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 (Le Goff's a bit outdated and the work you're citing is somewhat of a cross between a popular history and a low level textbook.)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

To your above comment, I know its past August, but I've renominated the article. Its under Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive3. You don't have to review if you don't want too, but since you were kind, I thought I'd inform you,--WillC 08:34, 7 October 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 1 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 1 lousy day! 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)

You should have seen where it was 3 months ago. WTF happened to FAC being a place to get advice...how can a 1st time FAC nominator (but otherwise long term contributor of note) be expected to persist in getting a complex and difficult subject page to FA if the target page for advice and help is closed after a lousy 1 day??? Might as well just put the disclaimer up...if the article isn't already an FA, don't nominate it.--MONGO 03:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

FAC has never been a place to get advice. If you want advice then ask for it elsewhere. The philosophy is that articles nominated at FAC should already meet the FA criteria; there are other venues, like peer review, better suited to offering advice. Malleus Fatuorum 05:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Mongo, I can understand your disappointment but don't appreciate the personal attacks (and Malleus, you be nice too). As Mal said, FAC is not peer review. The article should be ready when it is nominated, and reviewers said this one was not. If numerous major issues are raised with the article very early, then it is obvious that it does not already meet FAC criteria. Closing it allows the editors to work on the objections at their own pace and to bring the article back when it is truly ready. When a nomination has that much opposition that early, it is very rare for it to be successful. Other reviewers get scared off. That said, if you have a problem with the way I do my job as a delegate, feel free to start a discussion at WT:FAC. If there's consensus that I'm not acting according to the wishes of the community I'll change my ways. Karanacs (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I, too, understand your frustration, but it seems misplaced: FAC is not the problem here. It is unfortunate that the article received no feedback at Peer Review, but all content review processes are short of reviewers, FAC is not and has never been the place for getting commentary on unprepared articles, and attacking a process (and the people involved in it) because an article is ill-prepared for FAC looks like an unnecessarily emotive reaction, which isn't a good way to gear up for the tenth anniversary, where cool heads must prevail on the article. Mongo, a review of the instructions at FAC should clear up your confusion, and in an environment where all content review processes are short of reviewers, consensus has long been that articles which have no chance of making FA during the course of a FAC should be closed, and FAC should not be used as peer review. My suggestion is to aim your frustration at processes which unnecessarily drain reviewers, like DYK, or to encourage those involved in the article to dig in and help out at places like FAC or Peer Review. Criticizing reviewers while not generating reviews to offset the backlog isn't helpful, that article appeared to have little chance of meeting FA standards in the course of a FAC, and FAC is not and has never been a substitute for Peer Review. What troubles me more is that you, as an FA writer, should know the article wasn't near standard, and should have enlisted resources to help improve it before bringing it to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Strike that: I was just now archiving my talk, and I see you did try. But FAC can't be blamed for the fact that Wikipedia in general is so backlogged, and productive editors are increasingly taxed. I'm sorry I wasn't able to help out, but I've been moving and under construction now for almost six months, and my time is unlikely to free up in time to help. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, go after DYK. There's a shortage of ill-informed attackers over there at the moment. Yomangani^talk 13:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry ... if I (ever again) find myself with the tiniest amount of free time, I'll weigh in over there again to see if anything has changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No one would have been hurt by leaving the FAC open for at least a week! Some of you assume that people who may be most helpful are online everyday...nah, it has opposition, the article is "crap"...I'm ill informed...okie dokie. According to the experts....lol.MONGO 18:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a proposal for fixing the perceived problem, please present one. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What is your problem

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY THE NAVAL BATTLES OF THE TEXAS REVOLUTION CANNOT BE LINKED TOGETHER BY THE TEXAS REVOLUTION TEMPLATE. NO REASON AT ALL. WHY ARE YOU REVERTING MY EDITS BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED REPEATEDLY TO GIVE ME A RATIONAL ANSWER. AGAIN THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE NAVAL BATTLES CANNOT BE LISTED THERE, NONE AT ALL, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS NOTHING TO DISCUSS. BY REMOVING THE LINKS I ADDED YOU ARE CREATING A DOUBLE STANDARD. EVERY OTHER WAR TEMPLATE INCLUDES BOTH NAVAL AND MILITARY ENGAGEMENTS, WHY SHOULD IT BE DIFFERENT HERE? EITHER YOU STOP REVERTING MY EDITS OR I WILL CREATE A NEW TEMPLATE FOR THE TEXAS REVOLUTION THAT INCLUDES THE NAVAL BATTLES. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.--$1LENCE D0600D (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't shout. I have provided reasons why those should not be inclued, backed by reliable sources, on both my talk page and the talk page of the template. I have also opened an RfC on this issue. So far, there have been several comments, and ALL say that the naval skirmishes should not be included in a Texas Revolution template. Unless the consensus changes over the next week or so (and I doubt that it will), then the naval skirmishes should no tbe included. Your continued insistence on adding them - or creating a fork - combined with your refusal to actually discuss the reasons I've provided (all I've heard from you is essentially "I think this is right" - no RS!!) is disruptive. Continued efforts on your part to ignore consensus will result in you being dragged to ANI. I'm tired of this nonsense. Karanacs (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 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 Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Harrison County Courthouse

I would like to do some neatening up on a NRHP listing, and am soliciting advice from contributors here.

• National Register of Historic Places listings in Harrison County, Texas - Listing of Harrison County Courthouse, named as would be fitting a current functioning courthouse..

Harrison County has had four courthouses, and the NRHP one is referring to the third one, built in 1900, and now functioning as a museum:Texas Historical Commission listing of NRHP However, it would appear that neither the THC nor the NRHP liststhe courthouse as "old" or by year,

• Old Harrison County Courthouse (Texas) - Created in 2004 by an editor who hasn't been around for years. This is the actual one the NRHP refers to.
• Harrison County Historical Museum - Created in 2005 by the same user. This is actually the same structure as the old courthouse.

I'm not sure if the existing Old Harrison County Courthouse page should be moved. And if so, named as what? Not to be named as the current courthouse. I'm also wondering if the Museum page should be merged into the courthouse, or stand on its own. Advice is welcome. Maile66 (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just corrected the NRHP page link to go to the already existing page. If somebody else wants to handle re-naming, that's up to them. Maile66 (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not interesting enough

I'll try again on that one in a couple of months. As there were no opposes, I take it no objection to me nomming another article, most likely Turban Head eagle? Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, let's wait for now. The backlog has been pretty big, and I'd like to see if we can get it lower. If we can close more next week, then I won't have a problem with you nominating it. Karanacs (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to withholding it at your request, but as the article was not opposed and did attract support, I do not think I should be barred from renomination, though I will withhold it as I say. Given that the guidelines say that exemptions will be given for no or minimal feedback, I do not see why this should be an issue after an FAC that did not attract enough positive support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You're right. Go ahead and nominate a new one now. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As you say, there's a backlog. I will await greener fields for a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I took another look at the articles I think I'm going to promote today, and the backlog should be manageable. Go ahead :) Karanacs (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hugo Award

Karen, just to let you know that I have updated the status of my oppose at the Hugo Award FAC. I think the sourcing is a showstopper, but that's something PresN may be able to fix. I would continue to oppose if the sourcing were fixed as I think the article could be organizationally improved, and I am finding some copyediting problems, and minor accuracy errors, but those are areas where the prior reviewers had plenty of opportunity to weigh in, so I wouldn't expect my oppose to hold up promotion in that case. (Not trying to tell you how to do your job; just wanted to let you know my thoughts on the relative severity of the issues.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Mike. Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For all you do.

Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Wehwalt. I've never been given a cat before! Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Big 12 Conference

Beautiful edits on the Big 12 Conference article. Truly well done. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This realignment stuff is fascinating, but it changes by the hour and half of what's been reported is wrong. I have been having much fun following it :) Karanacs (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-nom of Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)

Hey there. I'd like to renom Sevastopol, which was archived due to low feedback. I'll be sending out a message to all the ACR and FAC reviewers of it to help "cough" drum up feedback. Could you please consider this over and reply? Buggie111 (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Buggie, you can't renominate the same article before the 2 weeks is out. Since there wasn't a lot of feedback you can nominate a different article now, if you have one ready. If we just let the same articles come back right away we might as well not archive them at all. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm, the FAc apge says None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.. Am I misreading it? Buggie111 (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That means you can nominate a different article, just not the same one that was just archived. There's still a moratorium on the article, just not on the nominator if it was archived due to lack of feedback. Karanacs (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I see there. Thanks anyway. Buggie111 (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Just to let you know that while we may not agree on everything as to how best to improve a certain article, your detailed suggestions, especially those regarding having more books for referencing and expanding the legacy section, I completely concur with. Best wishes and thanks.--MONGO 15:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, MONGO, I really appreciate your comments. The article is currently okay - I think it could be really, really great given enough time and effort. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for misidentifying your gender and thank you for the helpful suggestion. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No problems, Cla, I was more teasing you. I get mistaken for a male a lot. Karanacs (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

KT FA Review - Archive

Hello Karanacs - I note that as of 9/27, The Kingston Trio nomination as an FA - Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Kingston_Trio/archive1 - has been moved to the FAC archive, though it appears as though the nomination is not yet officially closed.

I would just like some clarification on why this has happened. My guess would be insufficient reviews and reactions, because literally every objection or suggestion has been addressed, and promptly, usually within hours of its posting on the review page. I posted in the evening of 9/25:

"I've gone through the whole article and done my best to regularize and edit references. If more work needs to be done with them - or with any other aspect of the article - please let me know. As far as I can see at the moment, the article meets all WP:FACR; certainly every issue brought up in this review thus far has been addressed."

I thought that would engender some response, but alas....

Further - no reviewer actually went through the article point by point and provided the kind of specific and comprehensive list of tasks necessary to bring the article up to FA status, such as I have seen in many other FARs. I have done what I could and worked extensively on the article - [[5]] - during the process, but the reviews so-called have been of the fly-by variety with little follow-up (Efe excluded).

I'm not sure what I can do next. The quality of the article is a separate issue from the interest that the topic engenders, and it seems the article is being shelved for the latter reason rather than the former. I asked on the FAR page if it was permissible to invite response from other editors and was told that it was ok as long as it did not violate WP:CANVASS - so I invited two editors (one of whom responded) and posted an assessment request on the WP:ROOTS page. I did not expect any response there for several reasons, the most relevant of which may be (as the article points out) the Kingston Trio was never folky enough to be considered folk by the folk music community.

My overall point is that I think the article is at or close to FA status - but I cannot determine that without more and better feedback. If the nomination is indeed closed and I have to wait two weeks or more to bring it back, I am not sure how to generate more reaction at that time without canvassing aggressively - and without a really adequate review, I don't see what further improvements could be made within two or any other number of weeks.

I would appreciate any direction you could give me. I love dogs (King Charles spaniel) and find fungi endlessly interesting - but it does seem odd to me that one of the most important groups in American popular music history gets less attention than either of the aforementioned. That's the primary reason that makes FA status for this piece imprtant to me. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered peer review? Often there, experienced editors will be able to tell you if your articles qualify in their view for FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt, and I will certainly consider that if that's the best next step. Seems to me, though, that the interest problem might be a factor there as well. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly sympathize with you - I've had articles archived for similar reasons before. Sometimes it comes down to a matter of who is reviewing at the time - those interested in the article might not be patrolling FAC for some reason or another right now. Sometimes reviewers are turned off by seeing lists of things that need to be fixed already posted. Sometimes it helps to review other nominations - some reviewers look at articles of other reviewers as a pay-it-forward kind of thing. Hopefully you'll get more feedback next time. Karanacs (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Harrison ...

I'd think Transport rather than history... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I had no clue where to put him. President of a transportation company who also wrote history books. Feel free to move him wherever you think is best. Karanacs (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hi Karanacs - I should have stopped by sooner to tell you that it's good to see you active again - unfortunately as I'm going into a busy period and will be around less! I realize we'll never get to the Catholic Church - some pages here are impossible and I have to commend you on trying, both at Catholic Church and now on 9/11. Anyway, when you have time, can you delete my Catholic Church sandbox? Thanks and take care. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Howdy

Karanacs. Just wanted to say hi. Life is going pretty well. Hoping you and your family are doing great. Best of luck Oldag07 (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Xeromphalina setulipes

Just to let you know, the whole image issue should now be resolved. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

--Mcorazao 16:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

XF-85 FAC

Hi Karanacs, how come your closing of the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin FAC [6] didn't see further actions from the bot? Is the bot down coz of the roll out of the new software or something? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The bot apparently hasn't run yet since Karanacs promoted that article; it will within a few days. Ucucha (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

IE8 Funkiness

On WP:VPT you reported some strange behavior from IE8. We're also getting reports of IE8 crashing. Could you leave a comment on the bug describing your problem? — ☠MarkAHershberger☣ 20:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark, for entering the bug. I don't have a bugzilla account, but it looks like you've copied my comments over. Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Korkoro

Hi! I see that you have archived Korkoro's FAC page. It had received a comment from a reviewer just a day before that and I was working on it. So, there is this 2 weeks waiting period now. I found that articles that received less feedback are exempted from this waiting period. Could you be more elaborate on this exemption clause? Because Nikkimaria has recommended a procedural close for the renomination.... _morelMW^illiam 11:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll let Karanacs decide whether to leave the nomination up, but can I give you one tip? Tell what the article is about in the FAC nom. The first time I saw the article title I thought it was probably a village in French Polynesia; I got the French part right, but people in general are more likely to review the article if they can get some idea of what it is about just from browsing WP:FAC. Ucucha (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Morel, the exception is that if an article is closed for lack of feedback, a DIFFERENT article by the same nominator can be brought to FAC. Not the same article - if we were to just continue renominating right after it was closed there would be no point in closing anything. I am running out the door so can't deal with the renom - Ucucha (or a TPS), could you handle it? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hornsby FAC

Hey, just letting you know that I responded to your points; leaving a note here since it took me a few days to get to it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm planning to take a look today. Karanacs (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Closure of FAC - Michael Sheen

Hi, I'd be grateful if you could explain why the Michael Sheen nomination was archived? The source and Copyscape reviews found no issues. This was my first time to nominate an article for FA status so I'm not entirely sure of the procedure. Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Popeye. Unfortunately, the Michael Sheen article didn't get enough feedback to determine whether it met FA criteria. When a nomination has been open for several weeks and doesn't get any supports, we usually archive it. Often when the nomination comes back again, it will get more eyes. You haven't done anything wrong, it's just one of those things that happens sometimes. In the meantime, you may want to get a peer review, if you haven't already. The article can be renominated any time after 2 weeks from now. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll nominate it for GA status and will hopefully have better luck! Popeye191 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent way to get more feedback, and if it sails through GA you know you'll be in decent shape for another FA run. Karanacs (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's encouraging to see an FA delegate recognising that GA isn't a pile of pooh. I've pretty much always thought of it as what it says on the tin: a pretty good article better than most of the rest, but by no means perfect. And for those who habitually rubbish GAN because it's only one person's opinion I'd draw your attention to this, a GAN undoubtedly headed your way at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the GA standards have come up. It's still hit and miss depending on which person's opinion you get, but at the very least it offers a peer review against specific criteria. Not all GAs make it through FA the first time, but they're often better prepared than some of the other articles. Karanacs (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And some of us worked very hard for that. GAN has one advantage over PR, which is that you're guaranteed a review by a real person, even though it may take some time. I've thought for some time now articles presented at FAC ought to have been through at least one other review process, be that GAN, PR, or A-class review, but I'd have to admit that sometimes my patience wears thin and I just lob it straight at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My first 5 or 6 FACs had all been to GA or PR, but I think that when one is on his/her 20th FAC or so, it's okay to skip straight to FAC. I tend to go to GA or PR when I'm working on an article that is in a category new to me (like Gumbo was) or is so big (Battle of the Alamo) that I really need the extra eyes. I've been lucky - for the most part my GA reviewers were you or Ealdgyth, and the two of you give top-of-the-line reviews. Karanacs (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth does. All I do is move commas around, as she'd tell you. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So modest! You went above and beyond for Lady of Quality. Karanacs (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Blimey, I must be getting old! I remember the GAN very well but the FAC was a complete blank to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you should give commentary/feedback to the nominator when a submission is rejected. This would be normal at an academic journal for instance. And just "makes sense" in terms of driving better content. I realize Wiki has never done it that way...but Wiki sort of fell into doing a lot of things poorly and doesn't look enough to the outside world for guidance. I see this as an important task of the FA directors. It doesn't have to be laborious. But a couple sentences that say how far away the piece is (close or far) and what the major issues are and maybe a quick suggestion. Ideally, you should WANT to be getting more/better submissions. Obviously if T-sock submits, than just be brusque. But when it has potential, you should care a little more and give a little more.71.246.147.40 (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

TCO, that's actually the antithesis of my job as a delegate. My job is to judge the consensus of what the reviewers post. If there is consensus among reviewers that the article meets the criteria, it gets promoted. If there's no consensus (lack of feedback) or consensus that the article doesn't meet the criteria, it gets archived. My opinion isn't the be-all and end-all - articles have been promoted by other delegates when I, as a reviewer, opposed, because consensus was against me. I have promoted articles I thought were problematic (particularly for size) because reviewers engaged on those issues and consensus was against my personal opinion. In my mind, if I do a thorough review of an article, I'm COId from closing it, because my personal opinion isn't supposed to be in play.

In 2008, before I became a delegate, I was the most prolific FAC reviewer, and I reviewed 30-35 articles a month. That's 1/3 to 1/2 of the number of articles that go through FAC in a particular month. It takes me between 20 and 90 minutes to do a thorough review, and I could not/will not offer an opinion on how "close" an article is to FAC status without being that thorough. The time I used to spend reviewing I now spend reviewing FAC nominations to judge consensus - that takes me 3-5 hours a week.

If you want to reclassify the delegate's job, that should be a proposal at WT:FAC...and if it requires me to review every article, I'll have to step down because a) I don't have enough time to do a good job at that and b) I don't know if I'll be able to separate the two hats well enough all the time. Karanacs (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, TCO, if you have issues with any of my closings, please take those up individually with me. I'm always happy to receive feedback - either to identify/learn from my mistakes or provide explanation/education where there might be misunderstandings. Karanacs (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's at a global level, Karan. I think you (and Wiki) misdefine the job. I think Sandy at least comes closer in that there are times when she will cavitate about an article that is crap, but not getting slammed. It's not an either/or, but an "and". Yes, you should rely on the reviewers, but you should also look at the pieces yourself. (this is not bizarre, it is how academic journals work.) More like a real magazine and less like "RFA close by a crat".

I'll say what I want, where I want, Kare. The one time you didn't like me calling you a "mean girl" it was hypothetical anyhow. I think you are sweet. If I see an important need to interact directly, of course I will. Or if it is an isolate issue, sure...of course. But if I'm making a GENERAL point...sorry...don't get into the specific.

Besides, all that even if you were 100% relying on the reviewers and not reading the articles even (and I get scared sometimes, this is really the mode of operations, especially given the not dividing up the queueu and the "swing through this weekend"), you could STILL thoughtfully summarize and give feedback to the submitter. Especially if he is a first time submitter, this would be important and HELPFUL to building the enclopedia. Heck the crats closing failed RFAs usually stop by the person's page and give mature feedback. (but putting it on the close itself would be OK too.)

71.246.147.40 (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

TLDR version: yes, the job role of a director is wrongly characterized. That's exactly what I called out. Surprised that you did not see that. I look at things from an off Wiki perspective...;-) 71.246.147.40 (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I read all of the articles that I am considering promoting and most where there are well-argued opposes and well-argued supports. I don't read most of the articles that are archived. (I can't speak for Ucucha and SandyGeorgia as to what they read). "Swing through" translates to "spend 3-6 hours reading/judging consensus/doing the tasks to make sure the articles are categorized correctly".

If you would like to change the delegate definition, WT:FAC is the appropriate place to make a proposal. Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Peace. 96.238.184.111 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Archiving Shapley-Folkman lemma

It will take 2 weeks for me to resolve the issues. I have had to deal with a RfC the last week and have been traveling. I shall have poor internet access until next Tuesday. Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Rochester Castle

Hi, as a newbie I'm naturally adverse to reverting established editors' work, particularly administrators. That said, perhaps you might care to review the following:

• "came out in support of Robert" changed to "pledged support for Robert". A pledge is a formal, legal process. Did Northumberland, Shrewsbury and Coutances formally pledge allegiance to Robert, or merely indicate that they would support him?
• "Instead it was agreed" changed to "They agreed". The former indicates that the agreement was in place of the compromise rather than a consequence of it.
• "suitable": I would suggest that the suitability ought to be qualified by "for the King" as in the original. A royal castle is significantly different to a minor baronial outpost. Quite apart from the security issues; if the King were to visit there would be a requirement to house a significant part of the Court.
• "royal castles in south-east England were invested in" changed to "investments were made in royal castles". The former implies to me that an investment consisting of a number of castles was made, the latter merely that some cash was spent on existing castles. The emphasis on SE England is relevant to the invasion threat; castles in the Welsh Marches would be of no use against the French.
• "broke out" or "commenced". The latter implies a precise date, applicable to a single battle or campaign.
• "Although Langton held out against the king's demands, the...". It is significant that Langton resisted. Without the phrase the rebel concern is more easily justified.
• "Royal forces had arrived ahead of John...", the vanguard being in advance of the Royal Party is significant. The King travelled slowly and everyone knew where he was, but in this case forces went in advance and hence were able to surprise the defenders.
• "force of 700 horse" - I think there may be a British/US difference here. To me "700 horse" implies a large contingent of cavalry; "700 horses" is a herd.
• "however", personally this reads better with the word in the sentence, again possibly a UK/US difference?

Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia - I hope you are having fun! My philosophy on copyediting is that whatever I change can be reverted at will. Don't forget that administrators are just regular editors with a few extra buttons - any content work we do should be weighed just the same as a non-administrator. Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and done them. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates/Stephen, King of England/archive1‎‎

All set.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It passed its image check. You are the delegate but I saw no particular barrier to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. That was all I was waiting for, but by the time I saw this yesterday I decided it would probably be best to wait and let Ucucha handle this on his run this weekend. Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, by the time they got back to me. I have a new colleague on the coins, since RHM22 doesn't seem to be around too much, User:BrandonBigheart. Right now, he is concentrating on coin images, much to my delight, but I am hopeful he will write as well as he shoots coins (whereas my photography is notorious).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's always nice to see new faces at FAC - good job recruiting :) Karanacs (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The more the merrier, especially given editor trends. I'll get him to join me in a conom down the line.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russell T Davies/archive3

I didn't get leave before renominating, as I assumed that it'd be fine anyway as the previous one received minimal feedback (only Nikkimaria's source check and a Copyspace check). Would I have leave to renominate it or should I G7 it and renom in a few days (when two weeks will have passed anyway)? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Rehab (Rihanna song)

Hi

Does the "archived" status mean that the FAR has been closed unsucessfully? I feel a little terrible as my PC crashed and I was unable to complete the copyedit yesterday. I have amended quite a few of the points raised and feel bad that it might not have been such a negative result had I not spent the last 24 hours reinstalling windows and doing silly updates. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's been closed unsuccessfully. The rules are that once a nomination has been closed it cannot be brought back for at least two weeks; in the meantime the nominator should work on the issues from the first FAC. This one was opened just days after the last one had been closed, and the issues still hadn't be fixed. Karanacs (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Signpost Dispatches notice

Hello there. I'm writing to tell you that the editors of the Signpost are making an effort to revive the long dormant Dispatches section. Your name is listed in the "Members" section, indicating that you have or had a willingness to help write or critique Dispatches.

Since the project was inactive for over a year, I have moved all of the names previously in the Members section to the "Inactive" subsection. If you no longer wish to participate in the capacity described above, you do not need to do anything, this will be the last time you hear from me on the matter of dispatches.

If you are, however, still interested in Dispatches, please go put your name back into the main members section. I will take that as an indication that it is okay to continue to send your way both Dispatch related messages and individuals seeking assistance with Dispatches in the areas you specified as being your specialties.

I personally am hoping to get at least one Dispatch out before 15 November, so that the section can avoid being officially inactive for a full year (the last dispatch was 15 November 2010). Cheers! Sven Manguard Wha? 08:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Sven, for taking this on! Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank goodness for watchlists, or I'd never even know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember how I said that "this will be the last time you hear from me on the matter of dispatches" (it's right above this)? I lied. I'm deliviering another message, this time it really will be my final message related to Dispatches.

Yesterday, I was enthusiastic about getting Dispatches back up and running. However while I was asleep (note I'm in UTC +8), ResMar and SandyGeorgia decided to use my talk page to stage a massive, ugly brawl. I was unaware of the history behind Dispatches when I first signed up, but I certainly have an indication of it now. It's not a pretty history either. From what I gather, it was working fine and then just erupted into a fireball of ill feelings and unkind words, and my efforts to reactivate the section have caused another fireball. In short, I want out, and since nothing, save the brawl, has actually happened yet, rapidly pulling stakes and leaving the whole thing behind me poses no ethical dilemma in my mind.

You are, of course, free to do whatever you want in regards to Dispatches, however you should be aware of the fact that you are going to be wading headfirst into an explosive situation, and will be stuck between several well known editors who are more than willing to fight for their agendas. Whatever you do, however, I'd much prefer to be kept out of the loop on the matter.

Sorry for the abrupt turn of events. I would have tried my very hardest to make Dispatches work if I were not convinced that the atmosphere is too poisoned to function. However, since it is, I'm gone. Good luck, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested article

Check the Wikipedia:Resource requests page for the download link Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work! I always forget about that page. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Texas Historic Sites Atlas references

I just input a bot request to resolve this. But here's the info, just in case that bot doesn't get approved.

For anyone who has linked references to search results obtained at Texas Historic Sites Atlas, please note that they changed their URL somewhat. If you linked to a reference obtained by right-clicking and then "Open Link in a new window", the result of opening in a new window is where they changed the address. In essence, they removed the "common/" part of the address. Rather than the Texas Historical Commission just redirecting links going to the old address, it seems it will be up to the individual editor to go back and manually correct such links the editor may have inserted in any Wikipedia article. Maile66 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I haven't used that site before - I'm going to have to check it out. Karanacs (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

AV-8B FAC

Hello, why did you close the FAC of the AV-8B after only 19 days, instead of the usual 21-day (three-week) span? If you have read over the FAC, some of the opposes were vague, and with 5 supports, I'm expecting that the delegate would wait for a clear concensus. So, why did you close it when it was short of the 21-day normal span? Sp33dyphil © • © 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where these notions take hold, but there is no such thing as a "21-day normal span". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

FACs typically get to wait 21 days if there is zero feedback. You got lots - including three concurring opposes on prose. The standard is that there must be consensus to promote. There was no such consensus to promote, so the article was archived. Take some time and get some non-milhist editors involved with copyediting and I think you'll be fine when you bring it back. Karanacs (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that one of the opposes is due to the reviewer's time constraint, and it was vague about the specific issue with the article? Sp33dyphil © • © 04:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You must be referring to Dank? If he didn't have time to copyedit it, who was going to? It's best to get articles copyedited before they appear at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I hate to butt in like this, but I too was surprised at the closure. My understanding for FAC's are that if the comments are still actively being addressed (which was the case), then it shouldn't have been promoted. I would've thought with five supports, it would be close to promoting, even if there were opposes (that were in the process of being fixed). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The prose issues were being ignored, and no one seemed able to fix them. Had I done a complete review, my list would have overwhelmed the page (there are many more issues in the article than those covered on the FAC). Speedy, since I'm recused, should you decide to bring the article to FAC again, please feel free to ping me in advance-- I'll have a look to see if an independent copyeditor has addressed the issues I saw but didn't get to detail. I might have carved out time to detail the additional issues had there not been so much reluctance to fix the issues raised there, but reviewers are naturally discouraged from engaging when nominators are reluctant to fix issues and involved WikiProject members pile on rather than addressing clear issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 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 and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Battle of Lipantitlán

This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Lipantitlán know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 4, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Battle of Lipantitlán was fought along the Nueces River on November 4, 1835, between the Mexican Army and Texian insurgents, as part of the Texas Revolution. After the Texian victory at the Battle of Goliad, only two Mexican garrisons remained in Texas, Fort Lipantitlán near San Patricio and the Alamo Mission at San Antonio de Béxar. The commander of Fort Lipantitlán, Nicolás Rodríguez, had been ordered to harass the Texian troops at Goliad. Rodríguez took the bulk of his men on an expedition; while they were gone, Texian Captain Ira Westover's force arrived in San Patricio. On November 3, a local man persuaded the Mexican garrison to surrender, and the following day the Texians dismantled the fort. Rodríguez returned as the Texians were crossing the swollen Nueces River to return to Goliad. The Mexican soldiers attacked, but the longer range of the Texians rifles soon forced them to retreat. The Texians now had full control of the Texas Gulf Coast, which meant that the troops stationed at San Antonio de Béxar could receive reinforcements and supplies only overland. Historian Bill Groneman believes that this contributed to the eventual Mexican defeat at the siege of Béxar, which expelled all Mexican troops from Texas. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Ima

I dunno? [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm ready now

K, it's with great trepidation that I tell that I think that I'm ready for that RfK. My family stuff have calmed down, and I think I have the time to devote to it. So go ahead and submit! And thanks for your confidence in me. Christine (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Haven't seen you around for a while, but I'd like to withdraw my intention for RfA--for now. I know that it's recommended that one not be submitted the week of a holiday, and since we're coming up to a major one here in the U.S., perhaps it'd be better to wait for the first week of Dec. Or maybe until the new year? Christine (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

You will be pleased to see

... that your contributions to the project, despite your low average epp, have not gone unnoticed [8]. Thanks for the insightful comments you posted on Sandy's page. 86.178.144.68 (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Lipantitlán

Heya. I'm writing to you because I've just cleaned up that article after it was featured on the main page. I know that arguably it's better to leave the original author to do that sort of thing - since it is your work and you know it best - but I thought that after you bringing it through to FAC and maintaining it beyond it'd be nice for someone to volunteer to do the cleanup instead. Might be worth you checking over it again, but hope I've done it all alright. Wasn't much to do: mostly the usual Texan/Texian stuff. Redverton (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Geocoordinates

There's two highway FACs currently where your remarks on geocoordinates have been quoted, or perhaps misquoted. Would you be willing to take a look and clarify? Thanks. --Rschen7754 21:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

9/11 courtesy note and invitation

Just to let you know (as a courtesy) that Tom Harrison has replied to a question you asked 2 months ago here. I am nevertheless optimistic that there is a genuine opportunity now for improving the article. Geometry guy 04:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

HOliday wishes...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hope you'll visit us sometime

Hi Karanacs, I was sorry when Raul told us you had submitted your resignation. You will be missed ... Life is far more than Wikipedia and I hope it is being good to you. I hope you will drop in from time to time and someday ... well, who knows? All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. I've greatly enjoyed my time here, and I hope to be back writing articles, though likely never at the pace I did before. Too much has changed in my life - and on WP - in the last few years, and that meant my role needed to change as well. Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

FAC delegate resignation

FYI. [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Would you be able to read "S&M (song)" and tell me if there is anything outstanding that would prevent the article from passing FAC pleased? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 15:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies and clarification

My sincere apologies for my recent absence. I know I left some loose ends hanging, and that was not nice of me. I had hoped that my situation would allow me to once again return to my editing-having schedule, but I've realized that is unlikely. I resigned as FAC delegate in early December and didn't realize that it hadn't been publicly announced. (My extreme thanks to Sandy and Ucucha, who have done a phenomenal job of picking up the slack.)

My absence is due primarily to changing circumstances in real-life (being a single mom of two small kids is harder than it looks!). However, I've also become disillusioned with a lot of the drama here. I have had so much drama in real life I haven't wanted to deal with the equivalent here, and my previous "safe" zone, FAC, started to be full of drama. I didn't get paid enough to deal with that ;) and that situation made it easier for me to avoid everything WP-related, because I just did not want to get sucked in. It is difficult to see attacks on my effort and the areas I have worked hard to build or maintain. Constructive criticism is good. Disruption and attacks are not.

I will likely be around, at some times more than others, as I have rediscovered (unpacking is like a series of Christmases) a giant stack of books still to be read for various articles. Thank you to everyone for the support, encouragement, and patience over the last year. It's been much appreciated. I value the time I've spent here and the friends I've made. Karanacs (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)