User talk:Karanacs

	Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
	In an effort to keep conversations together, I will likely respond on this page if you begin a conversation here. If I've begun a conversation on your talk page, I'll watchlist that page until you respond.

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 1 November 2006—May 2007 Archive 2 May 2007—August 2007 Archive 3 August 2007—December 2007 Archive 4 December 2007—February 2008 Archive 5 February 2008—March 2008 Archive 6 March 2008—May 2008 Archive 7 June 2008—July 2008 Archive 8 August 2008—October 2008 Archive 9 November 2008—December 2008 Archive 10 January — April 2009 Archive 11 May — September 2009 Archive 12 October — December 2009 Archive 13 January — April 2010 Archive 14 May — July 2010 Archive 15 July 2010 — February 2011

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)

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 (Le Goff's a bit outdated and the work you're citing is somewhat of a cross between a popular history and a low level textbook.)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)

Jean Lafitte

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please take a look at User:Richardshusr/Catholic Church and women

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)

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)

Murder of Imette St. Guillen

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)

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)

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)

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)

To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World is an open letter written on February 24, 1836 by William B. Travis, commander of the Texian forces at the Battle of the Alamo, to settlers in Mexican Texas. According to Michael Green, former reference archivist for the Texas State Library Archives Division, the letter is "the most famous document in Texas history". On February 23, the Alamo Mission in San Antonio, Texas, had been besieged by Mexican forces led by General Antonio López de Santa Anna. Fearing that his small group of men could not withstand an assault, Travis wrote this letter seeking reinforcements and supplies from supporters. The letter was initially entrusted to courier Albert Martin, who carried it to Gonzales and then handed the letter to Launcelot Smithers. Partially in response to the letter, men from throughout Texas and the United States began to gather in Gonzales. Between 32 and 90 of them reached the Alamo before it fell; the remainder formed the nucleus of the army which eventually defeated Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto. Following the end of the Texas Revolution, the original letter was delivered to Travis's family in Alabama, and in 1893, one of his descendants sold it to the State of Texas. For many decades it was displayed at the Texas State Library; the original letter is now protected and a copy is on display under a portrait of Travis. (more...)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nope, still in it-- would be most kind of my counsel to give me correct dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back! Ucucha 19:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see so many familiar faces already :) Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Texas has a TFA on Feb 23. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Yay, welcome back! --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

Welcome home! Imzadi 1979 → 20:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, missed you guys! Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you back! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Hey Karanacs - great to see this page light up again. I've missed you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, desperate times forced me to enlist... glad to have you back! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. Courcelles 02:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Backish

Sorry to all those I ignored when I dropped off the face of Wikipedia again. I'm working my way back in spurts. One step forward, two steps back kind of thing. Tomorrow on to my watchlist...then back to FAC. Thank you all for your patience. Karanacs (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! signed, talk page stalker. Kuru (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm so very happy to see this page on my watchlist again. Welcome back! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful! I've missed you. I hope you've been well?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Boo !!! Glad to see you :) There are only 18 "older nominations", nothing ready in the top, so if you can get through the bottom today or tomorrow, I can go through on the weekend. I'm recused from Guy Fawkes, and my move is June 14 to June 24, then I'm settled! All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been in our thoughts and prayers, Karanacs.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Real life is slowly returning to normal :) Moving at the end of this month, so unsure when the computer will come down, but I'll be in and out until then. Sandy, I'll go through FAC this afternoon. Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like yours will come down about when mine goes up, so we're cool ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Karen its nice to see you back and working with FAC once more. :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I missed you guys :) Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

12 Gauge (album)

Ahhh!! Wait!! I totally call no fair on this one. Allow me to explain, please. You just closed the FAC for the 12 Gauge (album) article... and normally I'd be "meh" and wait another 14 days. But:

1. I asked SandyGeorgia for an FAC review. Okay, I had no idea she was busy until yesterday, and I'll explain why in a moment. But I asked her to let me know if she was busy and I would ping Laser or anyone else.
2. Wizardman posts on SandyGeorgia's talk page and he says, "I'll try and get to this tonight though I'm not the biggest fan of reviewing music articles". Well, with Sandy's talk page on watch, I see this, so I get excited and hopeful for the first time in a week. I go back to the article and do a few more tweaks to prepare it for Wizardman, who I know is a very thorough reviewer. Just knowing I was going to get a review triggered some serious excitement here. Of course, I checked back later that night, then in the morning... nothing. So I mistakenly believed he would get to it later.
3. In the meantime, when I'm through doing that, I start "stalking" (is that the right word?) SandyGeorgia's page, and she hasn't replied to me, so I simply assumed (never "assume", lesson learned) that she was going to get to it later—like Wizardman—and I see your name pop up and discussions about Laser popping up, and everyone's out of town or busy suddenly! But you seemed to have just returned (welcome back, btw!). But why should I ping you when I already pinged Sandy, who hadn't gotten back to me?

So you see... now, I'm not saying my article is amazing, but if it's going to fail, then I really want someone to say, "Hey, only one set of eyes has looked at it—which is why Wizardman did not close it—so I'll give it a second opinion and fail you and we can all move on." But for the second time now, this article ... simply wasn't looked at. One person (NikkiMaria) goes through it, types oppose and suddenly the entirety of the FAC reviewers ignores and skips over the article. And I also understand that people probably simply aren't interested in reading a melodic death metal article, I get that.

So... there's no impasse here, the FAC has been closed. But I guess I"m just going to fall onto my knees and beg here. Is there any way the article can be given one more review, just so I know that my writing isn't brilliant and that I suck? Or... well, the other option I guess is to simply wait 14 days and just hope for the best, yet again. I'm sure you guys get people like me whining after every close (lol, sorry...) but please please please help me out any way you can here. I just like closure, not ... this kind of closure, though. My hopes were so high, you have no idea. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand how frustrating this process can be!! You did the right thing. It's not just the oppose that was the issue (and nikkimaria had struck that, yea!). The article had been up for about 2 weeks and didn't have any support. Even if wizardman had supported, that still wouldn't be enough for promotion, and the article would have had to sit around and wait still for more eyes. It is often better to start over with a clean nomination (no stricken opposes) so that next time potential reviewers might not be scared off. Karanacs (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I expect the process to be frustrating. If this came easy for me, I would just get smug and start strutting around Wikipedia. Some people seem to know the magic formula with dozens of FAs listed on their talk page, and I can't figure out what that magic is. But I will get it one day, before I die, preferably. Otherwise I'll come back as a ghost and stay at it. Anyway, thank you for understanding, and do know that I realize the frustration isn't just on the nominators, but you guys as well, I'm sure, especially with what seems to be a diminishing amount of reviewing help. Well, I'll try again in the future, and this time I'll write a better "reason" than the cliché "I think it's well-written", which is never quite accurate. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The magic is to be paitent and persistent. It's taken me four years of pretty much non-stop work to get as many FAC noms as I've had. I will admit that it is slightly easier to get non-popular culture articles through FAC, there seems to be a slight bias by reviewers towards traditional encyclopedic subjects. (I share it, I'll admit), but even there, a well prepared nomination will get there. The trick for me is - GA, PR, finding a good copyeditor (not from the Guild of Copy editors, but one who is familiar with FAC) and only then nominate. Sometimes, I need two or three copyedits and peer reviews. Also, spend a LOT of time on research - not just on the internet, but go to local university libraries and dig up sources there - for music albums, that would be getting the print magazines and seeing what is in them as well as the online music mags. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please contact me when you renominate, and I promise I'll do my best to find the time. I did intend to give the article a proper read through, but it slipped my memory. For what it's worth, I've written five pop culture FAs, and two of them were albums. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You guys are awesome, thank you for the nice comments. And Ealdgyth, I think I definitely need to take advantage of Peer review. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got the right attitude, K. I wish you the best of luck in further improving the article and hope to see you back at FAC soon :) Karanacs (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, K (also, lol)! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sunday

I've done all the damage I can do for now, and am surrounded by boxes-- free until load out tomorrow. Unless you speak up soon and say otherwise, I can start through FAC today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I just logged in for the first time this weekend. Do you want me to run through or have you already started? Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you are already in the middle of things. I'll run through on Tue and try to find some time on Friday. Thanks - and good luck tomorrow! Karanacs (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

you, too ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Closure of [[2]]

Why? I was working on this page and I addressed all concerns either there on the user's talk page. Why was this closed? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand how frustrating it can be to see your nomination archived - I've been there! In this case, the oppose had been unstruck for 10 days. The other comment on source formatting has not really been addressed either. There were no other comments or declarations of support or pending support. Now you have a little bit more time to clean the article up some more and you can bring it back in a few weeks with a clean FAC page. Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Closure of fluorine FAC

How did this article fail FAC? There seemed to be overwhelming consensus. 82.8.55.199 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. [3]. I have no idea why it wasn't. You might ask user:Karanacs, who didn't give a reason. SBHarris 16:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: There was indeed a consensus to promote, it seems to me. "Consensus" doesn't mean it's perfect and no objections are left". If you waited for that, no article would be promoted. SBHarris 16:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Sterling C. Robertson

A question about the template Mexican Texas, since you are the original creator. The template does not list Sterling C. Robertson as an empresario, but the Handbook of Texas gives him that title.and dates Robertson's Colony as pre-Republic. Is there some technicality as to why Sterling Robertson would not be considered an empresario under Mexican Texas? I realize that neither the colony nor Robertson himself yet has a Wikipedia page, but I was curious. Maile66 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's only because neither he nor the colony had a WP page. The templates shouldn't have red links. Karanacs (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Thought it was something like that. Maile66 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Church and women

Hi Karanacs, It's been a while... I miss interacting with you on the Catholic Church article. The general atmosphere among editors was stinky but I appreciated and admired the general objective attitude you had towards the POV issues. As a result of that interaction, your Talk Page is on my watchlist although I generally ignore stuff that happens there because it doesn't involve me.

For some reason, I decided to take a look at your Talk Page a couple of days ago and noticed that my year-and-a-half old request to look at the draft of Catholic Church and women was still on your todo list. There must have been an oversight on my part because you did actually respond to my request and I never saw your response. As a result, that draft was languishing in my userspace for the last year and a half waiting (or so I thought) for your input.

I decided to push the draft into article mainspace so that other editors could help improve it. I do agree that the article is unbalanced in that it focuses more on criticisms of the Church and doesn't present the positive impact that the Catholic Church has had on women's rights and their role in the family and in society. If you can help correct this imbalance, I would much appreciate it.

Keep up the good work and happy editing.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As I try to work with this article, I find that I am hampered by the organization of the article. I am now wondering if there aren't a series of articles that should be written instead of just one. I am thinking that the current article focuses on contemporary issues and I'm not sure how to work in the history of women in the early Church, the medieval Church, etc. I also think there could be an article about feminism and the Catholic Church that would cover topics that might be hard to fit into the current article on Catholic Church and women. If you search in Google Books for "Catholic Church women" and "Catholic Church feminism", you will see some of the sources that lead me to this conclusion. I'd like to get your opinion on how best to organize and cover these topics. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good example of an article that no sane editor would ever dream of touching. No offence intended, but life's too short. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I'm glad to see you're still working on all of that :) I am just reengaging with WP and am not quite ready to dip my feet into the religious articles again. Hopefully i'll be brave enough soon! Karanacs (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think milady does protest too much. There are far more controversial articles in Wikipedia. I think the story of women in the Catholic Church has been given short shrift. I'll keep you posted as I make more progress. The difficulty so far has been finding NPOV sources. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

FAC July

Karen, are you close to being able to re-engage at FAC soon? I've still got months of box unpacking to do, I've engaged on numerous deficient FACs because reviews are lacking and slacking, and some help would be a welcome break until I'm fully re-settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to be online this week but have now gotten almost all of my personal stuff taken care of (including an unwelcome bout of food poisoning this weekend). I'm back on duty and plan to run through tomorrow. I'll try to pick up the July weekends while you're busy. I go out of town with no computer access July 27-Aug 8, but will be available mostly until then. Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hah! Too much gumbo? (Or beer?) Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Will PR/AR tomorrow and Sunday :) Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I_Am_Thrilled !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

A330

Karen,

Sandy just restarted that article 6 days ago, because of revision during earlier period of review. Why are we pulling it, now?

I know the article very well and find it superior to our other big jet FAs.

There was one oppose, but his reason was that the article had changed (however, I don't think this is a valid reason given the restart is TO relook at the article). Also, don't find him very credible as before he said it was too long, but did not understand the "readable prose" aspect of the tool. (To me, seemed like a dug-in opinion, not supported.)

TCO (reviews needed) 20:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you've archived Airbus A330 without providing an explanatory note – there are three supports, and one oppose, so it's very contentious that you haven't given a verdict. At the same time, you do realised that the FAC had restarted, just last week right? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In case Sandy's restart was not clear, I have de-indented it to be more prominent. Have also added bold for the two other supports and de-indented (were not prominent before).TCO (reviews needed) 23:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw the restart, thanks. In general, that means that Sandy and I can't tell what's still valid in the reviews and what isn't due to massive changes in the article. Thank you for bolding/deindenting the supports - that's something that nominators need to stay on top of if reviewers are unaware of the format expectations. Fnlayson and Kyteto both hinted at COIs but didn't say what they were, leaving me unable to weigh those supports properly. In Nikkimaria's spotcheck, there was a 40% issue rate - that's not good. Sandy had id'd MOS issues. The oppose specifically referred to issues in previous reviews of the article, primarily around accessibility. The nominator also indicated being in a hurry. Given that opposition was still valid and other issues were being found, I determined the article needed more time. Karanacs (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Science fiction vs. sf

Karen, thanks for the note; this has come up in a couple of other science fiction FACs, so I thought it would be worth giving you my reasons for the usage you noticed. I feel that using either "sf" or "science fiction" to the exclusion of the other would be monotonous; I try to establish the abbreviation in order to provide an alternative. It's a way of varying the prose. It's also the case that almost every reference work or secondary source will use either "sf" or "SF" frequently: I think it could be argued that the reader needs to be introduced to usage as well as to content.

If there should be a consensus to get rid of "sf" I'd stick to it, but I think a good case can be made, and so far I have not run into strong opposition at FAC. If you like, I'll let you know when I next nominate an article, and you can raise the topic there to try to get some further review. The article on science fiction itself went through a lengthy discussion to determine that it was acceptable to use "SF" in addition to "science fiction"; the editors there preferred "SF" to "sf", but agreed that it was good to have both the full form and an abbreviation available. I didn't read that consensus as applying to all science fiction articles so my own practice is to use "sf", which is the form used by the most important reference work in the field, John Clute & Peter Nicholls's The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If that was accepted as fine at science fiction, I think that's a good consensus to use. Thanks for taking the time to leave me a note! Karanacs (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hey Karan, appreciate your work. Could I send you an email?TCO (reviews needed) 01:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure you can, but if it's related to wikipedia matters, I'd prefer it stay on wikipedia. Transparency and stuff. Karanacs (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the communication:

OK, I'll twist Wehwalt's arm and get it re-prose editted. We'll have to suck it up and play ball and hang in there. I would ask that you all look at it with fresh eyes as well. Am concerned when you say you think there are issues from Sandy still or from the oppose, but it doesn't sound like you know yourself, the actual status of those issues.

I personally did a HUGE amount of edits on the thing after Sandy made her last comment and fixed a bunch of problems right along what Sandy was asking for. (Maybe it is still screwed up, but we don't KNOW that, given how much was copy-edited. Plus Braynor and Synergystar found some I missed afterwards.) I think we "did what she wanted". Maybe someone can still find some prose errors. It's a long article and heck look at what Tony could find with Wehwalt, one of our best writers! At the same time, I don't think we should lose sight of content and organization and the overall article and use MOS as an excuse. We say we don't do that, when I read back to previous FAC-T debates ('FA is not just an MOS nitpick" but I see some worrying signs"), but I'm concerned our actions and words don't always match, or that it becomes an easy excuse. And I'm concerned that you don't know if her concern was fixed or not.

No one has said it explicitly, but I know a concern is the readability of a plane article for the general public (and I am general public and stick up for general readability). I saw that concern on the 777 FA btw. And a lot of work was put A330 to make it tractable for a general reader (slimming the lead, cutting some details, adding a reference table for the alphabet soup related to model development).

I think you ought to look at the complaint yourself if that one oppo is being used to shoot the article down (and it irks me that we HAD a restart and the fellow said he didn't want to relook at the article. That is essentially saying he is opposing without knowing current state, what kind of credible oppose is that!?) I don't know his access issue (do you?), but I know he was wrong on the length requirements and truculent to admit it. And he wanted some "Project style of data table" at the end and was willing to oppose over it. BTW, he got his way on that, but the last thing FA gods should be giving into is techie Project groups dictating end matter data table styles...and what kind of person opposes on that?

On the supports, the first of those two has done about 20% (guessing) of the edits on the article (and some of the content). I'm getting up there myself (ha!), but it has all been copy-editing. They are both "project guys" and not FA old hands. I think there is at least the perception by them (maybe even a little reality) of some old grudge with the aerospace project and Sandy. Look at the comments she made and the angry responses from that project around when the Rvlese kerfuffle went down (or maybe it was an RFA, can't recall, but it was a bit throwdown). And the aeros tend to be the young kids. But so...let's not relax our standards (never!) but also let's not piss away a chance to get more FA writers in the stable. This FA thing is really in danger of getting inbred. I've seen the numbers crunched on our mushroom proclivity for instance.

TCO (reviews needed) 01:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The article can definitely come back in a few weeks - hopefully after a few more eyes on it. I know it improved greatly over the nomination (which is a GOOD thing for wikipedia). A little more TLC and it should be ready to go again. Karanacs (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You made me smile. It will be OK, I guess.  :-) TCO (reviews needed) 01:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Promoted FACs are not promoted

Kara, welcome back. I think you overlooked marking the FACs (samples: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Astonishing Stories/archive1) as promoted when you ran through the list.[4] Jappalang (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping gimmebot would run through. Thanks for reminding me - I'll slap the tag on them. Karanacs (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making Gumbo a Featured Article! Your work is much appreciated. Thanks also for your reviews. Featured article candidates and Good Article nominees always need more reviewers! All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Texas revolution

Sorry I didn't discuss this matter, I didn't know where to, most of the time I comment on a discussion page nobody gets back to me anyway. So you are telling me that using the term "Battle off Brazos Santiago" is not appropriate for naming an article about a battle off Brazos Santiago. Better tell that to the others because there are alot of editors on wiki that use that method for naming their articles. I understand the "Battle of Brazos Santiago" term should not be used because it wasn't a named battle but in my defense that was one of my first articles, made before I knew much about wiki. If you are referring to the so called "standard" for titling unnamed naval battles, I am one of the guys who helped establish it the first place. I probably created more "Action of whatever" stubs than anybody else. However, it does not follow wiki standards which is why I dont use it anymore, and will not use it on any article I have written. The "Action of" way doesn't follow standards because the title is supposed to give the reader an idea of what the article is about. Obviously the words "Action of", combined with a date, does not follow that protocol but the term "battle off Brazos Santiago" does so there shouldn't be a dispute. (PS, Sorry if I may seem rude but I have had to explain this so many times now)

---

As for the Texas Revolution template, (and I am not sure if you are the one who reverted my edit) there is absolutely no reason why the naval battles can't be listed there. To see what I mean please look at several other war templates on wiki (the "Engaements of the Vietnam War" template would be a good example), they all have links for naval battles right in with the military links, why have a double standard here, why have two templates? Thats another point of mine, why have two little seperate templates instead of one larger one that has all of the relevant links in it? If the Brazos Santiago article has been renamed to "Action of....." again, I am afraid I must rename it to something that does follow standards and I will continue to edit the template until it includes all of the battles of the war and not just, what some people may think are, the important ones. Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience. --$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The following is to give you an idea of how many other articles are titled using the "Battle off ...." or "Action off....." standard. This, I am hoping, will become the new standard though I think the "Action of (Insert date)" thing will have to be reserved for engagements that took place in open ocean, away from any land or sea marks. Most of these were unnamed battles: (Please remove these links if you wish)

Battle off Cape Palos
Battle off Cape Gata
Battle off Mukah
Battle off Samar
Battle off Cape Engano
Battle off Ulsan
Battle off Texel
Battle off Horaniu
Battle off Endau
Battle off Cape St Vincent
Battle off the coast of Abkhazia
Battle off the coast of Jaffna
Battle off the Lizard
Battle off Barbados
Action off James Island
Action off Charles Island
Action off Galveston Light
Action off Cape Bougaroun
Action off Lofoten
Action off Lerwick

Thanks for engaging on talk! We might need to open an RFC on the article titles. I've seen lots of "Action of DATE" articles make it through FAC, so it appears to be a well-accepted naming convention here. I've also had one of my articles get renamed because the title wasn't used in scholarly sources. The naval skirmishes in the Texas Revolution were tiny. Scholarly sources do not spend a lot of time on them, and they don't refer to them as the "Battle of X". Action of DATE may not be right, but Battle of X isn't either. Is there another option?

The templates are likewise supposed to reflect scholarly sources, and ALL the scholarly sources that cover the Texas Revolution in full ignore the naval skirmishes. Even if they didn't, 2 of the 4 you put on there happened before the Revolution began (Oct 2, 1835). If the scholarly sources don't really consider those part of the Revolution, then it's WP:OR for us to lump them all together. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:SandyGeorgia#.22green_light_on_crappy_prose.22

There's been some grumbling about supporting too quickly on prose at FAC recently ... to my knowledge, no one has pointed a finger at me, but prose is hard and I welcome feedback. I responded in the relevant thread over on Sandy's page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If we had more prose reviewers, Dan, there wouldn't be an issue. You do more than your share, I think. Karanacs (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started some conversations at Milhist to try to get more reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this discussion over the past few days, and it seems to me that there's no one-size-fits-all solution here. My general approach to reviewing any article, whether it's at FAC or GAN is to read through the whole thing and make sure I understand it; where I find bits that don't make sense to me I flag them up at the review for the nominator to either fix or explain. Where I find claims I think may be dubious I check them for myself; where I find phrasing I think is incongruous or archaic I check the sources when possible; if I think there's information missing I ask if it's available. At GAN I would also check the image licensing, but I rarely bother to do that at at FAC as there are image experts around. In short, nobody who supports an article's promotion has checked everything, and this growing culture of blame (why did you support when there were two clear misuses of en-dashes?) is clearly unhelpful. The human condition is that we're fallible, we just do the best we can. I took a bit of a caning in the aftermath of the Grace Sherwood debacle despite not having voted there myself, because I didn't check the sources during my pre-FAC copyedit, something that I've never claimed I did or ever would do when copyediting. What I see happening now is that some editors are becoming reluctant to be the first to support, because they fear that someone else is just around the corner about to launch an oppose bombshell that'll make them look silly. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, those "bombshells" are reserved for truly irresponsible supports, where there are blatant deficiencies ... as in, not subjective, any one can pick them out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

One day, when I'm bored to the point of death, I might go back and look through the FACs I've expressed an opinion on and see what their ultimate fate was. I think you develop a nose for what might need to be checked and what probably doesn't, but it's an imperfect system, as all human systems are. You can take it as read that I will never have checked everything at FAC, only those things I think warrant some checking. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For each experienced reviewer, we delegates have a pretty good idea of what that reviewer usually looks for and how often their opinions match consensus. This picture gets built up over time as we see how you phrase your declarations and what types of issues you generally put out there. I also have a pretty good idea of who is going to go back and revise their comments if something (say an image issue) gets brought up by a subsequent reviewer. It gets to be a bit of an issue when there aren't many, or any, experienced reviewers weighing in on a particular FAC - where there are inexperienced reviewers, or reviewers completely unfamiliar with the subject area (I should never ever review a math article), or reviewers who are so familiar with the subject area that they may overlook some stuff - then we run into more issues of premature supports, or supports that don't take into account key things. Karanacs (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive2

I saw you archived this, just want to make sure at how long I'm going to have to wait before renom since this was the second round and was closed last for the same reason.--WillC 03:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Will, the general timeframe is 2 weeks after it's been archived. I was very sorry to archive it with little feedback, and I waited a week longer than I normally would have hoping another reviewer would come by. If I were in your shoes, I'd be begging reviewers everywhere to take a look in the meantime and see if there are prose issues or something else that is putting people off doing a proper review. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Karen for waiting as long as you could. Its mainly because it is pro wrestling. It rarely gets reviews. Next time I'll do the normal thing and review a few articles in return for a review. Best one I've written yet, hoping to make it an FA one day. No idea how long its going to take me to finish the topic I got planned at this rate.--WillC 04:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, if you bring it back in late August or later, ping me and I'll review. I used to review wrestling articles back in the day. I know nothing about the sport, so I was good at catching the jargon. Just have to wait until Sandy would be back so that someone can close it. That way you'll at least get some feedback :) Karanacs (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Theobald of Bec/archive1

Any reason you didn't promote this? Has three supports, source spotchecks, image review... just wondering what more I need to do... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I took a look, E ... had I been running through FAC, my take would be that I'm not familiar (yet) with GermanJoe's work, so I'd hold out for more feedback, unless FAC was backlogged (it no longer is). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. That and I didn't go through all the nominations that were under 2 weeks old very closely because there were so many that were older than that (and I was tired). I'm going to pr/ar again on Thursday. Karanacs (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

FAC question

Hey. Of curiosity, who would be a good person to bother ask about granting a prose review for a sports bio? I know that Killebrew could use one more before promotion, but I've already asked my usual group of reviewers. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I can try to get to it, but not before the weekend ... have you been to Jeter? I was unconvinced last time I looked, and I like Jeter even if he is a Yankee. I'm off to the ballpark today !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll write up a review for Jeter tonight. I skimmed it a few days back and my opinion is about along the lines of Giants'. I've brought enough baseball guys to FAC at this point that I'll know what to look for at least. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Note

I will have zero (repeat that, zero) internet access starting Friday morning CST until sometime Monday. If you have any FAC-related questions, better ask today :) Karanacs (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what?

Did you just close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive2? I just responded there a couple hours ago! I'm still working on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You responded after I'd already evaluated it - sorry! (It takes me a few hours to read through FAC and I don't tend to refresh in the middle.) Take the time you need to work on those issues and you can bring it back in a few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that this closure was rather premature. The article wasn't that far away and work was on going. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

one oppose and one concurrence to that oppose after more than 10 days...usually means archive. Karanacs (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There's really no such thing as a "premature" close at FAC; you can always just try again. Spend the time resolving the rest of the issues outside of FAC, and re-nominate it; that way, it'll pass quickly. ceranthor 20:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

All due respect, the whole point of there being no time limit on FAC is so that there are no premature closings, right? I'd much rather not have to open a new nomination when it's really an extension of the ongoing one. I guess it doesn't matter, except that it will pass on the third nomination instead of the second. I would've appreciated a heads up that you were evaluating it for closure. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no time limit, but when there appears to be consensus one way or the other, the nomination ends. That nom had opposition. We evaluate all the nominations twice a week - usually Tue and on the weekend, but I was late this week. There's not a set time for a particular nomination. Karanacs (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I commend your commitment to Project Texas! Recently I've been working on Don't Mess With Texas and Austin articles again. It felt good. A. Ward (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving in

... without a kitchen. Seriously, four walls, and have to fire the cabinetmaker. I hope things are better for you, but I need help at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Billy Hathorn concerns

I've been slowly moving things along at the ANI thread about the Billy Hathorn concerns. Moonriddengirl posted there, and I replied to her here. I also posted again to Billy Hathorn's talk page here. What I'm hoping is that you will have time to document your concerns on the talk page of the articles you pointed out problems with (you tagged several articles at the CCI page), in the same way that MRG did at Talk:Bill Noël. Those four locations will then be where Billy Hathorn should respond, to see if he can show whether he understands the problems or not (he is contesting some of the claims made, and I posted his response in the ANI thread). If he doesn't understand what the problems are, then it will be back to the ANI thread to see what can be done at that point. If you don't have time for this, then Talk:Bill Noël will have to do, but I was hoping for examples of Billy Hathorn discussing concerns on more than one article. Anyway, have a read of what's been said and please comment where necessary if you have time. Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I just missed the ANI, but I've gone ahead and left more details at the two articles Talk:George Caldwell (Louisiana) and Talk:Walter L. Buenger. Karanacs (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. What is needed now is for someone to try and get the editor in question to respond to those concerns, or check whether that editor is still editing the same way. FWIW, that sort of turning a database-style listing (similar to Who's Who) into prose is relatively common on Wikipedia (though it shouldn't be). Each individual bit can often be sourced from elsewhere, but the lazy option is to source everything to that single source and to copy the same order and structure. With a bit more effort, bringing in more sources, adding extra information not from that original source, and changing things to Wikipedia's house style, something more creative and original (in the sense of writing creativity and originality, not factual creativity or OR originality) can be produced. It's not always easy, though. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Process question

On July 22, 2011, Sharon Tate was mentioned over on Talk:Wikiproject Texas as an article being questioned over then-existing FA status. I'm not now, nor have I ever been, involved in the FA process. And, I've never edited on the Sharon Tate page. I never actually found any 2011 discussions on the FA issue for this article, only one on the Tate Talk page from 2010. In going to that page today, I notice it's now "Unassessed", and mentioned as a former FA. Gimmebot made the change. I understand how an article can be downgraded. But my question: Is it possible for a FA to have all rating stripped and become Unassessed? Shouldn't there have been some current talk over the re-assessment? Maile66 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A bot cannot assess, nor should it, and most articles that slip below FA standards are typically below A-class or GA. It's up to the relevant WikiProjects to re-assess when an FA is downgraded at WP:FAR. Since most WikiProjects don't have an A-class review, that usually involves deciding whether the article is B- or C-class now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. User:GimmeBot certainly did exactly that - removed the rating entirely. It does appear there was some kind of discussion on WP:FAR. Thanks for the enlightenment.Maile66 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sharon Tate/archive1. FAs undergo a review of at least a month duration before being delisted, and relevant parties are notified. It is up to others to reassess, by submitting to WP:GA or assigning B- or C-class. (I have never seen a case where an article stripped of its Featured status was still GA-class.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah....so in a perfect Wikipedia world, if a human, rather than a bot, had removed the FA status, that human might well have assigned it to another class. Well, it's not my article, so I think I'll defer to whoever it might be important to over at that article.Maile66 (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. First, human beings did remove the FA status, and second, people involved at FAR in evaluating FA status are not the same as the WikiProject people who should determine if an article is B- or C-class. In fact, most of don't care if an article is B- or C-class, and many people think article assessments below the GA level are a waste of time. :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure they do, but they are badly mistaken. The combination of class and importance enables a project to see where its effort is most needed, for that apparently dwindling band who care about our overall coverage. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly explain why I run across so many Unassessed articles that have been out there like that for years and years.Maile66 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessments other than FA or GA are only really relevant to projects, but many don't have the resources to assess all the articles they tag, or to keep those assessments up to date. In addition, the way it works is that articles lose their GA status once promoted to FA, which is why you never see a demoted FA reassessed as a GA without a new GA nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

All true, but there is a case for the bot automatically assigning a "B" class to an ex-FA. That is hardly likely to be over-grading. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It may well be; one of the most common reasons for delisting is a lack of referencing. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of an article name off the top of my head, but I'm certain I've seen very old FAs delisted that I would not rate as B class. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would hope we got rid of all those 2003-standard ones some time ago. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

... added to which there is no common standard for what "B class" means. Different projects have different ideas. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Only a few projects have their own standards, which AFAIK have changed little in the last 5 years, and delisted FAs presumably held before, since when they have improved. Different assessors certainly have their own ideas. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience articles rather rarely improve significantly after FA, certainly not the newer ones anyway. The problem is with the older FAs. Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is. I said they will have improved since they were last B class. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Gumbo

In that case, should the References and Sources sections be renamed to Notes and References respectively in accordance with WP:CITESHORT? Erianna (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, another case of guidelines that don't quite match. I usually follow WP:FNNR, and it gives more options in how to name those categories. References/Sources is one of the acceptable combinations per that (and not uncommon to see on FAs). That said, I don't have any objection to Notes/References if you want to rename the headings to that. Karanacs (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Hangon a few more hours please

I am OK with you deleting my Texas after I am able to move the pages back into my User Space, I can not do that right now at work, but when I get home tonight I can, just give me that long please, I want to keep them for personal references, and for my family of which I share everything with, thank you – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix, these aren't deleted, just redirected/merged. If you have reliable sources for this information, please let me know what they are. Karanacs (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that makes me feel better, thats fair, thank you. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Pre-FAC question

Hey. Of curiosity, who in your mind would be a good user to get an NPOV check from? I have an article that's getting close to the FAC stage, but after a few rewrites I'd like to see which sections remain that need de-POVing, and would rather have that taken care of before trying to go through FAC with the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that depends a lot on what the overall topic is! It may be worth opening a Peer Review and then linking to that at WT:FAC so you might get some reviewer input without taking the step of nominating at FAC. Karanacs (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. The article in question is Jerry West, and I'm still wrapping up PR comments, so hopefully those should knock out some of the POV issues. I'll note at WT:FAC once I've finished the next rewrite (I got an FAC up anyway so I'm in no hurry on this one). Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sport bio...I'd have pointed you towards YellowMonkey, but I see he's inactive. I'll have to think about that some more. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

Why was Transformers: Dark of the Moon archived? According to an article, it says that an article would be archive for "unresolved objections by other users." As I was saying, the article was being resolved by me, and I have been working on it to satisfy the objections. Fanaction2031 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi FanAction. That article had a LOT of objections very quickly. That usually means that the article needs a lot more work. FAC is not peer review - articles are expected to meet the criteria when they are nominated. The archival just means that you'll have more time to work on the article. Take a few weeks to ponder what the reviewers wrote, fix their specific objections and the general ones behind them, and then you can renominate later in the year. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

Well, I'll try to be gentle here, but not sure I need be. I am truly sick and tired of the unilateral power trips some editors such as yourself take when, with no discussion at all, and with only the whimper of a snotty commentary in the edit summary, close a 2 day old FAC page when the purpose partly is so we can get the helpful advice of some people, a few of which may be experts, others who may assume to be, as to the best way to bring a complex and difficult article to FA level. I myself have been involved in 10 successful FA's, 4 of which were almost entirely my own work...I have also saved three articles at FAR...so, again, excuse me, but this is the first time I have seen such an arrogant display of action at FAC...I am not the least bit pleased, nor do I think FAC's are benefitted by this sort of behavior.--MONGO 02:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to gentle too, You're a complete plank, without any understanding whatsoever. I've lost count of the number of FAs I've written or helped to write, but that doesn't make me an arrogant shit who demands special rights. Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Back at you asshole...seriously...go fuck yourself..the goddamn FAC was open 2 lousy days! Its pompous "planks" like yourself and Karnacs that make FAC a total shithole anymore. Thats the reawson I withdrew from asking for the fucking approaval of a bunch of self appointed elitist snobs like yourself.--MONGO 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is pretty much crap MONGO, face it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)