stage shows and sing. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rediff's been considered reliable for most things (I wouldn't trust it if it was the only site saying someone was an ax murderer, but for most stuff it's okay.) I have it on my "okay" list... somewhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well we don't regard it as the first port of call for sourcing but yes it is an adequate source. Karen, I and a few others have made some changes to the article and I believe that we have addressed most of your concerns. I did a lot of cutting down the unnecesarily long quotes and sentences earlier and changing the sentence structure a little to flow better. Part of the media section may seme like trivia but these things are also covered in the Preity Zinta and Angelina Jolie about polls. Actually I did a lot of work previously to cut down what was once a huge paragraph of polls so what we have now is a summary of the most notable. With some minor edits I think this is ready for FAC now. Can you see any difference? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

WOW...

Hey dear Karanacs...

Amazing review on Kareena Kapoor. I'm really impressed with your way of paying attention to the smallest of deatails. Will be obviously addrssed, thanks. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC pr/ar

Hey, Karanacs, thanks for taking care of things so well on your own! Would you mind doing another week alone? I should be ready to read FAC by next weekend (June 5, 6, 7). All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad you are feeling up to websurfing! Take good care of yourself. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on the trivials, but not ready to read an entire page of FAC ... don't suppose too many others understand how taxing that is :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Karanacs, do you think it would be possible to do the FAC closures as early as possible today? The second round of the Wikipedia:WikiCup ends today, and we're just waiting for FAC closures so that any contestant that has an FAC pass today can claim it for round 2. Thanks if possible,  iMatthew :  Chat  12:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe her response would be that you should get out there and add comments so that she can better decide to promote or archive :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do I have to review them? I'm simply asking if you could do closures a bit early, as it would be helpful to us.  iMatthew :  Chat  14:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to do them right now...sorry, I've been offline for over 24 hours (more visitors!). Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got internet access back now so I should be able to contribute. Raul654 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Image question

Hey, Karanacs. Do you have the back image of File:PostcardTheodoreRooseveltSpeechAtTheAlamo.jpg? That would help to verify that the view number. The eBay site is no longer valid. Jappalang (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. Someone else had uploaded the image, so I have to go by their description of what was on it. Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I see Noroton is still active. Might he have the image or other information to help? Alternatively, do you have access to A compilation of the messages and speeches of Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1905 where it is claimed the picture was taken (i.e. can you confirm if the photo was published in there)? Jappalang (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The photo itself wasn't published in the book (I may need to make that more clear). A similar picture was published, showing about half of what is in the postcard (but, unfortunately, not the Alamo itself). I will contact the uploader and see if he has more info. I was worried that this one wouldn't fly. Karanacs (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Texans!

I read a malapropism in The Onion years ago that stuck with me for some reason. A fake editorial was lamenting the passing of Selena with the headline, "Selena, Queen of Texaco Music". I found that deliciously funny, not that Selena died (Mrs. Moni would certainly kill me; her adoration of Selena runs deep) but the Texaco part. At any rate, here on the Random Hour, Look what I did. And specifically, have you any images of West Texas landscape, perhaps with storms off in the distance? I recall an analogy between Orbison's music and growing storms in the distance coming nearer until it crashed over your head. I have to find that quote, but I'm gonna! --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not more Selena! She used to live in the area where I live now, and one of my friends is lobbying me to create a museum in her honor; this comes up Every Single Time I see him (he's a real smart-aleck in general). Maybe my friend and Mrs. Moni can work on that project together ;) I'm impressed with the Roy rewrite! I've only been to West Texas once, and I don't think we took pictures - it's not the most photogenic location. You might want to ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Texas Tech University - the geography around Lubbock should be similar, and someone there could probably take a picture for you. Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your participation. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson

I noticed you've taken the Jackie Robinson nomination off the FAC page, and the nomination has been archived. I just wanted to know, if possible, whether the the FA nomination was rejected because of the "fair-use" image issues, other issues, or combination thereof. That would dictate whether I decide to re-work and re-nominate or not. Thanks for your review. I know it was a lengthy one. BillTunell (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the nomination had gotten so long that it was turning off other reviewers, which would have made it impossible to gain consensus support. Generally, we don't restart a nomination unless all of the image issues have been ironed out, and since that was the sticking point in the long discussions I couldn't restart it either. I encourage you to work with image experts to try to satisfy the concerns about the fair use rationales, and then try again in a few weeks. Without the distraction of the images, the article should attract other reviews. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. From my experience with the Robinson article and my review of ten or tweleve other FAC archives, it appears to me that if the article has any non-free images, it will always receive opposition from some quarter or another. If it is possible to obtain FA status over these objections, I'd consider re-nominating. Otherwise I really don't have any interest in doing so. The process inevtiably seems to devolve into philosophical interpretations of what images are "significant" undrr NFCC criterion #8, which is an unresovlable discussion. Is there any discussion you know of by wikipedia bigwigs to clarify criterion #8 to avoid this sort of thing? Thanks again for your efforts. BillTunell (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

May I also suggest you not bold your replies? I found the large amount of bolding on the FAC page to be incredibly distracting. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another nominator suggested I do that to distinguish nominator's comments from others. But if it's distracting I'll elimniate boldface from now on.BillTunell (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for kind words, I've been doing a bit at GA too, since I'm aware that reviewing slackens off in the (northern) summer. It's not altruism - the ulterior motive is that I've got a couple of GANs that I want to get moving through GA before going to FAC (: jimfbleak (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie

I have nominated Woody Guthrie for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.—141.155.159.210 (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "Nicholas Thompson" from Wikipedia English

Hi, I apologise if I'm not contacting you, Karanacs, in the appropriate manner. My name is Nicholas Thompson (NicholasSThompson on Wikipedia) and I just noticed lots of traffic to someone by that name on searches for Nicholas Thompson on Wikipedia English. Obviously I'm curious and apparently you were the editor who deleted the Nicholas Thompson entry. I know there is a Wired Magazine editor with the name... However, maybe there is someone else I should know about. Well, thanks if you can tell me what was deleted (I'm not too good with using Wikipedia but maybe you know a trick or can remember). Please email me at pingnick at indiatimes dot com or just respond here if that's what you usually do. Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasSThompson (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article you are referring to that I would have deleted. There is currently an article on a Nicholas Thompson (a golfer), and although it appears that was previously deleted in 2006, I didn't do so. If you have the actual article name that I deleted, I'd be happy to take a look and tell you what the article was about. Karanacs (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh - this is weird - Nicholas Thompson here again. This is odd... The traffic statistics website links to Nicholas "thompson" with a small "t" [1]. Nice to see the golfer. I wonder who it says you deleted... Maybe someone way back in 2006? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.20.75 (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - the lower case "t" actually does go to a different article that I deleted last June. I took a quick look, and that article was a few sentences about a high school student. His biggest claim to fame was that he had a beautiful girlfriend - that is why the article got deleted. Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Gulfton, Houston

Are you busy at the moment? When you get the chance, please respond on the FAC page. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC note

Karen, I'm not sure if I've ever mentioned ... I think the underscores cause a problem for GimmeBot, so I watch out for them.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that...will make sure and watch it! Thanks Karanacs (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Still lazy baby, huh? Things so comfy inside there that he/she doesn't wanna come out and play? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, I still have about 5 weeks until due date, but last baby totally ignored her due date (she was born without the gene for patience), so I've never actually been this pregnant before. I can't say I like it much. I didn't know feet/ankles could get so big! Karanacs (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, could be worse. Keep in mind our mare that just foaled was two weeks OVER... so you're still not as bad as her. (And she got swelling on her belly she was so preggo). And since *I* went to the day before my due date, I know all about how big your ankles can get! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy Black Channel FAC

Hi, I believe me and various copy-editors have addressed your objection concerns. I would appreciate it if you revisited the article and responded. Thanks. Rafablu88 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's on my list to revisit. I'm fighting a head cold and wanted to get my brain working a little better before I reread it so I can be more fair. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you feel better. I think the Texas heat intensifies every summer, which doesn't help matters at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes :) I'm highly allergic to mold and I can't take my allergy medication until after baby arrives. That means, like clockwork for the last few months, I've gotten a cold approximately 1-2 weeks after a heavy rain. I'm going to buy stock in Kleenex. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Similar good wishes from me. Hope you feel better soon and also take all the time you need. Rafablu88 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC reivew request

Hey there! I'm preparing 2009 Orange Bowl for FAC as the final element needed for a Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games featured topic, and I was hoping you might have time to take a look at it before I submit it. I know you're busy both here and IRL, so it's no big deal if you can't get to it, but I know you're familiar with college football and would be a better reviewer than most. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll do my best to get to that soon. I enjoyed watching the game which will make reading the article more fun :) Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes two of us! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I hsven't gotten to this - real life interfered! I probably won't have time to review any articles for a few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Hi Karen, I don't know who's doing the promotion this weekend, but I'll just save time by posting a message here. An article I have at FAC currently has five supports, and I would like to point that out, since I tend to have a reputation for long FAC periods. :) ceranthor 12:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Loihi

Sorry if this seems buggy, but can you review this article? It needs some fresh eyes, and who better then someone who is a FA delagate :) ResMar 17:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Real life is keeping me pretty busy right now - I probably won't have time to review any articles for a few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1

There is apparently some confusion at Pinafore over whether or not the "!supporters" have reviewed the sources. What is the best way to alert you to the fact that sources have been reviewed? As I told Sandy, I do not say that an article is "well-researched" unless I have checked the sources and I do not make comments in my statement about the sources unless I have looked at them. Would it be best if in the future I said "I have looked at each source and they are all reliable"? I can't remember a time when I supported an article without looking at the sources, but I can start appending this statement to all of my support !votes to make it explicitly clear. Whatever would make it easier for you - please let me know. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I generally interpret a comment that an article is "well-researched" to mean that the reviewer checked the sources. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC withdrawal

I'm withdrawing United States Senate election in California, 1950 as a valid objection has been made that I can't remedy until next month, due to the need to view actual hard copies. I will renom in late July. I've also left a note on Sandy's talk page and proceeded with my next nomination, Matthew Boulton, so please one of you archive it when you get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I took care of the archiving. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. How's things? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Wikipedia while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan as required by this paragraph while the proposed decision was pending. See next paragraph.)
• User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of 24 June) is enacted as a baseline. Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional. At the discretion of the mentors, or if there are significant objections by the community, the provisional changes will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.
• Should Mattisse fail to submit a satisfactory plan under remedy 1 within 15 days of this decision, she shall not edit Wikipedia until she does so, except with permission of this Committee. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan, as required by remedy 1, while the proposed decision was pending. See preceding paragraphs.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

User:Shappy/Amazing Race Wikipedia. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Incentive system for reviewers, again

WT:FAR. To be frank, I think there is 0% chance that the average detail of reviews will decrease. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Mary Higgins Clark

I have conducted a reassessment of this article and have some issues that need addressing, which can be found at Talk:Mary Higgins Clark/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

FAC today

Doing OK today? If you can't get through, I can go through after I get in late tonight ... just checking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost done reading through the articles to be promoted. I'll remove those from WP:FAC in a few minutes but will have to wait an hour or so before adding the articles to WP:FA (must pick up older child from day care). Karanacs (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK ... give a holler if you need help ... I'm out for the evening! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Silent Alarm FAC

Hi, the nomination hasn't gathered any more thoughts in days. I was wondering if you'd like to review. I know you're busy (congrats by the way :)), but you did such a good job in my last FAC that it'd be great if you had a go at this one, too.

I'm pretty sure that the article is more than suitable for FA and that could be the reason why people aren't commenting as it's a given that most reviewers will only point out negative things. I'd like to speed the process along in any way I can.

Thanks. Rafablu88 16:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not reviewing right now because I'm not sure I'll have the time for follow-up. If you haven't already, feel free to ping some of the other regular reviewers. For example, user:Laser brain and user:Steve do a great job at prose reviews. User:Dabomb87 sometimes reviews music-related articles, and user:Realist2 has experience brining music-related articles to FAC (although he might be a bit busy combatting vandalism on the Michael Jackson-related articles at the moment). Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Left-aligned images in the lead

A fairly exhaustive RfC at Joseph Priestley regarding its left-aligned lead image concluded over a week ago with (surprisingly) no consensus. While the supporters of the image's left-alignment are particularly talented, established, and prolific editors, I nevertheless want to make FA directors and delegates aware of the fact that there is no consensus on this issue. I only bring this to your attention as image alignment has been raised in subsequent FACs (e.g. John Calvin and John Knox) and some editors have potentially been misrepresenting the extent to which left-alignment is settled or stable consensus beyond their particular interpretation and substantial dissent from other editors (as indicated in the RfC). Madcoverboy (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Image opposition for Charles Carroll the Settler and Quark

Karanacs, I am not going to bother answering to some replies in those FACs because their tone do not deserve a decent reply. My opposition to those images still stand; the copyright status on those images are in doubt. I have done my utmost to state my opinions in the external links to them (Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#300 year old paintings under copyright in US??! and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charmed-dia-w.png), but again I am not going to keep repeating the same points in them if others do not pay attention to the underlying arguments. This is a heads-up to help you decide if the opposition should be over-ruled or not. Jappalang (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson

I'm hoping you can give me some feedback on the reasons for the Jackie Robinson non-promotion. Is it an image issue, or any problems with the text? Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There were a few things that influenced my decision:

• there was only one support after being listed for one month
• Giants2008 had concerns about some of the sourcing and was offering prose massaging suggestions
• the images are still not sorted out.

I didn't think it likely that the article would gain consensus to promote at this point even if I left it open another week. Good luck with the article! Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I know you are busy and want consensus if possible. But I don't know what additional work I can do on the article.

The image issue boils down to a Wikipedia policy interpretation on the "significance" criterion that I've been seeking input on since the last FA review. I don't mind losing that argument so much as having the process held up indefinitely because there is a difference of opinion.

user:Giants2008 hasn't logged back on to respond to my changes, which at this point are all responded to (whether to his satisfaction or not, I can't tell). I would have more time to get him to respond. I suspect that if he had any remaining quarrels, it would ultimately revolve around another interpretation of Wikipolicy -- i.e., whether under WP:reliable a backup citations have to meet the same criteria for reliability as the primary citation, or whether they can merely be helpful additional sources. Like the image significance issue above, I suspect this might ultimately need an administrative determination as well.

Is there any way to get a ruling on an FA criterion issue without consensus? I had feared after the last FA review that my efforts were a waste of time because of this Catch-22, and now I'm afraid I was right. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lucy poems

[3]. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station FAC 3

Hi there, I notice that you recently closed International Space Station FAC 3 due to inactivity; however, if you read through it, you'll notice that last Friday I noted that I would be away for a week and requested it not be closed in the meantime; in addition, the editor who posted comments after that point stated he was willing to await my return. As a result, I'd be grateful if you could please reopen it, as, as you would have noticed had you read it, it's simply not inactive. Colds7ream (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The FAC page is—unfortunately—chronically backlogged and understaffed (in terms of reviewers). I don't think leaving an idle FAC up would have helped. Reviewers are often put off by lengthy FAC pages. I suggest you resolve the image, source and prose issues brought up by reviewers before re-submitting, as that will make the FAC process go smoother. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just my point; I'm working on these issues, just as I said I would - it's not an idle submission, it's active. Whilst I realise that the page is always overwhelmed, it's been my impression on each occasion we've put it up that people are absolutely desperate to close them at the first opportunity I can find; it doesn't exactly encourage folks to get involved, whether submitting or reviewing. Colds7ream (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the FAC was open for more than a month. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but it was still being commented and acted upon, so the length of time it was open is surely irrelevant? Colds7ream (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, never mind - I'm going to be away for a bit again, so it'll only end up being reclosed. I'll address all remaining comments, contact the reviewers directly, and try yet again at some point in the future. Colds7ream (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration of Barack Obama FAC3

You were opposed to FAC1 and FAC2 of Inauguration of Barack Obama. FAC3 is getting long in the tooth and could use some decisive feedback. We hope we may have your support at this time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Being bullied by a nominator

Hi Karanacs: If you are "on duty" as Delegate, I just wanted to alert you to this, which relates to this. It's a bad precedent that bad-mouthing of a reviewer occur either on the FAC page or elsewhere. We'll lose reviewers easily that way. Tony (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC) :Hey Tony, I'm sorry that you were offended. Perhaps a better way of handling your hurt would have been to post on my talk page, or via email, and let us work things out. I don't think I would recommend the route you took, of posting on my talk page that you had "complained" to the two FA delegates, and also posting at length here. Did that make the process regarding this article better or fairer? Did that make me more likely to accept your comments as borne of a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia? My comment, which was on another editor's talk page, was born of frustration. Tony, what emotion sparked you to post what you did on the FAC page for the article, and on Karanac's talk page, and on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and then to tell me what you had done? Was that the right thing to do? Think about it please.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tony, I'm sorry that you were offended. Perhaps a better way of handling your hurt would have been to post on my talk page, or via email, and let us work things out. I don't think I would recommend the route you took, of posting on my talk page that you had "complained" to the two FA delegates, and also posting at length at FAC. Did that make the process regarding this article better or fairer? Did that make me more likely to accept your comments as borne of a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia? My comment, which was on another editor's talk page, was born of frustration. Tony, what emotion sparked you to post what you did on the FAC page for the article, and on Karanac's talk page, and on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and then to tell me what you had done? Was that the right thing to do? Think about it please.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been plastering this stock response everywhere. I'm surprised it appears here twice. Tony (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd do it in stereo!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Chotiner

You may remember you promoted Murray Chotiner despite doubts about whether a free picture might be available. Today, I came up dry with my last attempt. The Nixon Library has no federal government photographs of Chotiner. They checked not only the Nixon years, but also the time when Nixon was VP. The archivist, who is a Nixon expert, strongly suspects either Chotiner or Nixon told the White House photographers not to photograph him. However, all is not lost. I'm wondering about a FOIA request but need to research it. Uncertain what quality of photo it would get us though. The archivist also knows a guy who at one time considered writing a book on Chotiner and is going to put me in touch. But for now, it doesn't look good, but I'm not giving up. Thanks for your intervention at WT:FAC, by the by.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm continually impressed by the lengths you take to get pictures. I think your efforts thus far more than satisfy the requirements of trying to find a free image. Good luck with your current nomination, and maybe take a few extra seconds before posting to make sure that the comments won't be ill-received. Karanacs (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices episode on reviewing FACs

Karanacs, we at Wikivoices were thinking of doing a real-time review of an FAC candidate for an upcoming episode. The idea of the episode would be to demonstrate what all goes into a comprehensive review. We would like to have the nominator there as well. As this would result in a bunch of supports and/or opposes popping up simultaneously at the FAC page, we wanted to run this by you and Sandy first. Awadewit (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanford Memorial Church/archive2

I'm just curious why this was promoted at this time. I thought it was customary to wait for all of the images to be cleared first. We still don't have OTRS confirmation on the last image for that article. Awadewit (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

When the image issue is primarily a paperwork one, and I know that the nominator is actively working on resolving it (and is willing to yank the image if necessary), then I occasionally promote. I saw that Christine was working on getting the OTRS clearance, and I'll keep the image and article watchlisted for a few days to make sure that it gets resolved. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm one of those crossing the "t's" and dotting the "i's" types. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Update here. Awadewit (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This has still not been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Honest Abe

You once said here (actually the "FAC" section after that, but the link won't work) that you would be willing to help get Abraham Lincoln back up to FA status. I'm wondering if you are still interested in that. It's still 200 years after Lincoln's birth, though obviously 2009 only has a few months left. As I mentioned in that original talk page section, I have some relative expertise on American history and am pretty familiar with Lincoln. I have ready access to just about anything ever written about him via my university's library system. I'm not, however, experienced with the FA process, so I'd need some help there.

If you're still down to try and give the ole' rail splitter a spiffy Wikipedia article for his 200th birthday, just let me know, and if you're busy with other stuff now no worries. I'm not sure how long it takes to get things up to FA status these days, but obviously it would be cool to do it before the year runs out—maybe with the goal of getting it on the main page to mark the anniversary of the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, which Lincoln worked for but did not live to see put into effect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Lincoln deserves an FA-quality biography here, and I'd be happy to help out. The hardest part of doing a biography like this is the sheer amount of research. Everyone knows something about Lincoln, and this article will need to be near-perfect to make it through FAC. I'm in the middle of researching the Texas Revolution and wouldn't be able to help much with the research for Lincoln. If you are willing to read the books (bless you), then I'll provide whatever support I can. It would be up to you how involved you want me; at the most involved, you could post notes from your research and I would help write the article; at the least involved you could write the article and I would provide a thorough review at intervals to give advice on what to do next.

Bringing the article up to FA quality in four months would be a challenge. After the article is written, it usually takes 2-4 weeks to polish it (peer reviews, copyedits, image audits, MOS compliance). We need to allot an additional 3-4 weeks for the FAC nomination to run. That leaves about 8 weeks for research and writing. It might be better to target a main page date of April 15, the 145th anniversary of his death. That gives an additional few months to make sure that we've done justice to the topic. Let me know what you want to do, and I'll make this my priority. Karanacs (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's terrific news! Don't worry about the research aspect—I'm willing to do that. 19th century U.S. history is not my academic specialty (20th century U.S. stuff is my bailiwick), but I do know quite a bit about it and have taught it at the college level for several years (I'm a mere graduate student but I teach as well). I've also studied with a Lincoln Prize winning historian (from whom I unsurprisingly learned a lot about Lincoln, but who was also on my oral exam committee, so I might even be able to chide them into taking a look at the article once we finish it). Any research help would be appreciated, but that's the angle I assumed I would take the lead on, and I've already read three major books about Lincoln, in addition to many other books that deal to greater or lesser degrees with his presidency. Overall the research burden is considerably less for me than for someone who just knows a few things about Lincoln.

Your point about timing is well taken. Having not gone through the FA process I'm not familiar with the timeline, but it sounds like a 2010 finish date is more realistic. Obviously it's better to get it right than hit an arbitrary date. There are any number of days for which a main page appearance by Lincoln would be appropriate, so that's no thing.

Honestly I have not even read through the current version in its entirety, so it seems to me the best place to start is to consider what works and what doesn't in the version we have now. I'd like to have a good idea as to what needs improvement before hitting the books, and probably it makes sense to triage that in terms of major, middling, and minor issues. You could help a lot at the outset since you'll have a much better idea of how an FA should look at the end than I do.

In general I think I write well, but for a topic like this my prose might at times fall into academic (as opposed to encyclopedic) style so I'll need help keeping that in check—but that's down the road.

I don't know if, initially at least, it's best for us to communicate on the article talk page or to just converse on one of our talk pages, but I think the logical place to start is by evaluating the article as it stands now. If you're busy with other stuff right now there's no rush—I'm in a relative academic lull at the moment (though I might be taking on some writing work for the rest of August, won't know until next week) but can definitely devote a decent amount of time to this, on and off, in the months ahead. If you need a bit of time before getting into this, I'll start getting my hands on some obvious books I'll need and thinking about what definitely needs work in terms of the historical content. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I also was a bit taken aback that we will have no main page appearances by Lincoln this year. The main article is too much for me, but I've got Lincoln's second inaugural address on my improvement list and have gotten in a couple of sources and will look for more. The material is out there, but it is scattered. I wouldn't count on seeing it at FAC for a couple of months, I haven't started work yet, and have a couple of other projects going as well, but I am hoping to get it through, if I can find the sources, for a Lincoln article main page by the end of the year. --Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt let me know if and when you have a go at that article. A book by Mark Noll, currently cited in the article's fourth footnote, has an interesting take on the speech in the context of 19th century theological responses to American slavery. I'd be happy to work in something about that, if it made sense to do so, in a section on scholarly appraisals of the speech. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've ordered it. Though the bulk of my FAs are solo efforts, I am always very happy to colloborate.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Today's pr/ar

... many FACs were pending image reviews, which hadn't been done. I'm going out for the evening, so will look in when I'm home to see if more have been done and if it's worth it to run through then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Karanacs (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was up til an ungodly hour trying to finish; I think we need to reverse this trend of having to ask for image reviews. Not sure how, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Media copyright questions can be a last resort. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But we can't track them down on every FAC. Is it time to promote without a review when no one does one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If the images look pretty straightforwatd, I wouldn't mind evaluating them myself. If there could be questions (especially for fair use images), I think we should continue to ask for a review. If that means the article waits until the next promotion time, that is fine with me. Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Karanacs. I just noticed that you have enabled the autoreviewer tool for my account, and I would just like to thank you for entrusting me with such; I feel honoured and privileged. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you may not fully understand what autoreviewer means. It is no sense a "tool", it's just a convenience for the new page patrollers. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is more a feature rather than a tool, but I found that "tool" was the best word to use at the time. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

After seeing your contributions at FAC, Abraham, I have no doubt that you can be trusted to create new articles that don't need to be patrolled. Thanks for all your hard work! Karanacs (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My rollback

Thank you for turning this on. Err...How do I actually work it? Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices FAC review

I wanted to invite you in particular to our recording, since you make promotion decisions. I thought you could help us explain the FA critieria. :) If you can come, please sign up here. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have other plans that day and won't be able to attend. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyway! Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rock and roll back

Karanacs, thank you for your faith in me, but I have to decline your offer. I feel pretty comfortable with my current situation (having autoreviewer is nice, many thanks) and do not think rollback is a necessary or advantageous tool to have. I found that manually looking through edits can sometimes reveal things that would not be obvious if I were on an "automated" mode. Many thanks again. Jappalang (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If you ever change your mind, let me know. Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen/archive1

Can I ask why my FAC was archived only five days after it was nominated. I was still working on addressing the concerns, but suddenly it was archived. One of the opposers even commented that it was possible to alleviate all concerns in time. Artichoker^[talk] 01:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article had already received two opposes, with special concern over sourcing. Sourcing issues often take longer to resolve. I encourage you to work with the reviewers who posted to address all of their issues, and when they are satisfied renominate the article (in 2-3 weeks). Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues are particularly difficult to overcome and its best to try to work through those off FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Texas A&M Revisions

Nice changes on the Texas A&M article. Great work. Hoping you are doing well. Best of luck. Oldag07 (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded to your call for more ideas on the tamu page. thoughts? Oldag07 (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sully statue pict

From: [Village Pump]:Commons:Template:PD-US-no notice indicates that works published (in the case of a statue, "displayed without restrictions on access" is considered "published") between 1923 and 1977 are in the public domain unless they had a copyright notice. Please see discussion on Commons at commons:Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 20#question about PD-US-no notice.

Short version: I don't think we need a FUR for something that isn't copyrighted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That discussion said the statue should not be signed to be not copyrighted. According to SIRIS, Coppini signed this one (see the link I left on the image page). Karanacs (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but (1) the copyright doesn't appear to have been renewed, ergo, it expired and (2) it was first published (publicly displayed) in 1919: a.k.a. pre-1923. Accordingly, it should be a public domain sculpture, right? — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate imagte policy <sigh>. I left a message with Jappalang [4] - he knows much more about image policy than I do. Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We both want the proper tags and annotations on the image...I too hate such a muddled policy (Wikipedia is NOTHING compared to the military though...). I'll go with whatever you find out. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a reason I didn't join the Corps or the military -- too many rules, too many early mornings ;) Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Karen, you and I may sometimes disagree, but disagreements like these amongst friends make the days more enjoyable...especially on those "early morning" days that end on the following early morning...19+ hour missions SUCK! :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your 19-hour missions and raise you an infant who thinks the day begins at 2:30 am. I'm hoping it is almost naptime.... Hopefully you'll get one too! Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your infant and raise you two toddlers with dual earaches who just crossed a few time zones and their bodies have no CLUE what time it is...aw hell, I fold. I can't compete with an infant. At least I can use rudimentary logic on my sons ("If you'll be quiet, I'll let you watch Thomas the Tank Engine") :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We bribe our toddler with Dora the Explorer. I'll have to try Thomas. Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have some sort of primitive physiologic response to repetitive sounds. Dora makes me want to die die die, the sooner the better. Thomas is much less irritating, if almost equally formulaic—at least I sometimes get the guilty pleasure of hearing George Carlin's voice. To maximize the bribery–pain ratio, I offer the Backyardigans: no catch phrases, and an incredible variety of musical styles. Maralia (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) At least I got to enjoy watching the old Blues Clues guy, he was kinda cute. Dora makes my teeth hurt. And being the mother of a son, I think I can recite the Thomas episodes in my sleep...Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dora was bad enough, but when her cousin came along, that made things ten times worse. Kids TV shows these days are sanitized and sterilized to the point where there's no substance at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And then there's Spongebob Squarepants... Karanacs (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, the statue is in the public domain. It is "published" before 1923. As pointed out by Carl Lindberg, the permanent installation of public works of art before 1978 (without any stated restrictions of photography) constitutes publishing (commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States). Thus, unless there are signs that expressly prohibited photography since 1918, the only issue about copyright here would be that of the photographer's (User:BlueAg09). If the statue was erected post-1922, then copyright notices (and renewal) would come into play. For those erected on and after 1 March 1989, the statues are copyrighted automatically and we would then have to be concerned with sales and copies instead. Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!! I'll fix the image license. Karanacs (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pavel Bure

Hi there. I submitted Pavel Bure's article for FAC and it was not promoted on a few days ago. I'm assuming it was not promoted due to a lack of consensus, but as you had the final say, I was wondering if you had any advice or suggestions for a better result in the future. The article was my first FAC attempt, so any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hockey articles sometimes have difficulty attracting reviewers; there don't seem to be a lot of hockey fans at FAC. I'd recommend that you ask a copyeditor to look over the article - sometimes the prose is okay enough that a reviewer doesn't want to oppose, but a little polishing could bring them up to a support from comments. Also, often the second time an article is nominated it will attract more eyes just because there is a different reviewer mix. Good luck - and welcome to FAC. I hope we see you there frequently :) Karanacs (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several hockey-loving editors who are familiar with FA: Resolute (talk · contribs), Maxim (talk · contribs), Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) and Risker (talk · contribs). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

James Nesbitt

Thank you very much for your help in getting this article to featured status! Bradley0110 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice?

Take a look. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb, you rock. I've borrowed what your wrote for Sandy and tweaked it to be a bit more Aggie. Thanks!!! Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Except for the Aggie part, that is. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Karanacs. You have new messages at Auntieruth55's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

response and congrats on baby Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

New FACs Sol-gel and Transparent materials

I have been trying to cleanup those articles and would say they are not ready either for FA or even GA nomination (which they never had). User:Abce2 seems overly optimistic about the quality of those articles, but I suggest removing them from FAC administratively not to waste referees time. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that now. But it would have helped to contact me and tell me about this before hand.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 01:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Still promoting tonight?

I did the image review on oneboth of the FACs that you listed, if you want to still intend to promote them tonight, though it may take some time for me to do the other one. NW (Talk) 01:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Got a bit of a break there with Unification of Germany; the image review for that one is done too. NW (Talk) 01:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not ready for promotion, but if you have the time and inclination, do you want to do one on California's 12th congressional district election, 1946? It's at FAC. Companion piece to the Senate election article I had up a few weeks ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot has already run, so these will likely wait until Saturday. Thanks for jumping on them so quickly!!! Karanacs (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you explain to me why this [5] was closed as "not promoted". There were two support votes and no opposes. Two editors raised some issues which I thought addressed with my edits in response. Is there something I'm missing here? Tiamut^talk 09:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, please read the information when you edit the talk page. There's a reason why it's there! :) ceranthor 09:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The article was not promoted because consensus for promotion has not been reached. This can be found in the message at the top of this talk page. Tawfiq Canaan was at the bottom of the FAC list, and since the list is so big, the FAC delegates have to archive articles that aren't getting any feedback. Perhaps you could ask someone to look over the article or submit it at peer review before you renominate it. Good luck on the article, looks like an intriguing person. ceranthor 10:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see the message now (it appears only when one presses "edit"). But the article was still in the process of getting feedback. There were multiple editors who reviewed it. I responded to any concerns by making changes. There were two clear supports, no clear opposes. Ottava Rima abstained on giving an opinion and Tony1 raised some concerns regarding the prose which I reviewed and changed to respond to his concerns. He did not say whether or not the changes addressed them, but he only made the comments a couple of days ago.

Are FAC closures final decisions? Should I just wait to renominate a few weeks down the road? Or is there a place to have such closures reviewed? Tiamut^talk 10:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Generally, the best thing to do in cases like these would be to wait a few weeks, quietly work on the article (and possible sneak in another review from someone else), and then renominate it. The second nomination will go much smoother than the first. NW (Talk) 12:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. This is the article's second nom. The first one did not go anywhere at all. I was hopeful that this one was heading to a better conclusion, but I can do as you have suggested and try again later. Thanks again, and happy editing. Tiamut^talk 14:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, we don't look at only supports and opposes but also the comments. Both Ottava's and Tony's comments indicated that more work might be needed on the article. I recommend that you get a good copyeditor to go over the article and make sure the prose is as polished as it can be, and that any paraphrasing issues are taken care of, then bring the article back in a few weeks. Also, THANK YOU for including the link to the FAC - that made it easier for me to review :) Karanacs (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I guess you're all right, the article prose could use a bit more polishing. I'll take it as an opportunity to improve the article further and hopefully the next time, I'll have gotten it just right. Thanks again. Tiamut^talk 19:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Alamo

Hello from Ukraine, Karen. From time to time we work on the article Battle of the Alamo – russian version of english entry. But one point at issue has forced me to write you this letter. As far as I understand this is your submission. But you know, there is a some mistake. How could Seguin claim something in 1899 when he has died in 1890? Please explain me the situation or give some comments. Thanks. --Vasyatka1 (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good question. I doublechecked the source that I took that information from, and it definitely says 1899. I will have to do some more research to find out what the proper year should be. That may take a bit of time, as I don't have access to all of my books at the moment. Thank you for taking an interest in the article! Karanacs (talk) 15:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Parsons' article

Hi, no sorry I can't access the article online and my local uni. library doesn't have the journal either. I'll attach the abstract so you can see if it's worth pursuing further. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"A history of the separatist rebellion centered at Nacogdoches in 1826-27. Haden Edwards received a large land grant in East Texas in April 1825. An impatient man, Edwards factionalized the local residents by demanding proof of their title to land holdings. In response to Edwards' demands, a vigilante group led by Martin Parmer initiated the first stage of the rebellion. Within weeks, Haden Edwards, with his brother Benjamin, assumed control of the movement with the expanded goal of independence for Texas. A third and final phase of the rebellion occurred after a skirmish between the rebels and some Mexican settlers, when moderate elements were excluded from leadership positions. This caused defection in the ranks and the rapid dissolution of the movement. Traces the role of Stephen F. Austin, whose colony lay between Nacogdoches and the Mexican provincial capital of San Antonio. Based on manuscript sources; 160 notes. [J. E. Findling]"

RE: FAC sourcing

Noted. In fairness, I didn't just use the "Ealdgyth says so" argument. I used the Wikipedia signpost about FA sourcing, which I use all the time. Also, my first response was as measured and civil as it could be. I only lost it a bit when the other party wasn't budging and demanded a unilateral and non-debatable removal. It does rankle a bit when you do the hard slog and you get that sort of comment. But I'd like to think it's water under the bridge now. I've never aimed personal attacks even though on paper it may sometimes look a bit off.

Anyway, hope you and the little one are OK. Rafablu88 15:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely didn't mean to accuse you of personal attacks, but reviewers work hard too, and it is best for nominators to be as polite as possible. Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Something to work on in the future. On another note, has the nom been archived?? If so, why? It was awaiting feedback from two users and reaching consensus soon. Was it a mistake? Rafablu88 17:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did archive it today. It looks like there was still considerable work to be done, and other reviewers were reluctant to chime in until the work had been completed. I recommend you spend the next few weeks working with WesleyDodds to make sure all his issues are addressed, and then bring the article back to FAC. The second time through it ought to go much more smoothly. Karanacs (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that all the work has been done. Wes was only going to re-review 1 section and only its sources at that. Everything else that he had mentioned was changed by him or me. Don't see the point of archiving so close to consensus, especially as Wes said he needed two days which by my reckoning are not over yet. Rafablu88 17:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The nomination wasn't close to consensus (only had one non-significant contributor support). FAC isn't a time to write or rewrite articles. If work is taking place on the article to the extent that other reviewers are reluctant to look at it, the nomination needs to be closed and reopened later. Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

When a nomination has been up for several weeks and has fallen to the bottom of the list without gaining significant (independent) Support, the fastest route to the star is usually to work issues off-FAC, and return to FAC in a few weeks. It will probably do fine next time through ... good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, you might want to see this, Karen. ceranthor 12:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pending travel

Karen, I'll do tomorrow (the 8th), and I posted to Raul for the third weekend. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, I'll get the other two Saturdays and the rest of the Tuesdays. Enjoy your trip! Karanacs (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Virginia references

Last year, when I nominated Virginia for FAC, you ripped me apart for some of the references. With good cause, I have come see. They have been a big concern since the article failed, after which I went back, and I think we now use a more appropriate level of "dead-tree sources." I hope to get the article back on FAC later this week, but would be honored if you could look over article and its references before we do that. Malleus Fatuorum has given me some good advice recently, and we switched to Harvard citations last week. So perhaps you could look to see if there's been any issue with the switch. Thanks in advance, and I hope you can support us when the article does get nominated!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 20:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Patrick, I'm really glad you've learned a lot about sourcing since then! That's an important article that deserves the best we can give it. Unfortunately, I shouldn't review the article right now; I'm going to be the only FAC delegate for the next few weeks and it would be a conflict of interest for me to give an opinion on the article when I'll likely be responsible for promoting/archiving it. Good luck!! Karanacs (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I hope you will be able to promote it! Perhaps is there another user you could think of that might help us make sure we're ready? I've also contacted User:Maralia who also raised reasonable objections last time around. Thanks!-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 23:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm slightly uncomfortable with this canvassing of FA delegates. Is it just me? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The best part about having two FAC delegates is that we get to switch between two hats - Sandy and I have agreed that if one of us chooses to review an article then the other delegate will close the nomination. (I haven't reviewed any lately, but that is due to time constraints and lack of sleep, not lack of interest). I reviewed this article in its previous nomination, so the nominator is really just following our recommendation in asking the opposers to take a second look before renominating it. I definitely don't want there to be an appearance of impropriety though, so if anyone has suggestions on how to more clearly delineate when I'm acting as which role, I'll be happy to listen. Karanacs (talk) 02:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and obviously I wasn't suggesting impropriety on your part. But why would nominators post on FAC delegate's pages if not to influence the outcome? Just for a chat? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I was actually unaware of your elevated position when I asked that above. Congratulation, by the way, that is pretty cool. Before posting the new one, I was just going through the old nominations, which meant contacting you, Maralia, and Ealdgyth. If in seeking community advice I erred in someway, let me know! Anyways, if you so desired, the nominations should be up now at WP:FAC#Virginia, just if case you did want to look it over. Also, maybe someone could fix the links at the top, since articles like yesterday's TFA Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe are unrelated. Best-- Patrick {_oѺ^∞} 04:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

AN/I

Do you know what has been actually happening in this dispute? And who has been edit-warring non-consensus change to policy instead of following the proper practice? Xandar 02:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not followed this closely, although I have tried to read through the talk page once per day. I would be completely unsurprised if others are also edit-warring (it generally takes two to do so), but your behavior was what was being questioned. Constantly reverting the same change is not acceptable - if you don't agree with them, slap a disputed tag on the page and discuss discuss discuss on the talk page. That is always the better philosophy (for all parties in the dispute). If you think that others are misrepresenting consensus, initiate an RfC or post at the Village Pump or other noticeboards to try to get a better feel (and proof) for what consensus actually is. Simply repeating "this doesn't have consensus" doesn't make it so, especially when multiple other editors disagree. Karanacs (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Various additions from a book

Hi, I recently saw the message you left on my page about removing some text from a page; thank you for letting me know about the change. I am not the author of the books, but I do know the author and have read and enjoyed his books. After what you wrote, I was wondering about some other things that I was thinking about adding and wanted to ask you about them first. Randall Bell is an economist by education, but he works as a consultant on real estate that has experienced some sort of tragedy; he typically is asked to consult on how to improve the land in order to remove the stigma from the property in question. An example of this would be the Heaven's Gate Mansion; he was brought in as a consultant after the mass suicides in order to help the owner of the property decide what to do after the negative image that the mansion had received. As such, he is an expert in dealing with various tragedies that have happened on real estate properties. He has put many of these experiences into various books, which is what I was using to make my additions. I realize that many of the things mentioned about the properties in the book would not be applicable to a wikipedia page, but I think that some others might be helpful. An example of an addition that I was thinking about would be the creation of the Civil Rights Museum from the renovated Lorraine Motel, where Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. On the page about Martin Luther King, this fact is only mentioned very briefly in the caption of a photo. I realize that a page such as Martin Luther King, Jr's is a semi-protected page and would be viewed quite often, so I wanted to ask a more experienced wikipedian before making any changes. Would this change, as well as others from the book that deal with specific properties that he consulted on, be appropriate? Please let me know what you think and thank you for your time. Youknow009 (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I haven't seen the book, I can really just offer general advice.

• If the author is best-known for working with properties, then the information is likely most applicable on articles about those properties. In the example you gave, the information would be most appropriate in the article National Civil Rights Museum; these facts are not really central to the life (or death) of Martin Luther King, and thus should not occupy much mention in his article.
• If the author is primarily a real-estate expert or economist, then his book is not going to be appropriate for citing speculation on motives, etc. (like the Battle of the Alamo addition [6]) We should rely on him for information related to his area of expertise, which appears to be more in rehabilitative measures.

In general, a source is most reliable if it focuses on the particular issue that is being cited, and if the author is an expert in that particular era. If the issue is only mentioned in passing (as an example of another priniciple), then the source might not be appropriate to be used on that issue. I haven't read the book, so I can't give more specific guidance. I do want to thank you for your effort to improve the encyclopedia, and for your willingness to cite your sources!! That is something many new Wikipedians do not properly understand, and many don't even try to cite sources. Good luck with your editing! Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A moment

Please could you take a look at the exchange at WP:AN/I#Further behavioural issues? This a clear case of block evasion by Xandar.

I would also be grateful if you could take a look at Xandar's allegations and my responses and diffs to them. I am becoming thoroughly tired of Xandar making utterly untrue and unsupportable allegations against me and other people. This constant incivility poisons the atmosphere and having to constantly rebut them (however blatantly untrue they are) wastes editors' time.

Many thanks in advance, Knepflerle (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for 31 hours (approximately what's left on Xandar's original block), and I've also restarted the block on Xandar's account. Karanacs (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Our edits crossed in the post. I was just in the process of doing the same while declining their unblock request ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to know I wasn't acting out of line (I hate blocking users)! Thanks for dealing with the unblock as well - I wanted to make sure he still had the opportunity to have his case reviewed. Karanacs (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. This should put an end to the edit-warring - I just hope it ends the incivility and false allegations too, as they are equally tiresome. If one or both of you could keep an eye on WP:NCON and WP:NC for the next week or so by putting them on your watchlist, it would be much appreciated.

Best, Knepflerle (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs: There's not much of a case to be honest. I have to admit that because you said early in the ANI thread that you felt yourself to be too involved to handle the issue, I did take a second look over it when I saw it was you who'd reset the block and blocked the IP. However, I don't believe there's any issue; I couldn't even find you on the WP:NCON and WP:NC talkpages! Dealing with block evasion is a straightforward application of policy with little room for interpretation, and the end result should be the same whatever admin handled it :)

Knepflerle: watchlisted, though feel free to nudge me if I don't seem to be paying attention. EyeSerene^talk 16:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC4

I have posted a query on SandyGeorgia's page, but she is away. An image reviewer at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4‎ has suggested replacing the main image with an .ogg file later in the article. Is there precedent for an .ogg file main image? Is it appropriate. It would be most helpful if someone commented directly on the FAC discussion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony, sorry for the delay in my reply. This isn't an issue that requires FAC delegate input - Sandy and I are by no means experts on images. I advise you to work with the people who really know images (Elcobbola, Stifle, Jappalang, David Fuchs, etc). Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have just never seen a video main image before and thought I might have missed some sort of policy reason. I guess if any article should have a video main image, this is it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me

Is it a violation of WP:LEGAL to advise on the actual fact of a matter? I happen to know that the link that was provided is subject to legal proceedings. Not from me, from those representing the subject. What is wrong with providing that information - and consequently the fact that such a situation (adding links under such a situation) could cause a legal problem for Wikipedia? Not the user concerned - Wikipedia. We have to be careful with this, and Moni stated that she didn't care about the whole "what's true or not" situation when in fact that was very very important. I have constantly chosen my words carefully - even to you here to make it absolutely clear that there is no threat to any user of Wikipedia. I hope you understand this. Thank you. GetDumb 10:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what you were saying is considered a legal threat. That threat does not have to be made against an individual editor; threats against Wikipedia itself are also forbidden. It is perfectly okay to say that "the link that was provided is subject to legal proceedings"; this provides information that may be valuable in determining the reliability of the sourve. It is not okay to further imply that using that link could lead to legal proceedings against Wikipedia (this is the legal threat).

Per Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability, "truth" is irrelevant (as in many cases "truth" is not so black-and-white), but instead we must concern ourselves with what is verifiable. Has a fact been reported in reliable sources? If so, it may warrant a mention in the article. Discussion should be focused on what the sources say, not on what lawsuits are outstanding (although if the lawsuit is the subject of coverage in reliable sources, it may also need to be mentioned in the article). We do have a noticeboard for discussions about biographies of living people, and any concerns you have that cannot be resolved on the article talk page can be brought up there.

You have now made it clear to everyone what you think of this link and that it is the subject of a lawsuit. Any further implications that it could causel legal trouble for WP will be considered legal threats and I am willing to block users for such. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What is truth? For one real world case to test these waters, let's ask the Israelis about the West Bank and then the Palestinians about it and see how close the answers are. Or the Greeks and Macedonians. Or the Irish and English. etc etc ad nauseum. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, you are incorrect. I made no legal threats and I resent the accusation. I was merely bringing some facts about the blog to people's attention, and nothing more than that. To make something more of that is dishonest. Besides - the matter has now been settled within the Admin noticeboards - the blog was blacklisted as the link was being thrown willy nilly all over the place in violation of WP:SPAM. The issues that I spoke of were contributing to the situation. I hope that clears things up and thank you for your attention. GetDumb 04:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Aside...

I've become more and more curious about contributing to sourcing comments on FACs. I think I've grown confident with the criteria and signposting and was wondering what I have to do to comment, for arts articles to begin with. Do I have to talk to Ealdgyth or someone else, or just do it? RB88 (T) 16:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

All you have to do is find an article you are interested in and make comments. No one reviewer "owns" any piece of the review, although several people, like Ealdgyth, specialize in certain areas. There are some general instructions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches, and you may want to review some of the information from other Signpost Dispatches (see Template:FCDW for the full list). Since you are a new reviewer, it would help me out if, when you Support, you leave a note as to which criteria you evaluated against (sourcing, prose, images, etc). That won't be necessary forever - as you do more reviews Sandy and I will learn what your style is and take that into account. I hope you enjoy reviewing. I realized after I had reviewed for several months that the quality of my articles was improving as I learned from those examples. It can be a very rewarding experience, and a very frustrating one, too. Good luck, and if you have any questions let me know or post at WT:FAC. Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So, what do you think of the FAC contribs so far? Any advice? RB88 (T) 15:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You are doing a great job. Thank you!! Karanacs (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Hawk War FAC

I've just delisted this from FAC. Pls do whatever you need to to make the bots work right. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done (also [7]). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FA question

I'm working with a nice editor on an article. However, we have a disagreement. SandyGeorgia is away. I thought that having references of different date formats, like "Retrieved 2009-08-23" and "Retrieved August 23, 2009" was not desirable. The other person thinks it is ok and asks me not to change them. I would love to leave them alone because of the large amount of work involved. Yet, I thought that having a uniform style of dates what is supposed to be done. What is the correct answer? Different styles ok or just one style? For your information, there is no debate over which style is preferred. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Consistency is key, but no format is pushed over another. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on Mattisse's talk page

That needed to be said, and the point has to get through to Mattisse and her mentors, not a single one of whom has stepped up to point out to her that she can't keep on blaming everyone else, and dividing the world into friends who protect her and enemies who provoke her. It's just plain childish. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been biting my tongue for the last few weeks, but that was too outrageous to let pass. I will be very interested to see what, if anything, MastCell is preparing to do. The recent comments from her "mentors" are quite disturbing. Karanacs (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice

that you removed my edit at User:Mattisse/Plan in about 27 seconds. Does this mean that I should not be editing there at all or that there was something wrong with my suggestion? Carptrash (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, moved to the discussion page. That's fine. I just have not seen one of these Plans before and was unclear as how to proceed. This is good. Carptrash (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This type of plan was a new idea from Arbcom, so most editors are unfamiliar with the idea. It has been Arbcom-approved and shouldn't be edited without their approval. I thought your suggestions were quite relevant, and I hope they are used. Karanacs (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutral opinion request

Hi,

I hope that you don't mind my pestering you. Oldag07 recommended that I talk to you.

I was seeking a neutral opinion on a history matter. I have recently expanded the article Galveston Bay Area. The expansion and the article itself have been the subject of significant controversy ever since which is still being sorted out. One particular topic that has garnered some question is the history section. Some editors have felt that

• The section should be abbreviated dramatically and most content moved to other articles or simply stricken, or
• There is not enough unique about the Bay Area history to merit a history section at all.

I, of course, disagree. I was just looking for another opinion to weigh in, hopefully somebody who has an interest in history. In other words, am I making something out of nothing or is this section informative and relevant to understanding the topic independent of History of Texas, History of Houston, and other articles?

Also, if you have other thoughts on the article as a whole feel free to weigh in the whole thing.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I read the history section of this article, and skimmed the rest. I am of ambivalent as to whether the article should exist at all (I saw the AfD and didn't participate because I couldn't make up my mind). I do believe that every article on a geographical location should have a history section. However I think the history section in this article, as written, is too broad. The history needs to focus more tightly on what happened in this area, and not what happened in the rest of the state. The section (and the rest of the article) also needs much, much better sourcing. A great deal of the article appears sourced to self-published websites. For the most part, this is inappropriate. We should instead be sourcing to independent coverage - books, newspapers, and journal articles. This is especially important in the history section - we must know what experts think of the history, not what the online map store says. Where there are citations currently, they appear to be cherry-picked (focusing on the Allen Ranch), leading the section to appear disjointed. I recommend looking for books or articles that give a broader view of the region. Furthermore, a large part of the section is unreferenced, which has led to errors. One glaring one that popped out at me - Texas did not declare indepdence in 1835, but on March 2, 1836. Finally, I question whether all of the cities that are listed are really considered part of the Galveston Bay area. I would not consider Anahuac and the events that happened there to be part of the Bay area. Good luck - writing a good history synopsis is hard work! Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Some questions, if you don't mind (don't feel obligated to respond):

* I agree about getting good sources. Part of the reason I was picking on you was hoping you might be able to point me to some good sources. Anything you are particularly aware of that I should look at?

* Regarding the Allen Ranch, can you tell me what you know? From my reading of multiple sources this was a key part of the history of the Bay Area in the 19th century. Texas City only got going around the turn of the century and Anahuac was always tiny. To my understanding the ranch and associated enterprises were a huge part of the economy of Pasadena, League City, and other area communities (certainly the city of Pasadena thinks of it as historically major). From what I've read the economies in the Bay Area only started to substantially diversify near the turn of the century as cattle ranching was dying and the oil boom kicked in.

* What "rest of the state" are you referring to? In general I intentionally avoided saying very much about anything that was going on the in the rest of the state. Granted there are some occassional mentions but only to the extent that, without these, the text would stop making any sense (well, unless you are already an expert in history). Do you have some specific items you would recommend removing?

* Regarding Anahuac, it depends on the source. One could argue that nobody thinks of Bellville as part of Greater Houston but, according to the OMB definition it is. Businesses in Anahuac do refer to their area as Bay Area to some degree and I have external references that say the same. It seems POV to exclude them even if arguably most definitions do not include them.

* Do you have any thoughts on specific elements that are missing or underemphasized? That is, are there any particular events or internal influences that you know of that need to be mentioned to balance the story?

* Thanks for the catch on the date mistake!

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your reply until just now! I don't have a lot of knowledge of the history of the Bay Area; my interest and research has been centered on the Texas Revolution period (and earlier), and there weren't many people living along the coast in that time. This was primarily because the laws of Spain and Mexico wouldn't allow it (and that would be a good thing to mention - it is cited in the article Juan Davis Bradburn). Sources that I've used that have potential for this article:

• the Southwest Historical Quarterly. All of its issues are online: [8].
• For very early history (France vs Spain in the 17th and 18th centuries), you might check out Weddle, Robert S. (1991), The French Thorn: Rival Explorers in the Spanish Sea, 1682–1762, College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, ISBN 0890964807. It covers much of the Gulf Coast and there might be interesting snippets for you. When I read it I was focused more on the broader picture so I don't have notes on the particular details.
• You might want to mention part of the Long expedition - Long took up residence on one of the barrier islands after his failed first attempt. Information about this and Lafitte and the other pirate operations along the bay was well described in Davis, William C. (2005), The Pirates Laffite: the treacherous world of the corsairs of the Gulf, Austin, Texas: Harcourt Books, ISBN 9780151004034
• There are a number of very good reference works on the Texas Revolution. Stephen Hardin's Texian Iliad – A Military History of the Texas Revolution is an excellt overview of the military events, with a chapter on the Battle of San Jacinto. I have not read any of the books that deal specifically with this battle, so I am not sure if any of those would have appropriate details for you.
• You may want to read books on the history of Galveston island. Those may help you to identify other sources that would have a broader viewpoint.
• The Handbook of Texas (available online) also usually has a list of references at the bottom of each article. Some of these are not appropriate for WP, as they are primary sources, but often you can identify a few good books, or authors, to search on.
• You might want to actually read the Henson book I used for Juan Davis Bradburn. It contains some good information about 1830s-era customs posts that were established in or very near Galveston island. For space and scope reasons, I couldn't include that in the Bradburn article.

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Further thoughts - if the majority of reliable sources don't include certain areas (like Anahuac) as part of the Galveston Bay area, then the article should place very little emphasis on them. I would just have a sentence that says something like "Occasionally, cities such as Anahuac, .... are listed as part of the Galveston Bay area, but their inclusion is not widely accepted." This lets the reader know that sometimes those cities might be lumped in, but it spares you from having to focus on them or their history. Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

For all you do...

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Everything you do, so quietly and so competently, is much appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ealdgyth! This really brightened my day :) Karanacs (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Karen, just a note to say thank you for promoting Stanley Green. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading that article - thanks for improving it! Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your "specialized reviewers" addition

Hi Karanacs: Hope you're well. At last, I've been hoping that point about specialising would be emphasised. But why not for "Opposes" too, even though it's not usually a problem? This might provide explicit balance in the instructions and encourage potential reviewers (you can choose what to review in a nomination). A lot of editors are under the impression they have to be skilled in all of the criteria. Tony (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony. You bring up a really good point. I didn't add anything to the oppose section because we don't need any additional information from the opposers (as you say, its usually not a problem to discern which criteria are the problem). Do you have any suggestions on what could be added to the oppose section? My brain has stopped being creative. Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC urgent

What goes on User:Deckiller/FAC urgents? Is it possible to add Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally the urgents list has articles that are near the bottom of the FAC list and don't have a lot of comments. Feel free to add Crown Fountain, as it is the next article from those already listed on the urgents list. Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ode on Indolence FAC

Since trying to deal with Fowler on terms of language or grammar proves to not only be a waste of time, I have pointed out here that I will not be led into the same games as before. You can see from the responses that his claims are either completely trivial or have no merit, especially when he starts trying to nitpick over definitions which do not have the weight that he claims. I hope it would not be necessary to have to call up a WT:FAC discussion on the individual, as per his stunt at the Samuel Johnson early life FAC only verified that he is falsifying many issues merely to stir up problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We'll give the comments the weight they deserve. You've responded appropriately; given the bad blood between the two of you I'd advise that you refrain from responding to any potentially provoking replies. Karanacs (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made two responses to Dabomb's questioning, but that is fine. I will continue to work on SlimVirgin's concerns, as they seem to be about where the sources are lacking in terms of explaining some Keats concepts that are assumed (and without Wikipedia having anything more than a stub on the concept, sigh!). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have applied many corrections. The only thing I did not change is on the dating. I hope my explanation makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Slim Virgin has expressed an opinion about the lead which seems to conflict with a statement you made. I would like some sort of consensus before proceeding one way or another. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There have been a few more changes to the page since you've last looked at it. Could you take a glance when you have a chance? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around!  Roger Davies ^talk 02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Galveston_Bay_Area#Sources_.26_OR

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Galveston_Bay_Area#Sources_.26_OR. Thank you. Nsaum75 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Thanks for the help. BTW, do I assume correctly that you do not approve of directly using tertiary sources like TSHAOnline as references. For comparison, the history in the Houston article (FA rated) uses TSHAOnline, the Houston Chronicle, and UH's The Daily Cougar, all tertiary sources in this context, and they even use primary sources like NASA.

Also, what are your thoughts on primary sources? In general most articles I see on modern cities and other geographical areas make heavy use of primary sources for contemporary issues (although they use secondary and tertiary sources for the histories). It's usually impossible to find solid secondary and tertiary sources that cover all the things you would need to talk about in these articles.

Anyway, I'll be digging through your source suggestions.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I probably bring some of this grief on myself. :-) I tend to like to seek out valuable topics that, for one reason or another, the average person tends not to know a lot about (or else thinks he/she knows more than he/she really does). The downside of doing that is such topics tend to be magnets for criticism because editors feel inherently suspicious. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Regarding Anahuac, I'm on the fence on this one. I added a statement similar to what you suggested but for the moment I am still including it as part of the area. Maybe I should take a straw poll but since right now there seems to be such ugly feelings about the article I kind of don't want to. My general perspective is that the least biased way to define the Bay Area is simply to use coast itself as the primary source of definition and then summarize what difference sources say, but focus discussion on the areas that are most talked about in the sources. This seems the most NPOV to me. C.f. though most people would not think of Martinique as part of France it is legally part of the country. The France article says almost nothing about it but it does at least acknowledge it. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, I disapprove of primary sources, and I heavily disapprove of self-published sources. Occasionally, they are unavoidable, but for the most part alternative sources can be found. You are right that most city articles do heavily rely on these sources, and these articles very often are torn apart when they come to WP:FAC because of that. As for the TSHAOnline, I think it is a perfectly appropriate source for some subjects, but not for others. To take examples for the articles I've worked on - I would consider it a poor source for the Battle of the Alamo because there are so many books written about the subject; it is, however, perfectly appropriate to use for a much more narrow subject such as the Battle of Lipantitlan, which has not been the focus of much scholarly work. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Time Article

I found an interesting article in Time that you might find interesting on Wikipedia. Hoping you are doing well. I know it is kind awkward, but I am not exactly sure who to discuss it with other than other Wikipedians. Enjoy. Oldag07 (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for all the help you have done with the Galveston Bay article. Oldag07 (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(TPS'ing): The problem is that people think the fact that Wikipedia is no longer growing at an absurd rate means it's dying. It doesn't. It just means we're maturing and becoming more of a community. Meh... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Oldag, I did find that very interesting. It's especially amusing to me because I joined in 2007 (when the world started coming to end, according to them) and have created dozens of articles since then. They have some good points about the bureaucracy and difficulty attracting specialized reviewers, though. Karanacs (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think of the plateau of new editors to be somewhat like Darwinian explanations that flood and famine are population control. I see less stupid and less frequent vandalism. In 2007 the To Kill a Mockingbird article changed so quickly every day I could not keep track of it and most edits were kinda crappy changes. I would rather work with ten editors who understood the necessity of reliable sources and good writing (or were willing to learn it quick) than 300 who had no clue and no plan to improve. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

FIFY .. We joined in 2007. . . And we have been kicking *** ever since. :-) Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is a good reminder to all of us experienced editors not to bite the newcomers Oldag07 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have since fixed many problems - OR and similar things. I did take pleasure from having to completely rewrite a page and reread 8 sources just to fix something that was correct to the sources for a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I just sent you another email. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't checked my email in days and may not have time tonight either (stupid project due two days ago and still not done). Karanacs (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I was mostly pointing out my long history of collaborations as I have various pages, FA, GA, and DYK, in which Ive collaborated with over 50 different users. Many of them including people who I do not get along with, including Haiduc. At the Nicolo Giraud page, I was able to settle an edit war that was happening there between him and dozens of users that spanned multiple pages. I asked you to reread the beginning evidence so that you would see that the matter has nothing to do with actual work on the articles, as there is no desire to collaborate, and little proof that they want to do anything but destroy. The inexistance of the Persian Empire page because it has constantly been edit warred out of existence even though three straw polls and attempts to determine consensus have clearly stated that the page should exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that most of the time you get along with others editors really well. Every once in a while (on the full moons?) that doesn't appear as easy for you. I suspect some of that is due to your expertise in certain subjects; especially in the case of this RSN incident (what i've gathered anyway), it's a good test for how to handle expert/non-expert interactions. Given the EE case currently at arbcom, I'll be very interested to see the outcome of some of your other allegations. Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you notice from the evidence I supplied, there is little reason to believe that what happened at RSN was done out of good faith or appropriately. The same people appearing and cheerleadering and causing problems verifies that. I already pointed out that I had an FA on the same exact issue and that I knew which sources were credible and which were not. There was no reason to claim that the guy had any clue about Oscar Wilde, yet people were. The connections of the people combined with the ridiculousness of the claims makes it impossible to claim that they were merely mistaken or acting out of good faith. As I have shown, this has occurred on multiple pages, and that they are destroying articles to further a fight instead of actually trying to improve anything. I can show you pages and pages of abuse that was thrown out at that time, especially from Dbachmann and Folantin in which they claim that all I do is spam articles and try to collect awards. There is little to believe that these actions are for the best of the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dartford Grammar School

have reverted this to the 9 September version which I think is the last clean version

Ehrenkater (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was in the process of doing so and you beat me to it! Karanacs (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

Concerning this image The Fall of the Alamo by Robert Jenkins Onderdonk, I added the date 1903 - it is a. important and informative b. disrespectful to the artist to omit that basic detail, per MoS of paintings and artists images. otherwise I have supported the article...Modernist (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't require the year completed, it simply lists it as "details people might want to know". I checked Wikipedia:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Image_captions, and they say date completed is optional. When I first added the picture I considered including the date in the caption, but I don't really believe that information is useful for understanding the context of this work; all paintings of the battle were completed long after the battle was over. The information is included on the image description page. Can you elaborate on why you think the date completed is important and informative? Karanacs (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The image of Davy Crockett's last stand waving his rifle as a club recalls Fess Parker as Crockett in the Disney version, I thought to myself - hmmm I wonder if the painting was made after the Disney version or did the Disney people see this painting. The 1903 date helps answer part of those questions...:)Modernist (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That never even crossed my mind. You've convinced me :) I'll readd the date. Thank you so much for all your help with the article. Karanacs (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs [9], my memory served me well, towards the end he's swinging his gun :)...Modernist (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

Sorry about that... I think the current name is best now. --Rockstone (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marshalsea/archive1

I tried to uncollapse my oppose here, but Slim Virgin has continued to collapse it. I tried to deal with this on my talk page, but apparently to no avail. Perhaps you could intervene. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have collapsed all the sections, Awadewit, because the page is very confusing otherwise (thanks in large measure to all your posts). I don't appreciate you edit warring with me on that page and on the article. Your oppose is noted, and I don't see what else is required. You have turned this into an exceptionally unpleasant experience for me, to the point where all the pleasure I got from writing this article over the last couple of years has disappeared.

I fully accept that was not your intention, but I ask that you try to see your approach through the eyes of the person whose work you're criticizing. Most of your opinions about the article are just your own, very personal, preferences, and should not be expressed as anything else. I can't say any more about this at the moment, because I'm angry about it, and will doubtless say something I later regret. Suffice to say, I think this situation sums up what is wrong with the FA process. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, I'm going to take that page off my watchlist for now. I feel that Awadewit's behavior there has bordered on abusive, and I really can't cope with it. Getting a star for an article is not worth this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't read any of the FAC commentary yet so I cannot offer any opinion on it. I will say that that the nominator absolutely does not have to agree with or implement all of a reviewer's suggestions. If the nominator feels the suggestions are out of line, a simple note should be left on the FAC page with an explanation of why. It doesn't have to degenerate into arguing (not saying that's what happened as I haven't read the commentary yet). Sandy and I read all the comments and don't just count supports and opposes. +

That said, I've undone the collapsing and left a note of explanation on the FAC page. Awadewit was following previous FAC precedent in uncollapsing them - there are really good reasons why we don't allow it. If you have any questions, Slim, please let me know. Karanacs (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just saw your latest remark, Slim. Please take a day or two to calm down. If you still feel like you don't want to continue with the process after that, let me know and I'll archive the nomination. Sometimes a bit of distance helps. Karanacs (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I do want the process to continue, Karanacs, but without me taking part. I have addressed the concerns I'm willing to address, so I'm actually not needed there anymore, unless more objections arrive.

I have seen you and Sandy both say things like "don't sweat the small stuff," making clear that the points raised by reviewers won't necessarily be persuasive. I understand that. Nevertheless, that doesn't help the writer who's being subjected to them. Ignore them, and we look uncooperative. Try to fix them, and we're destined to spend many, many, many hours trying to address all the issues, some of them clearly inappropriate. I don't want to count the number of hours I've spent since I put up this FA trying to fix things that didn't need fixing.

The FA process has turned into a nightmare, and something needs to happen to turn it back to the collaborative process it used to be. I don't mind admitting that I am sitting here in tears, because I loved working on that article and was proud of it, but the review of it has turned into a Chinese water torture. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shojo Beat/archive1

Hi. Since this nomination appears to have failed purely for lack of reviewing, except for one person who did a ton of review, am I allowed to immediately renominate it since all issues that were brought up were very quickly addressed and no one actually opposed, only failed to say support after the issues were taken care of? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you still wait a little bit. The list is so long right now that the nomination may very well be overlooked again. You might also ask the reviewers if there is anything else they recommend to get their support. At least for me, sometimes I don't feel strongly enough about certain things to oppose or list them out, but if they were fixed I would support. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks. Will wait a bit and try again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Overman Committee/archive1

I am not sure why you decided to archive and fail Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Overman Committee/archive1 simply because there was a backlog. I had resolved all issues, there was one support, and furthermore no opposes. And there are still other nominations on WP:FAC that have been sitting there longer than mine! 01:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus for promotion after three weeks (no opposes does not mean no promotion). The ones that were sitting longer are likely going to be promoted - I ran out of time Tuesday to finish processing them. Bring it back in a few weeks and maybe it will get more eyes. Karanacs (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is it fair to remove an a nomination because of a lack of input? The article has no faults. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This was essentially closed as no consensus due to lack of input. There were not enough reviewers of the article for me to judge whether it should have been promoted, so it was archived. Karanacs (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So what do you expect me to do? Come back in 4,5 weeks and watch it get no input again? It's not the most interesting topic. Bsimmons666 (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise you to check out WP:PRV for review volunteers who are interested in similar topics; look also in WP:FA for editors who have written featured articles in similar subjects to check it out. When you do re-submit to FAC, consider nominating one or more other FACs; there's always the off chance that another nominator might return the favor, and this will keep the FAC backlog down, allowing the reviews to be spread less thinly. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you (plural) are sometimes too quick to archive some of the "one support, no opposes" FACs that lurk near the bottom. I appreciate that they clog the list, but some of them like the aviation and literature articles really do need specialist knowledge, and need to wait until the nominator has fished people out to have a look

User:Iridescent

This is my situation exactly. Just wanted to throw that out there. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

MHL/Admin

As you're an admin and a member of Milhist, you may wish to add your name here. Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Texas A&M will be featured on the main page of Wikipedia on 30 September! Thanks for all your hard work!

I would appreciate your assistance with keeping the article clean from vandalism. If you choose to help with that endeavor, you should know a few things.

I've had experience on with three articles I was involved in featured on the main page, so I'd like to pass along some "lessons learned". First, this article will be the most visible article on Wikipedia for 24 hours starting at about 7 PM on the night of the 29th. It will attract vandals; given that it is football season, it will likely attract some of those comments as well. If they are simple vandalism, just revert it, paste a notice on their user/IP talk page, and leave it alone. If it continues and it is clearly vandalism from the same source, I stongly advise you to not re-engage with them. Simply report it (see below) and an administrator will fix it. Understand and be knowledgeable about WP:3RR (the only block I have ever received was for a violation of this), so don't get caught in this trap. Second, admins will likely not protect the article during its stead on the main page as it is supposed to be a prime example of what Wikipedia has to offer (both good and bad). Third, encourage engagement by people on the talk page to discuss issues with the article.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for repeated re-adding of material Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for repeated vandalism Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard for general problems. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents for incidents.

Gig 'em! — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

First Roumanian-American FAC

Hi Karanacs. Thanks again for your helpful and encouraging comments. I've done a thorough overhaul of the article, based on your comments, and hope you will be able to provide further feedback. Cheers. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look on Monday. I'm excited to read it :) Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC style

Hi Karen, I reposted my suggestion at the FAC page. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Proposal_for_a_featured_article_style. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Simon B. Buckner

Thanks for moving the FAC discussion on Simon B. Buckner after the page was moved from Simon B. Buckner, Sr. I am concerned, however, that I no longer see the nomination listed among the candidates at WP:FAC. Could this be a result of the page move? I also noticed that there is a stray period at the end of the discussion page name (i.e. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simon Bolivar Buckner./archive1). Would this have any effect? I don't think the discussion has closed, but I could be wrong. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I promoted the article yesterday (congratulations! - it was an extremely well-written and informative article), and I suspect that the bot did not work on it because of the stray period. My apologies - I completely missed that. I'll move the FAC to the correct name and the bot should do the closing process stuff this weekend. Karanacs (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, both for the help and for your kind comments. Just wanted to get this wrapped up before I leave for vacation next week. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)