User talk:Karanacs

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

	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

Alamo

Im looking for sources for your Battle of the Alamo article, as I live in Mexico. Do you have an email addy I can send scanned pages to? Looks like you know what you are doing here! Hope I can get some of my articles as good as yours someday! You can email me at osamadre@hotmail.com Thelmadatter (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive got email enabled through wikipedia - in the toolbox menu on the left just click "Email this user". I really appreciate your help! I've been working on the Alamo article for months and I'd really like to see it become featured someday soon. Please let me know if you need a peer review or copyedit on any of your articles - I'd be happy to help. Karanacs (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed you those articles. Did you get them? Please respond on my talk page.Thelmadatter (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo and Juliet

Could you respond to Awadewit's and my own comments on the talk page? Thanks. Wrad (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the later comments by Andyjones and Smatprt that they wanted to just leave this to Sandy to decide if it is a big deal or not, and that is fine with me. I truly think that beginning the body of an article with a section that is entirely a list violates several of the FAC criteria, so I can't in good conscience strike my oppose. If Sandy disagrees that it is an objectionable oppose, I won't make a fuss, but that is my opinion. Karanacs (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just concerned that all you're seeing is what Andy and Smatprt are saying and not what Awadewit and I are saying. Awadewit and I feel just as strongly about it as you, but still feel that this is an FA. I think it is important that you know that. I would suggest stating your position as it stands now on the FAC page and also responding to the other outstanding issues you brought up that we have taken care of so that we can move on. We're all waiting on your input on the FAC page. Thanks, by the way, for your reviews. FAC would probably die without them. Wrad (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church

Can you help me with Soidi? I am considering placing a notice on the administrators board because it is becoming increasingly apparent that this person is a troll. NancyHeise ^talk 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomás Rivera article

Hello, I am one of the contributors to the Tomas Rivera article. I wanted to say thank you for your suggestions, they are very helpful. I have been working hard on the article though it is a very slow process. I have a question though: i am not sure how to wikilink things that you suggested i do. does that mean it is linked to another article in wikipedia? i will no doubt have more questions as i re-work my way through the article. (Trowan (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

cross-posted to Trowan's talk page Hi Trowan, a wikilink is a link to another article on Wikipedia. You create a wikilink by surrounding the article title in [[ and ]]. (So to get Tomás_Rivera, you type [[Tomás_Rivera]]). Sometimes, the article titles are named funny. For example, maybe I wanted to include a link to the Sabine River in Texas. Its wikipedia article is named Sabine River (Texas-Louisiana), but that would look silly in the article text. I can type [[Sabine River (Texas-Louisiana)|Sabine River]] and it will link to the same article but with a prettier name (Sabine River). I hope that makes sense. Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick III FAC

Hey again, I hope I'm not bothering you however I believe all of your concerns have been addressed on the article Frederick III, German Emperor at its FAC here. It has undergone a copyedit and is currently undergoing another copyedit, in addition to your other concerns having already been addressed. If you have time I'd appreciate it if you could look at it and see if it changes your mind. Thanks! --Banime (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me. You and Jappalang and Johnbod have done excellent work. Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I addressed your new concerns as well and if you still have anymore questions let me know (the "Respectfully" repetition one is the only one I didn't address, I wrote about it on the FAC page.) --Banime (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lipantitlán pre-FAC review

I reread this version and make the following comments.

"only two Mexican garrisons remained in Texas, including Fort Lipantitlán near San Patricio."

Since there were only two garrisons, would it not be better to name both of them instead of "including"?

E.g. "only two Mexican garrisons remained in Texas: Fort Lipantitlán near San Patricio and San Antonio de Béxar (later San Antonio city)."

As the Battle of Goliad is piped as "seized Presidio La Bahía", no mention of the relation between Goliad and Presidio La Bahía is established at this point or later in the article.

Suggestion: "seized Presidio La Bahía, the fortress that protected the town of Goliad."

"The three advisors had been elected to the Consultation"

As the Consultation seems to be pretty important to the Texas Revolution, perhaps a brief descriptive clause could be added here to supplement the link.

"Mexican Brown Bess muskets (200 yards (180 m) compared to 70 yards (64 m))"

WP:MOS: "If sets of brackets must be nested, use the contrasting type (normally, square brackets appear within round brackets [like this]). Often, it is better to revise the sentence to reduce clutter, using commas, semicolons, colons or dashes instead.". Can a dash serve the purpose?

"Mexican Brown Bess muskets—200 yards (180 m) compared to 70 yards (64 m)"

"Texian rifleman A. J. Jones later wrote to Fannin that 3 Mexicans had died with 14 wounded, though historian Stephen Hardin believes that only 5 Mexicans died with 17 wounded."

It seems a bit strange for "only" to be used with Hardin's figures since they are more than Jones's. Would "only" be more appropriate to Jones's claim than to Hardin's, or should it be discarded?

"men who have so handsomly acquitted"

Eh... is this typo Houston's?

"The victory was the first the Texians had experienced since the Battle of Goliad"

This comes across as very sudden. It was never mentioned earlier that there were battles that followed Goliad and preceded Lipantitlán and that the Texians were defeated in them. The lack of notice provides a jarring moment on reading this sentence.

"One of the San Patricio federalists later wrote Dimmitt, "We have neither men nor means to withstand any force that may be sent against us." The Texians chose not to garrison men in or near San Patricio."

So what happened to San Patricio? Did the Mexicans take it back later, or did they ignore it?

"In 1937, the land comprising the former site of Fort Lipantitlán was donated to the state of Texas."

I believe there is a "noun plus -ing" construct here.

Perhaps, "In 1937, the former site of Fort Lipantitlán was part of a land donation to the state of Texas."?

Any luck in getting free photos of the stone marker?

Overall, the prose is solid (to me) and the contents is fairy engrossing. Personally I think it would stand favorably at FAC. Jappalang (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor quibble (not enough to throw off my FAC support)... I suggested to add a descriptive clause for the "Consultation" link, but you have instead removed the link. Uh... did I express myself wrongly above and in previous edit summaries, or was there some other reason to remove the link? Jappalang (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't see this post until today. The Consultation is linked to and described in the Background section, so I decided not to repeat the information lower down. Karanacs (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who Would Have Thought It?

Hi Karanacs, I am Jbmurray's student and part of the WikiProject North of Rio Grande. I am a little unsure on how to approach an editor but I thought I would take a chance and give it a try. I see that you have kindly watch listed Maria Ruiz de Burton. My group is writing on Who Would Have Thought It?, Ruiz de Burton's first novel. I think we could use your help and was wondering (if you had the time), could you give it a glace once in awhile --Nicolecruz (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely take a look, but maybe not until Monday. I generally don't spend a lot of time online on the weekends. Thanks for asking! Karanacs (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marble Madness FAC

Hi. I did some more tweaking to Marble Madness. I was hoping you could tell me if I'm on the right track and if you have any other suggestions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Mattisse has done some copy editing to the article as well. I believe the flow has been improved and the gaps filled. Please let me know otherwise. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I have revisited. Karanacs (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I'm sure you're terribly busy with other wiki-related tasks, but I was wondering if you could provide some suggestions to address your remaining points at the FAC. I think I've just been staring at the article too much. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

December 1 Dispatch

Since you're following that discussion, can you monitor and complete Wikipedia:FCDW/December? I tried to update it a bit, but we may just have to scrap the Dispatch for that week if something isn't resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been offline with the holidays. I can't tell whether there is a consensus at DYK on what to do for that week, (discussion was continuing through the weekend). I've posted at user:Royalbroil's talk page to see what he is planning to do. Karanacs (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davenport, Iowa

To make my life easier, can you just go here and tell me what numbers you want fixed? :) CTJF83Talk 07:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not that simple. You need to have a very solid understanding of what makes a reliable source, and what types of sources to use when. If the article is using the wrong sources in some places, that means the article could very well be uncomprehensive or OR. I don't know much about the city, so I can't identify which sections might not be comprehensive. In general, look for books written about the city, or that discuss the city (and don't rely completely on Google snippets either!). Look for magazine and newspaper articles that discuss the city and the different aspects of the city that are covered in the article. Make sure the article reflects what is in those independent, reliable sources. When at all possible, get rid of any references to websites, to the city itself, etc. Good luck. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Scene7

Gary King (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues have been resolved for a few days now. Gary King (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was off-wiki during the holidays. I'm making my way up the FAC list (started at the bottom) - Scene7 is next, but likely not until tomorrow morning. Karanacs (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Teen Idles

Hey Karanacs, would it be possibe for you to revisit this FAC. I'm not saying that all your concerns have been met (its hard to tell when you are close), and some guidance would be helpful. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working my way up from the bottom of the FAC list. Luckily for you, that makes you first :)Karanacs (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there...

Can you take a look at the sourcing queries on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ralph Bakshi and tell me if I'm out of line here? It appears that the editors are using citations to sources they did not actually consult, but that were sources for works they did consult. When questioned, I'm getting "I've done this before and it's fine", which I do not consider fine, but I'd like a second opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

Doesn't look like you're getting very far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment_by_User:Ottava_Rima

He violated every single one of his mentorship guidelines, near as I can tell. And, typically.. no consequences. What's the point? // roux editor review 12:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not online during your conversation with Ottava, so this was my first notice of it. If you have other difficulties, please feel free to alert Ceoil or I before the situation escalates to the point where it is brought to AN/I. Neither of you was blameless in the incident, as the AN/I thread points out. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He brought the escalation on himself. I made it perfectly clear that his attacks were not welcome, and he had already been told by an admin to stop. And no, sorry, I'm not to blame.. some guy show up on my talkpage attacking me? Screw that. I was calm and polite, told him I didn't want to be badgered.. he kept on going, in total defiance of your mentorship guidelines and an admin telling him to stop. I had no idea he was under mentorship until well after the ANI post--the post, again, that he brought on himself. If he'd simply stopped attacking me and telling lies about me, there would have been no need. // roux editor review 15:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military Stradegy of the American Civil War

It was just within the last couple days, though I can't seem to find it either. The article was still watch listed for me which is why I saw the new creation. But actually, it was deleted via WP:PROD, and I just noticed that the CSD template actually says recreated articles under CSD or PROD are not eligible for a second CSD? So perhaps speedy isn't appropriate this time. -Freqsh0 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I've been up too long :) It was tagged a few days ago, not deleted. He just created the Talk page, which at first glace I thought was article recreation. In any case, it looks like he removed the PROD tag incorrectly. -Freqsh0 (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually trying to put my finger on what's wrong with it so my nomination is somewhat useful to the creator. It's obviously not appropriate, but I am not sure what the violations would be, unless WP:TLDR counts :) And obviously, the title is misspelled. You also might want to look at Disease in colonial America by the same guy. Do these count as WP:NOR? And although there are supposedly references, it isn't exactly verifiable. Are purely offline references acceptable? Thanks for the advice. -Freqsh0 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I AFD'd both of them. I have one other thing to bother you with - I just finished a WP:SSP report (a fairly obscene one at that), and need some assistance. Do you want to take a look at Wikipedia:SSP#User:Fadulj and let me know what I should do next? (You may remember these names from my talk page ;) -Freqsh0 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about WP:SSP, so I can't really advise you there. Speedy deletions are almost the only administrative area I venture into. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. "unfailing polite editors" was generous and appreciated. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs

I think you misunderstood. This is one of the hooks for Milton's 400th birthday. Inside the hook is a link to his early life page. Gato is supporting another editor who says that such a page should not belong on Wikipedia. Gato is complaining that the section isn't much longer than on the biography page. However, as we both know, such sections are too long for an article to get through FA because of WP:WEIGHT. I cannot trim and move information now, because then they would complain that more than 20% of the article was not original, which would destroy the complex seven part DYK. I'm really not in the mood to repeat the same stuff that happened when the Johnson early life article was created and people did this same exact thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the dispute is. DYK disagreements don't belong at ANI. It is okay to bring it up at the DYK talk page to get more attention from people familiar with DYK there, but it is not appropriate to bring it to ANI. Issues within a particular process should always try to be addressed within that process. Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, no one said the page doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Reviewers said it might not be ready for DYK yet, that's all. And people were ready to work with you to get the article ready for DYK, until you chose to attack three separate editors and tacitly insult thousands of editors as well as the entire DYK project. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs, I didn't say ANI. I said AN, and that is to get more admin involved with the DYK process. Gatoclass is attempting to put forth a new standard (without mentioning any standards, just being vague) that does not exist. He thinks that the John Milton's early life page doesn't belong on a DYK because he feels that the page itself doesn't belong, since it is "not much longer than the main page". Regardless of the fact that it is now 15k and has the potential to be at least 3 times bigger, it is a standard that is not on DYK. It is an independently notable topic, with full citations, and contains over 1,500 characters. That is the DYK rubric. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And because this is a DYK issue and a core question of the process, it needs to be addressed at the DYK talk page. If it can't be satisfactorily addressed there (with others who regularly interact with this process), then the next step would be an RfC. It is not necessary to go to AN. There are plenty of administrators who regularly help out at DYK, and they are the ones who are knowledgeable about the process and would best be able to help. Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs, that is very problematic because the community has declared time after time that solving matters just at DYK is cliquish and inappropriate, especially when DYK acceptance involves all admin and not a limited few. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the next appropriate step is an RfC, where you can get the opinion of the entire community. However, considering that this is a very specific issue that is related to DYK, your first step ought to be bringing it up there to see what the wider range of DYK participants think; for all you know, they may agree with you. There are appropriate channels to resolving all kinds of disputes - going straight to AN is not generally the first step when the issue is a dispute over DYK/FAC/GA. Karanacs (talk) 17:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs, this isn't a content dispute nor can it be solved through resolution. This is a main page dispute, which has been declared by the community time after time that they would rather be involved via AN/ANI than have it stay with DYK. RfC are completely inappropriate for such a thing. DYK is also not the same as FAC and GA, as it operates directly off the main page and with a direct timeline. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a dispute over how a process should work (although perhaps better compared to TFA/R). Common courtesy suggests that discussion of such a dispute over the workings of a process take place FIRST at the talk page for that process, and, if matters cannot be resolved there, THEN escalated elsewhere. (This works for all disputes - you should never bring another editor directly to ANI either, always discuss first). Otherwise it appears to be forum shopping. I've seen no evidence of the community declaring that DYK disputes need to occur at AN (although, granted, I only follow the AN boards cursorily - do you have diffs, please?). Karanacs (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs, I really have no time to get into this. I have better things to do. Go ask Gatoclass. He may still have the diffs to the 100s of k devoted in ANI to the DYK discussion. And this is not a "dispute". AN is a request to have an admin approve of it. Any admin can approve of the idea, not a limited view, and AN is the appropriate place to get admin attention. It always has been, and it always will be. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]