Jump to content

User talk:Karanacs: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Roman Catholicism....: haven't been by in a while
→‎US 131 FAC: new section
Line 139: Line 139:
I wonder how the article on the [[Roman Catholic Church]] ended up being demoted to C-class? Is it because Wikipedia has higher editorial standards (a good thing!) or is it because the article has gotten worse? (Even if it is bad, it is still better than any that I have ever written!) [[User:Bwrs|Bwrs]] ([[User talk:Bwrs|talk]]) 16:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I wonder how the article on the [[Roman Catholic Church]] ended up being demoted to C-class? Is it because Wikipedia has higher editorial standards (a good thing!) or is it because the article has gotten worse? (Even if it is bad, it is still better than any that I have ever written!) [[User:Bwrs|Bwrs]] ([[User talk:Bwrs|talk]]) 16:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
:I haven't visited the article in a few months. The last time I saw it it needed a great deal of help - lack of balance, not representative of scholarly consensus, etc. It's tough to do justice to such a massive topic. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs#top|talk]]) 18:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
:I haven't visited the article in a few months. The last time I saw it it needed a great deal of help - lack of balance, not representative of scholarly consensus, etc. It's tough to do justice to such a massive topic. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs#top|talk]]) 18:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

== US 131 FAC ==

I believe that I have addressed all of your comments and suggestions from [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 131/archive1]] that are possible to address. Please let me know what more I can do, but when it comes to some of the historical information, the sources don't exist. I'm eager to conclude the nomination because I have other articles ([[Brockway Mountain Drive]] specifically) that I'm lining up to nominate soon. Thank you again for the review. <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;" >'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<font color="white">Imzadi&nbsp;1979</font>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Imzadi1979|<font color="white"><big>→</big></font>]]'''</span> 20:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:29, 13 April 2011

Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.

Note: I usually hide from Wikipedia on weekends, so if you leave a message on the weekend you will likely not get a response until Mondays.

Archive

Todo list

Note to self:images

Note to me. Per User:TenPoundHammer/Country, country music artist articles need pictures. I need to go through my photo albums and see if I can find any useful ones. Karanacs (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your extra credit bit on Catholic Church...

I suggest reading the following works to help with what you're trying .. (Le Goff's a bit outdated and the work you're citing is somewhat of a cross between a popular history and a low level textbook.) You have Eileen Power's Medieval Women which is a good start. Medieval women by Derek Baker World Cat; Queens, concubines, and dowagers : the king's wife in the early Middle Ages by P. Stafford World Cat; Women in medieval life : a small sound of the trumpet by Margaret Labarge World Cat; Women in medieval history & historiography by Susan Stuard World Cat. That should get you started, although I'll admit I don't pay much attention to "women's history" so I have little on my shelves about it. I do have Malcolm Barber's The Two Cities World Catwhich is a good recent comprehensive history of the High Middle Ages, which does have mentions of women's status and the church. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on adding references, I've expanded intro to cover whole article but what i've added needs to be tightened a little. Looks close to GA, were you going to nominate soon or planning to take to FAC? Tom B (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tom, thanks for your help on the article. (Especially thanks with the alt text stuff - I hate writing those.) I'm actually hoping to bring this article to FA at some point, but not quite yet. I still have notes from the Davis biography to incorporate, and then the article will probably need a really good copyedit. I tend to be pretty verbose in my first pass at an article and have to trim a lot of unnecessary detail and convoluted wording. This is one of four articles that I'm currently prepping for FA; One of them only needs a good copyedit, so it will probably be next. Maybe I'll finish working on Lafitte after that. If you're interested in trying for GA before that, feel free to nominate the article as-is. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
righto, i think Lafitte's at GA level and that it's worth bringing articles as fast up the quality rating as possible, i'm an immediatist in that sense [1]. some fa editors don't value GA as much, maybe because they think it's a better use of everyone's time/resource to go straight to fa. what do you think? the convention article is short, but i'm assuming there's not much more one can reasonably say, will have a look. i noticed the coincidence of Reform Act of 1832. Tom B (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't go for GA reviews much because there's often a backlog and I'm usually pretty aware of what else needs to be done to get the rest of the way to FA. I respect the process, and I've gotten great feedback from GA reviews in the past, but it's usually easier for me to focus on the FA criteria. If you nominate Lafitte for GA I'll help with any of the feedback if I can. I need to go find all my notes; I think they are buried somewhere on my desk. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have started putting together an article on Catholic Church and women in my userspace. Since you expressed an interest in this topic at Talk:Catholic Church, I thought you might be kind enough to look at it and give me your thoughts. I know that this needs an overview to introduce the topic and provide the reader with a summary of the article. If you would care to write one, I would be very grateful.--Richard (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I'll be happy to look at that when I have a few free momets - may be several days. Thank you for taking the initiative to start that! Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, see that you're working on it. I'm tied up doing some milhist work in a sandbox at the moment, but let me know if I can help with prose or whatever. Skinny87 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Right now I'm reading through more recent sources to try to see what should stay and what should be yanked. There's a lot of info out there... Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


FAC schedules

OK, I finally set up a page for us to coordinate schedules: see the talk page at User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 23, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 23, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 05:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What a welcome back present!!! Thank goodnesss I logged in today. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any TPS still there?

Catch me up, please...what have I missed in the last three months? Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've been blocked a few times since you were last here of course, but the biggest pile of ordure here right now surrounds this project's recent sparking into life after JW's exhortation that wikipedia needs more female editors. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were next on my list to check - glad you haven't been run off yet :) WP essentially friended my on facebook, so I had gotten an inkling that something was up with recruiting female editors. It's going to take ages to catch up....I fear for my poor articles. Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, by the way, although I'm not a member of that group, you should be aware that *anyone* logged in to Facebook can see the entire membership list, including pictures, and *all* posts there. Not very bright, if'n you ask me. Must we remind them that if they're so concerned about the issue, Facebook does have extensive privacy settings? Brains on board ? As your first order of business, you might want to ask them to consider privacy settings, or remove yourself from the group: YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You missed us missing you-- not much else :) I can't remember if you knew I set up User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat for coordinating our schedules? Glad to see you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I missed you guys too! I am going to hide from FAC for a little while longer. Seems to be no end in sight to the personal drama, so not sure how much time I'll have available. Did you win the race we were having? Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, still in it-- would be most kind of my counsel to give me correct dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see you're back! Ucucha 19:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see so many familiar faces already :) Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Texas has a TFA on Feb 23. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that...it's one of my articles :( That must have explained the strange sense of impending doom that led me back here today. Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yay, welcome back! --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, that you are a rockstar! Sorry I threw you in the deep end, but THANK YOU for everything you've done. Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome home! Imzadi 1979  20:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, missed you guys! Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you back! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're back. Everything else is ... you know... --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Karanacs - great to see this page light up again. I've missed you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, desperate times forced me to enlist... glad to have you back! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. Courcelles 02:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

recipe man? Soup's on?

Any interest in Turtle soup? We are doing a push to get turtle articles to GA and since I just talk page stalked and saw you were the leader of the cooking project...;-) TCO (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not back in a writing mode yet....good luck! Karanacs (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

face book request

Hello, Karanacs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

I sent you my contact info for face book Karen if you have room for another friend...

Tinkermen (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholicism....

I wonder how the article on the Roman Catholic Church ended up being demoted to C-class? Is it because Wikipedia has higher editorial standards (a good thing!) or is it because the article has gotten worse? (Even if it is bad, it is still better than any that I have ever written!) Bwrs (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't visited the article in a few months. The last time I saw it it needed a great deal of help - lack of balance, not representative of scholarly consensus, etc. It's tough to do justice to such a massive topic. Karanacs (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US 131 FAC

I believe that I have addressed all of your comments and suggestions from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 131/archive1 that are possible to address. Please let me know what more I can do, but when it comes to some of the historical information, the sources don't exist. I'm eager to conclude the nomination because I have other articles (Brockway Mountain Drive specifically) that I'm lining up to nominate soon. Thank you again for the review. Imzadi 1979  20:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]