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

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 (Le Goff's a bit outdated and the work you're citing is somewhat of a cross between a popular history and a low level textbook.)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

Ways to improve WSC for FA

Since The Whistler Sliding Centre was not approved for FA, what suggestions do you have to get it to that? I plan on taking this to peer review again before submitting this to FAC again. Chris (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a peer review is the right way to go. You might ping in Giants2008, YellowMonkey, and other reviewers who tend to look at sports articles. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem is that the other two looked at it in the FAC. Hopefully someone else will. Chris (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

killer7 FAC

I was wondering why you decided to close the killer7 FAC (here). There were comments as recent as three days ago, no opposes, and I had a copyedit lined up from User:David Fuchs. I believe this may have been premature. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The FAC had been open for three weeks without gaining consensus for promotion. That's a pretty long time - there were FACs yesterday that had only been open a week. I recommend going ahead with the copyedit and then coming back to FAC in two-three weeks. Hopefully it will attract more reviewers next time. Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dustbin Baby (film)/archive1

This was closed as having failed- was it meant to pass? You removed it with this edit. If it wasn't meant to pass, why not? J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If lack of reviews was the problem, both myself and Axem Titanium (above) said we would be happy to review the other's article if the FACs are reopened... J Milburn (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This was open for over three weeks without gaining consensus for promotion (one support, unfortunately, doesn't indicate promotion). FAC is backlogged, so I'm not going to reopen this or the other one. You got a lot of comments on this article, which is good. I recommend working with VisionHolder to make sure you resolve his issues, and then come back in a few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Two supports, plus my own as a third, and no opposition. Every issue that was raised was dealt with. This is hardly fair. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the fact FAC is backlogged, I have done my part to offer reviews. I have offered extensive reviews of four or five articles, then shorter reviews of a few others. In that time, I had only this one nomination open, so the fact it's backlogged is certainly not my fault. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to imply that the backlog was your fault. I had noticed that you were doing reviews, and I'm certainly glad to see that :) If only all nominators shared your commitment! For this particular nomination, I saw only one support (Nehrams), and one "leaning support", which generally means that a little more work is needed. Since that had been added 3-4 days before I processed, I assumed the reviewer was not ready to support yet and a little more tweaking might be necessary. An archival does not mean that there are big flaws with the article; it often simply means that there weren't enough opinions given to determine whether the article was at FA status. Often, coming back in a few weeks is all it takes to get more eyes - some reviewers search out articles that are on their second/third nomination, or perhaps the people who would be interested in the subject were offwiki or otherwise didn't notice the article during its first nomination. It's stressful to see a nomination you've worked so hard on be archived (it's happened to me too), but your article is likely in pretty decent shape for its next attempt. Karanacs (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I really can't see what else I can do with the article, otherwise I would have done it. I have no pointers with what to do further. Should I just literally leave it two weeks? What's the point in that? Especially as in a few weeks I will be back at university and have a lot less time for Wikipedia... J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's nearly impossible to get the necessary support just from passing editors. At least in my case, I tried getting WP:VG to do something, but nothing really came out of it. Also, a lot of reviewers who offered a lot of comments (eg, Elcobbola, Brianboulton) decided not to lend support due to a lack of familiarity with the subject matter. I don't really see what else I can do, short of canvassing a large number of editors individually. In the meantime, I can only wait two weeks and do the same dance all over again, struggling to get the same 1 or 2 editors to support within the time frame and then failing due to lack of support. What's wrong with reopening them to at least save us the effort of calling those supporters back to give their two cents which have already been addressed? Axem Titanium (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Each time you re-appear at FAC, the article will be cleaner, the FAC hopefully will be shorter as less issues remain to be resolved, and you are more likely to get support. Long FACs put off reviewers from supporting, and the better prepared a FAC is, the more chance of success. Also, Karanacs and I are less likely to archive a subsequent well-prepared FAC for lack of response, if you've addressed everything in previous FACs. Keep at it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a generally accepted timeframe which one should wait before renominating? J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally about two weeks, although Karanacs or I may shorten that if circumstances warrant, or if the page is not backlogged-- right now, it is, and we need to give other nominators a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm doing everything in my power to remedy that... J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar...

... and the very kind words. I'm humbled by your praise. Imzadi 1979 → 18:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Incoming about real-life reasons for not currently working on CC article. Hope to get back to it in a few months. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope all is well with you, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about the article, take care of yourself! Karanacs (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Gonzales

Was the slogan on the Texian flag "Come and Take It" as the infobox says, or "Come & Take It" as the article body says? Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that - it's usually "and" on the flag, and can be written either way when speaking of the slogan. Karanacs (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess you must be disappointed with the lack of feedback you're getting at this FAC Karanacs. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I swear I didn't bribe anyone! I've never had this happen before, but I kind of like it ;) Karanacs (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Something the rest of us dream about. BTW, I've been delegated to choose the FA of the week for the next Signpost. Will there be any more promotions before tomorrow? Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy usually promotes sometime during the weekend, but I'm not sure when she's planning to do it this weekend. I won't be promoting again until Tuesday. Karanacs (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope to get to it tonight, as I have an overseas guest arriving tomorrow, but IRL has gotten messy. Maybe I'll be up in the middle of the night :) Or maybe I won't get to it until tomorrow if something doesn't give. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got free time tonight if you want me to do it. Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be eternally grateful if you could -- well, I'm already eternally grateful, so whatever comes after that :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No gratitude necessary, I owe you for August anyway. So, Malleus, the short answer to the long conversation is that yes, there will probably be promotions within the next 5-6 hours. Karanacs (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'm hoping that the one I want to pick will be one of them. Bet you can't guess which that is. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, Malleus, but we usually cap FAs "eligible" for this week at midnight UTC (i.e., just over two hours from now). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No way I'll have any more promoted by then. Thanks, Dabomb, for making that more clear, and Mal, at least you have a shorter list to go through! Karanacs (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Pedantic is fine in this case Dabomb, just what's needed. I'll start looking through the list now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Tony likes to cap 'em off early so he has time to write the blurbs and take care of everything else. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One day soon every word will need to be cited: "can you provide a citation supporting your use of pronouns instead of proper nouns?" I blame the teachers. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fridtjof Nansen/archive1

I am slightly puzzled as to why this was passed over in your latest promotions run. It has 4 supports, no opposes, images and sources clear, no FA related issues outstanding that I can see. Other candidates with fewer supports were promoted. Is there an issue that I have not spotted? Brianboulton (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

...5 supports now, btw. Brianboulton (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs doesn't typically edit on weekends, Brian; I'll look it over if I get a free moment. Perhaps it was too new when Karanacs went through-- unsure, as I haven't looked yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, for promoting. I actually had three more articles on my list to promote last night, but I was falling asleep in my chair as I was trying to read the articles so I had to stop and go to bed. I intended to come back to the newer ones on Tuesday. Glad Sandy got this one for me. Karanacs (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I'm going back to the way FAC promotions were done historically, on an unannounced schedule; you need not follow suit :) [2] If you plan to continue on a Tuesday schedule, that works for me! Your always calm, diplomatic and measured feedback might be useful here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I think going back to the unannounced schedule is probably a good thing. The backlog has been growing too large, in my opinion. How should we best arrange this so we don't step on each other's toes? I'll run through today (although it looks like you got a few archives for me already), but I'm willing to be flexible depending on how you want to do things. As for the other matter, looks like it's closed for now so I won't weigh in. Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How about if you always take Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday (which allows you to stick to a Tuesday schedule if you want), and I always take Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday? That allows each of us leeway in pr/ar, prevents us from stepping on each other's toes (except for the drivebys and nominator withdrawals, which either of us can do as we see them), and lets you stick to Tuesdays if/when you prefer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I like that plan lots. Karanacs (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be a bother, Karen, but is there a reason that you sorted USS Massachusetts (BB-2) after USS West Bridge (ID-2888) on WP:FA? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it's been that kind of day today? Karanacs (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick FAC question

I was just wondering if something was holding up the Mesopropithecus FAC. It has 4 supports and an image review. If you need me to solicit more reviews, just let me know. Thanks for your time. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Visionholder. I've been promoting piecemeal and hadn't gotten to that one yet...lots of interruptions off-computer today. Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry to bug you. I just didn't want my junk cluttering up FAC. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 19:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'm more scatterbrained than usual today, so I understand why you'd be confused. Karanacs (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Co-nom

My nom of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (1909)/archive1 was failed a week ago. Do you have a problem if I take a co-nom for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Goeben/archive1 that I worked on with Parsescboy?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I defer to Karanacs, but since TonyTheTiger is doing this, we'd have a hard time denying it to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. When we instituted the new rules, there was much concern that we not inhibit conoms. Thank you for asking! Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. Though I might suggest that y'all clarify the current policy so that it's clearer that co-noms are not such a problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We could never agree on the proper wording before... Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Delayed response to Sturmvogel 66

Four hypothetical scenarios:

1. A nominator who consistently brings well prepared articles to FAC, and who helps reduce the backlog by reviewing other FACs, is prompt and courteous in responding to reviewer concerns, understands WP:WIAFA and gives solid reviews of other articles, has a FAC that has received ample support, all issues resolved, but is waiting for one OTRS ticket response, and asks to put up another FAC.
2. A nominator who consistently brings well prepared articles to FAC, and who helps reduce the backlog by reviewing other FACs, is prompt and courteous in responding to reviewer concerns, understands WP:WIAFA and gives solid reviews of other articles, has a FAC that is archived and asks to put up another FAC with a co-nom who has the same profile.
3. A nominator who consistently brings ill-prepared articles to FAC that require extensive work from reviewers, treats FAC like PR, is combative with reviewers, and never reviews other FACs, asks to put up another FAC with a co-nom who consistently brings well prepared articles to FAC, and who helps reduce the backlog by reviewing other FACs, understands WP:WIAFA and gives solid reviews of other articles.
4. A nominator who consistently brings ill-prepared articles to FAC that require extensive work from reviewers, treats FAC like PR, has one FAC after another archived and brings them back two weeks later with little improvement, is combative with reviewers, and never reviews other FACs, asks to put up another FAC with a co-nom who has the same profile.

Which nominations might the delegates want to see go forward, considering the backlog at FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI Appeal

Please review the two sources I have added to my statement which cite WMC's article in exactly the same manner that I did, as an example of alarmism from global cooling. One is peer reviewed, one is a book. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 12:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

And this (presenting secondary sources for discussion) is what you should have done before edit-warring. You reverted rather than begin discussion at that point, which is the problem. Karanacs (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There might be a problem ....

"User:Malleus Fatuorum promoted it to GA earlier this year and did some light copyediting (which gives him the highest edit count - I worked in big chunks)."

I'm aware that my approach to editing makes it look like I've had more input into an article than I actually did, but it's the only way that works for me. I'm not a patient person, and edit conflicts are a pain in the proverbial. If you ever see me claim credit for an article I have a high edit count for but haven't significantly contributed to then call me a liar. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's how I work-- end up with the high edit counts on every thing I touch. Like today, and I'd sure hate for anyone to think that was my work :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll go one step further, and say that without my unrecognised help there are quite a few FAs that would not now be FAs. But I'm just idly musing, must be the season. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, duh :) While I work on highly important contributions to the sum of all knowledge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that wasn't interpreted as me thinking you'd be taking more than your fair share of credit (not that I'm not extremely grateful for your help), or that I was dismissing your work (because I am extremely grateful for your help). I was actually hoping you'd review the article and wanted to explain your edit count in advance so your comments weren't tossed out because you were a significant contributor. Want me to rephrase? Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it's fine, I've offered my judgement anyway. I bet there are quite a few FAs that have my pawprints all over them, but for me a "significant contribution" is working on the content, not fiddling with the prose; the latter seeems to take a lot more edits though, at least it does for me. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope my comments weren't misunderstood-- I didn't know MF was referring to your nom! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Too late! I'm now mortally offended! :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I had noted your comment at User talk:SandyGeorgia#Question on FAC for Menominee Tribe v. United States and just wanted to let you know that I would have no objection to you handling the FAC nom. I do not believe that your comment at the ANI discussion would affect your judgment on whether the article met the FA criteria or not, and although I disagreed with your reasoning at ANI (for obvious reasons, ;p), I believe that you stated your honest opinion as an admin. I don't see that your comment would make you "involved" and certainly don't feel that we have been in a conflict or dispute. I will defer to your judgment on recusing, but I don't see that there would be any impropriety if you did decide to handle closing the nom. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 14:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that, Greg. I think it is still best that I don't close this FAC, just to avoid the appearance of impropriety (political correctness run amok!). Good luck with the nomination! Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I will defer to your judgment, and thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

TFA request of Ayumi Hamasaki

Hello, I just changed the nomination date for the featured article Ayumi Hamasaki to October 1, and I would like you to reconsider the request. Thanks you. mx3 話 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Karanacs (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Coahuila y Tejas

Nice job on Coahuila y Tejas from someone involved in WP:MexicoThelmadatter (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I had a hard time finding easily accessible sources that focused more on Coahuila than Texas. If you know of any, please let me know and I'll see if I can track them down. Karanacs (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Tough slog

It's a tough slog through FAC today, huh? Maybe we can blame Moni for her talk at the NY Wiki conference. Hang in there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping the backlog is due to all the students going back to school and celebrating with an FA nomination...maybe it will be more manageable again soon. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Evanna Lynch - FAC archival

I understand that a nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate: actionable objections have not been resolved; or consensus for promotion has not been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. You recently archived Evanna Lynch. [3] I am unsure why; I addressed many of the reviewers' comments and they had yet to respond. Could you please clarify specifically why you did archive it? Many thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alex. You did a great job of addressing a lot of the comments pretty quickly. However, there were also concerns about comprehensiveness and tone, and the level of prose problems seemed pretty big - most reviewers only list a set of examples, and they intend the nominator to check the rest of the article for similar problems. For two reviewers to pick up on this amount of issues in the beginning is a red flag for me that the article might be underprepared. In that case, it's usually best for the nomination to be archived so that you can continue to work on it, preferably with some input from the reviewers (or at peer review. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Petitcodiac River FAC

I've addressed your concerns as discussed at the Petitcodiac River FAC. I hope the sourcing is to your liking. Regards. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, umm, while I can't say that I'm the most experienced with FACs, I do not understand why SG did not want to wait the two days I asked before closing the nomination (or at least until you and Ruhrfisch had the chance to reply). Aside from that, I answered your concerns and I would highly appreciate it if you would simply give an okay to the points which are good, so I can fix the rest in the coming week or so. I'm very grateful for the time you took to carefully review the article, and I made sure that none of your suggestions went to waste. Regards. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't online earlier and did not see that you had responded until now. The nomination has been open a long time, and you were already given one opportunity to delay to get the books. In Sandy's shoes, I would have closed it too. I'll take a look at the article again either tomorrow or Thursday (tomorrow I have to sort through FAC, and I don't know whether I'll have much WP time left after that). I appreciate your hard work - it's not easy to be asked to rewrite an entire section of the article at the last minute, and you've done a great job in rising to the challenge. Karanacs (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Recusals here too

I've started reviewing some as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but

...wanted your viewpoint on whether user Mercenary2k is a trusted user who should retain his reviewer right... Like I said, it doesn't matter, still. Warm regards Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Has the user abused the reviewer right at all? What's the background for the question? Thanks, Karanacs (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. I was just scanning various reviewers (being a new admin out here) and just wanted your viewpoint on whether editors like Mercenary, who have been blocked recently for edit warring, should retain their reviewer rights? Sincere regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the reviewer right is not a "treat" like rollback, it's a basic editing tool that ensures that editors retain the ability to revert vandalism on pages they may watch. Unless an editor specifically abuses the reviewer right, I don't think it should be taken away. (Rollback generally works similarly, although it's not as necessary to have - it is generally not taken away unless it is abused, regardless of other problems.) Thanks for asking. Karanacs (talk) 18:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Pending_changes#Reviewing. Only the user, the community, or ArbCom can revoke reviewer permission, anyway. Doing so is ultra vires of an individual admin. Unlike rollback, reviewing is almost impossible to abuse the way the system is designed. Courcelles 18:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for the replies. Warm regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 19:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Coahuila y Tejas

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Catholic Church

Hi, Karanacs! I noticed you fully protected the Catholic Church article with the comment "Excessive vandalism". I've looked at the article's (and your) Talk page and cannot find an explanation for your action. I'm not complaining about what you did (although adding an edit=sysop restriction is pretty strong medicine), I am eager to understand what vandalism merited action stronger than edit=confirmed. What did I miss? Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There's been a lot of vandalism today. I intended to make it autoconfirmed-only for editing for 3 days, and sysop-only for moves (the move protection has been that way for the past year or so). Did I do it wrong? Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Bongwarrior already fixed it. My apologies - there are too darn many stupid boxes on the protection page now and I messed up. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I was curious. (Sorry for sticking my question in the wrong place...) — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 19:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

All yours

Since I've been accused of "clear intent and malice", this editor's noms are all yours. A review of the TOC on his talk page shows where the issues started. If the behaviors continue, I'll be starting an WP:RFC/U.

By the way, unless another reviewer gets to it first, I will review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jocko Thompson/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I just got caught up on all that. Oh my. I don't think there are other words for this situation.... Karanacs (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re your edit summary, the pleasure is all mine :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Closure of FAC

Why was the FAC for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)/archive1 closed? I was not given enough time to address their concerns or receive their feedback to the fixes. Ωphois 01:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, Ophois. That nomination had been up for over a month. There were still prose complaints and outstanding questions about reliability of sources. I know you worked hard on it, and I'm sure that once you fix the last few things the article will sail through FAC next time. Karanacs (talk) 13:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The article had unanimous support for most of the month, though. The prose issues didn't come up until four days ago, after which the reviewer didn't respond to my explanations or any of my attempts to fix the issues. Ωphois 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I just had a look at this, and I have to agree with Ophois. The only unresolved objection was Slim's, which doesn't look (to me) to be a valid concern; as I read it, it was opposition on grounds that she thought the topic didn't warrant any article, not that she actually saw any problem with this article in particular. The place for that discussion is AFD, not FAC; given the number of other stand-alone TV episodes, I don't see how it can be treated as a valid objection. I do think you ought to un-archive this one. – iridescent 15:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Both SV and Courcelles brought up prose issues; SV was also concerned about comprehensiveness (no background section - this was added after I archived). Courcelles also brought up the reliable source issues again (this was fixed after I archived); reliable sources have been an issue at the FAC since it was first brought. Four weeks is plenty of time to fix issues; the fact that they were still being brought forward told me the article did not currently meet the criteria, and given the long nomination time, it was time to close, give Ophois time to fix the issues, and bring it back later. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have four weeks to fix those issues... Those issues were only brought up four days ago. Ealdgyth left the sources up to reviewers, and all the reviewers up to Courcelles accepted them as reliable. Ωphois 16:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyways, the copyeditor I was hoping to use hasn't responded, so you can leave it closed. Ωphois 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing

No one opposed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

Hi, so why was Nancy's version voted down? It looks fine to me. It needs editing, but it's on the right track and it's got reliable sources. What's up?Malke 2010 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I read over the RfC. What a mess. But it seems to be more about personality than content. I also see you also are a member of WikiProjects Military. I am as well. What articles do you work on? Any aviation related articles?Malke 2010 (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The RFC was partially on personalities, but there was a strong feeling that the alternatives (the longer version and Nancy's medium version) were POV, gave undue weight to some topics, had a little OR thrown in here-and-there and had sourcing issues. The article needs LOTS of work, there just aren't that many volunteers to do the research required. Apart from that article, I tend to concentrate in articles about the history of Texas pre-1845. Lately I've been doing a lot of work on assorted topics related to the Texas Revolution (1835-1836), and have gotten about half of the articles on those battles up to FA status. I haven't entered the era of aviation yet! Karanacs (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed. Well, my focus is more on World War II and the German defenses, glider troops, etc. I've been doing a great deal of research in that area in the last few weeks and I'm preparing to start a new article, so I've been very busy. I just happened to notice the discussion on the question of which class to demote the Catholic Church article to and I was surprised. I completely missed all the drama. I can't believe the condition it is in. Can we open a sub-page and start over?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

TPS Request

I'm working on my very first food-related article, gumbo (lesson learned - don't edit when hungry). This is a dish that can bring a family together (my sister drove hours to get a bowl the last time my husband made it) or drive them to tears ("how much pepper did you put in that pot!?!"). For those of you who have never had a bowl, I'm sorry, and would you please read the article and let me know if it doesn't make sense or if it feels lacking in some way? For those of you who have tasted this wonderful dish before, would you please read the article and let me know what's missing and whether what's in there makes sense? I don't think there are any food dish articles at FA status yet and I'm puzzled as to whether this is good enough yet. Peer review located here. Merci beaucoup, cher! Karanacs (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Several years ago, I took a weekend trip with my ex. She made the unfortunate mistake of eating fried okra at dinner. The gas that her human bowels created was decidedly unhuman. Rather, it was reminiscent of what you might imagine a maternal killer whale would make upon learning of the death of her calf.

Moral of the story: distance yourself from okra or the whale songs will follow you.

Good luck on your article. --Moni3 (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, hide before we start the "gumbo must be made with okra" vs "gumbo should never be made with okra" battles. We planted an okra bush once. I thought my freezer would collapse under the weight of the resulting produce, which I refused to touch. To quote our toddler when hubby tried to feed her okra for the first (second, third, etc) time: "eeewwww...is icky"! Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please de-list Ezra Pound

Hi Karanacs, could you please de-list Ezra Pound from FAC. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you want it delisted Truthkeeper? I understand that you've had some vision problems recently, but overall I think the review isn't going at all badly. Ceoil has offered to take another look through and I will as well. What's that saying, "it's always darkest before the dawn"? I think you should reconsider, but of course it's your choice. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest, since I know you value honesty. Yes, the review is going well and the article is improved because of SlimVirgin's input. I logged out and didn't see Ceoil's offer to help, and honestly I've asked you twice, and don't like to ask again. As a consequence of my recent eye operation I've been having severe migraines. Felt better on Monday and was hopeful I could get through a FAC, but have had a non-stop migraine since yesterday morning, so had already decided I might not make it through. I seem to be capable of working on content, but I'm Thot capable of combing through the entire article to fix misplaced commas. I've been following some of the recent discussions about bringing 'big' articles to FAC, and sadly I have to agree that it's virtually impossible. The expectations are too big for a single person to fulfill. Stupidly I thought this was a collaborative project. So, there's your answer to why. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It is of course your choice, but let me just remind you that over the past few days alone I've been asked to help at No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural), Minehead, and Arnold's expedition to Quebec, which I've tried to do, plus helping out at Grace Sherwood and trying to deal with my own pathetic FAC offering. The Pound FAC seemed to be under control until very recently, so it didn't seem to need my help in looking for stray commas. All I can say is that I'm sorry you feel that I've let you down. Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. As you said - all was going well and under control. I can't do what DCGeist wants me to do. I see all the requests on your page, and don't want to add more. Ceoil has disappeared. So, it's best to fold. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just don't understand. Ceoil was around only a few hours ago, offering to help, and I've offered to help as well, but fold if you feel you must. That's not what I'd do though. Malleus Fatuorum 00:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I put up the de-list request before Ceoil posted and before you offered help. Look, I've put a lot of work into this article and would like to finish the job, but can't do it on my own. If you guys want to pitch in, that's fine with me. Personally, I'm tired, cranky, and have a big head-ache and am essentially unable to make a decision. So I'll leave this here, and whatever happens, happens. Thanks for the moral support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can understand tired and cranky, especially cranky. Why not let Ceoil and I try to take the strain for a bit? And why not tell Karanacs that you've changed your mind about withdrawing the FAC? Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs - please ignore the de-list request. It seems that one cranky editor has talked another cranky editor out of doing something rash. Malleus, thank you. I'm logging off now. Really need to be away from here for a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no rush; come back refreshed after a few days away and wrap it up. Dear old crazy Ezra deserves it, you know he does. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I do need to be realistic about this. I'll take it day by day, and will leave a note for Ceoil. Not entirely convinced Ezra does deserve this, and am not sure why I have the penchant for tackling these big articles. I like the research and building content part of the process - the rest I'm not so sure about. Will put away the computer until I feel better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I confess that I deliberately ignored this request when I first saw it, as to my eyes the FAC was going pretty well. I hoped you'd change your mind. Good luck with the migraines - they should get better with time but I well remember how awful those are. Karanacs (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs, thanks for ignoring (I think). The FAC was going well and the delist request wasn't in response to any set of comments but rather to the inability to function because of a migraine. I have been told they will get better - and was hopeful I was beyond the worst of it, but apparently not. Will take it day by day and see what happens. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Ezra Pound truly can be archived now. I think it's best to regroup and make suggested changes slowly rather than trying to achieve everything during FAC. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I won't try to dissuade you again, but I do feel that you're being a little hasty with this request, and if this were my nomination I wouldn't be withdrawing it at this critical time. But of course it's your choice. Why not let the reviewers decide? I don't entirely agree with all of the points made by SV, especially the one about you having to go through the whole article again before she'll consider supporting it, but none of them seem difficult to fix in any event. You're at FAC now, so why not just relax and enjoy the ride? Malleus Fatuorum 18:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Karanacs. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

New FAC

My nom of HMS Princess Royal was archived several days ago for lack of support. There weren't any opposes, just not any supports. Any objection if I nominate another article now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you'd wait the two weeks. There were several commenters, and feedback was given. Karanacs (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur: for consistency, see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

All right.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So my co-nommed nomination is now withdrawn after a promotion of another co-nommed article? That's not right! I'm fine with not being allowed to submit a solo nom after my solo nom was not promoted, but this is a bit much because it hurts my co-nominator as well as me. Rather makes me think of Emerson's aphorism.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC instructions: "None of its nominators may nominate or conominate 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." I'm sorry, Sturm, but them's the instructions, and we're enforcing them for TonyTheTiger as well as you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't regard the situations as comparable as my co-nommed article was promoted, his wasn't. I think y'all are leaning over backwards to avoid protests and I've gotten caught in the middle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of such a rule. I'm not even sure I understand what it's saying. So if I nom article A and it is not successful, why can I not nominate a totally different article, B, within the next two weeks? What on earth does article B have to do with A? What's so special about two weeks? And why does it matter if A was successful or not? Enquiring minds want to know. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The idea was to keep people from nominating ill-prepared articles, in a "wash, rinse, repeat" cycle. If they can't learn from the issues on article A and make sure that article B doesn't have the same issues, they should slow down and take the time to get things right ahead of time. Imzadi 1979 → 23:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Then remove the second one, if poor, right away. That's no reason to stop someone from nominating an article that is ready. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive43 for a long discussion of the problems, and the RFC, that led to the change in nominating instructions. They were precisely to avoid repeat failed nominations that were backlogging FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't care. If someone has solid nom they should not be forced to hold off because some other user is causing problems. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is how and who gets to determine that it is a solid nomination or a poor one. The delegates can't do it, so you need reviewers to do the job, and they are in short supply, and can't continually be asked to do the unpleasant job of opposing nominations and giving reviews to articles that are not properly prepared.

And of course, the only people who are penalized (by having to wait a couple of weeks, not a tragedy in the great scheme of things) are those who have themselves have nominated an article that wasn't ready, for one reason or another. People whose nominations are successful can nominate another one the next day.--Slp1 (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Some articles simply aren't ready. But many pass/fail based solely on who reviews them because different people key on different things and the standards are loose and opinions on what is and isn't good copy/refs/etc are inconsistent (a problem endemic to all the featured processes). So let's say you have article that just barely failed and yet the user has another article that say, Malleus and Ucucha say is ready, but he has to wait because of this arbitrary and capricious rule. Far more people get penalized than just the group you claim. I do not agree with this rule and never will. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you've singled me out in this discussion, but I far more often try to disssuade editors from rushing to FAC than I do to encourage them. I don't see a problem with a two-week breathing space, not least because serially opposing one editor's FAC nominations is guaranteed to make a reviewer no friends. Problems in one nomination are very likely to be present in a second. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Having just seen the comments on the Juwan Howard nom are there any issues with me nominating another ship article as my solo nomination? I've already nominated Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Indefatigable (1909)/archive2 as my co-nomination with Dank.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe your two weeks is about up, correct? If so, it would be fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my time in Coventry is over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church

I put up a subpage in my user space for the "Beliefs and Practices." I'll be adding to it in the next few days and I'd appreciate comments on the talk page there. I take it this will replace the "Traditions of Worship" section in the article now. Do you have an idea for length, etc? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link, please? Then I'll check out the subpage as I can. Thanks for helping! Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, forgot it. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malke_2010/Catholic_Church. Also, if there's a version of the article with this content that is along the lines of what you're looking for, please suggest. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1‎

As a reviewer of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Texas Longhorn football team, I thought you might consider commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

About Roger491127

You wrote to me on my talk page and used the term "Single-purpose accounts". If you had studied my contributions over the years, which I admit is a little difficult because I have made contributions under more than one username, and my ip-number has changed 3 times over the last 4 years, you would have seen that I have been involved in many articles. For example the article about Chamin Correa. I have email contact with this guitarist who is generally seen as the maestro of the guitar in latin american traditional music, and he has released 150 albums during his 60 year long career. He has promised to upload a few photos to be used in the article about him. I have also contributed with definitions of terms like rationality, reason, and I would contribute a definition of the term Logic but it is no use trying because so many US-Americans have been taught faulty definitions of the term logic so my edits in that article would be deleted immediately.

I have been occupied with articles about Gustave Whitehead lately but I should definitely not be characterized as a "Single-purpose account". I have many other interests and I have contributed to many articles totally unrelated to Whitehead. Roger491127 (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have used multiple accounts, then you should definitely link to them on your user page, so that others can follow your edit history. Under this account, you have edited almost exclusively on issues related to Gustave Whitehead, and your editing has been problematic. Please take into consideration the rest of what I posted on your talk page. Karanacs (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have just checked my contribution history as Roger4911 and it reaches back to 2005, and most of it is not associated with Whitehead. I will write down my earlier username and my two ip-numbers on my talk page so people can check my contributions both as logged in and as an ip-number. And, by the way, I have stopped editing about Whitehead, I have loaded up enough arguments for the next generation of editors, who will be the billions of people from the whole world who are now busy studying english. In10-20 years they will have the confidence to help edit the english version of wikipedia. Roger491127 (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1

I have withdrawn Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Archived. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Some confusion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I eced with the final comment because I never saw it and withdrew based on two opposes on technical merits of the nom. Neither had a substantial issue with the article outstanding. In terms of the coaching philosophy/style/strategy, I see the monkey objecting to a bunch of sports articles for this reason now. I am not sure that there is consensus on this issue since neither 2005 Texas Longhorns football team nor 2007 USC Trojans football team has such a section. I will see what I can find.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There were actionable objections, period. We aren't comparing a current FAC to articles promoted 2+ years ago. The bottom line is that your nomination was archived with opposes, therefore any rules that generally apply to archivals (next nomination, PR, etc), apply to that nomination. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A few months ago I lamented on this page I think, that I should have reviewed more sport in the past .... and generally, lamented about the lack of content probing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnes in 1948 FAC

It's 4-0 now. May I add another please? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mexican Texas

Hey there. Nice work on this article. Are you interested in getting it to a GA? I'm sure that the article could pass. A few things though, do you know where one can find something that can convert USD from the 1820's to present day dollars? Thanks :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This goes back to 1913. Buggie111 (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I need it to go back to the 1820's.....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The {{inflation}} template is your friend. Just replace the xxx's in $xxx (about ${{formatnum:{{Inflation|US|xxx|1820|r=-2}}|0}} as of {{CURRENTYEAR}}).{{Inflation-fn|US}} with the currency value. Change the "r=" figure to an appropriate number of figures (the higher the number, the more the result is rounded) to prevent it being too accurate; i.e. you don't want it outputting a greater number of significant figures than the original result.

For any inflation figures, be prepared to come under hostile interrogation for using them if you ever go to FAC, and to put in explanatory footnotes and disclaimers—wage inflation (how much people were paid), CPI (how much things cost), RPI (the cost of living) and GDP-share (how the cost related to other things) are all wildly different, and equally valid, measures of the nebulous concept of "inflation". (The whole idea of "inflation" is controversial as it's highly subjective; when measured in terms of gold, prices barely change over centuries. An ounce of gold will buy roughly the same amount of staple goods—clothing, bread etc—as it bought during the Norman Conquest.) This was the era of sharecropping, and wages and prices were artificially low because most people would have been growing their own food or bartering it with their neighbors; plus, Texas was at the end of a very long supply line, and a lot of basic goods would have sold for very different prices than they'd have sold for in New Orleans or Mexico City. – iridescent 13:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi WhiteShadows, I'm glad you liked the article. I don't think it's ready for GA yet - I haven't done the research on the latter half of the Texas Revolution yet, and there are a few other books for the earlier pieces that I'm in the process of reading. I think the content is getting close, but I'm not completely comfortable with it yet. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand. If you ever would like my help with it, just ping me, though I'm sure you could bring it to even FA status on your own.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Velasco

The DYK project (nominate) 18:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel May Williams House

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Alright. No worries, -- Cirt (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

findagrave

No consensus has been reached concerning this issue...discussion is actively happening here. Please join the discussion until consensus may be reached. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 18:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing general EL cleanup - that's not the only one I've removed. I will note that the documentation for template:findagrave specifically says only to use it if the entry includes information that wouldn't be in an fa-class article; in the few instances I've removed it the WP articles have been in decent shape. Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: FAC Welcome

Thanks for the welcome. The FAC improved the article, and after some improvement I'll try again. Ukabia - talk 18:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Illinois

Howdy! I didn't realize you're an Aggie! I'm graduating this December.

Anyway, I came to ask about what I can do to help along my FAC. Illinois (album) is currently nominated (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Illinois (album)/archive3) for its third time. I apologize for the trouble this may be to the FAC process, I'm a FAC newbie unfortunately. I just wanted to see if there is anything further I can do at this point to keep it from being closed as stale. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 19:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Howdy and gig 'em (and congrats on the impending graduation)! You might want to look through other music-related FACs and see who reviewed those, then leave a neutral message asking those reviewers to take a look at this one. You can also leave notices at the appropriate wikiprojects, alerting them that the FAC is open. We give a little more leeway to articles nominated for the 2nd or 3rd time, provided there hasn't been a lot of negative feedback at the current nomination. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the tips, hopefully it will attract some more reviewers. Jujutacular ^talk 20:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank You!

Thanks for promoting Andrew Johnston (singer) to FA! The article was a pleasure to read, it was well-written, and I'm thrilled to see it passed! Thank you again! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Handbook of Texas online template

Original of this posting is on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), with a copy on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas I don't see a lot of action on the WikiProject Texas talk page, so I'm duplicating the posting here. Maybe some action needs to be taken, but I'm unsure by whom.

Please be advised that Template:Handbook of Texas may need to be revised shortly, due to a new TSHA website going online TSHA. I noticed today they were "testing" and links were re-directed to a new Texas State Historical Association page, but only pointed the user to an additional link to click. It did not automatically roll over to the correct page. As of this posting, it's temporarily back the way it's always been.

Maile66 (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As of this posting, the new TSHA website is up and running. They suggest users re-bookmark. If you look at the address bar in how it changed, it's like this Re-direct page to this New link. I'm not sure if there is a quick template fix on this, as how it changed is the right-hand end of the address line. But it will affect all Wikipedia articles that have used this template. And possibly affect any new articles using the template.

Maile66 (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ick, ick, ick, ick. Thank you for letting me know. I don't know why they have the urge to redo their links every 18 months or so. Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger ^talk 05:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Petitcodiac River

Hey, I'd like to thank you again for reviewing this article last month at FAC, and I would like to inform you that I've addressed your concerns and re-nominated it. I would highly appreciate if you gave final remarks at the new nomination, as you were quite helpful the last time around. Thanks! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Cabral FAC image review

I may be wrong, but the last Cabral image review is starting to feel like an impasse (maybe that's just frustration, though). As it is an editor's job to provide support for his/her edits, I don't know if it is expected of me, as one of the noms, to recruit other image reviews. I've tried to respond to the points made, though perhaps not as clearly or precisely as required. If other input is needed, I don't know of anyone experienced in reviewing images to ask, so I'll have to sit back and watch this portion of the process. If I should be trying to get more people to comment, let me know.

It would be sad to see images blanked, but if removal is what is required to resolve this, even though I believe it would be without basis, I'm not going to curl up and die if someone goes ahead and deletes images from the article. I'm going to cc the co-nom and SandyGeorgia and step back from this particular issue. As I said, it's probably best for me to just watch how this plays out and try to trick my aged neurons into learning something. • Astynax ^talk 06:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just finished reading through this again, and it is the image issues that are holding this nomination up. User:Elcobbola and User:Black Kite are also image experts; perhaps one of them could be persuaded to weigh in and provide a second opinion, so that you know whether to remove the images or not? Karanacs (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Elcobbola has been asked, and I'll also ask Black Kite. • Astynax ^talk 23:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ronald Skirth FAC

Hello, I see you have posted a closing note on the FAC page for Ronald Skirth. As I have mentioned there, I can resolve the main objections (no page refs and primary vs secondary source) in a couple of days. Can I then renominate? Or is there any way to hold fire while I amend the page? What happens then? Many thanks for your help. Dwab3 (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a talk page stalker here making a comment. Usually if a nominated article attracts concerns or oppose !votes over sourcing in the first day or so, the nomination gets closed. FAC guidelines say that once a nomination is archived, the nominator has to wait 2 weeks before nominating any article again, unless an exception is granted. Take these two weeks to address the concerns mentioned in the review. Do additional research with additional secondary sources and work on the various formatting concerns. Feel free to take the article to peer review for further comments. Once that's all done, and at least the two weeks have passed, then you can renominate the article at FAC. Good luck! Imzadi 1979 → 15:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would echo the comment about peer review—it will be an immensely helpful step for this article, which is deficient in several key areas. --Andy Walsh (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have put it up for peer review, and have also made changes based on the FAC feedback. Dwab3 (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Good news or bad news, not sure, you decide

In the wake of the weekend's TFA mess and the subsequent shit throwing I'd pretty much decided to stay away from FAC, but I'm feeling a lot more relaxed now about some of the dishonest nonsense that's been spouted, so I'm going to continue reviewing and copyediting (in the sense that I mean copyediting, looking at the prose) whether others like it or not. No matter what anyone says or does this kind of thing is going to happen from time to time, and to suggest that every editor has to check through the complete article history and have all of the sources available before touching an article is quite simply insane. I've considered the argument that polishing the prose without regard to the sources is "a bad thing" because it masks copyright violations or plagiarism and I've come to the conclusion that it's morally and intellectually bankrupt, like its proposer. So there. Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Mal, I think you've had a breakthrough ;) Do what you think is right, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about it, because you stayed true to your own moral code and continued doing something you enjoy (I hope). It's something everyone should do, and most people have trouble with. In this particular case, there is room at FAC for multiple opinions about how things "should" work, and I've got a pretty good idea of how each regular reviewer approaches their reviews. Karanacs (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Story of Miss Moppet

On, thank you for passing the article to FA! I can't believe it! I'm absolutely thrilled and delighted! It is so very very encouraging to receive such an award. It makes me want to do better and better. I'm breathless! But I have one favor to ask of you. Please send a star on this to Ruhrfisch as well. He was such a strong, calm presence throughout the process. He wrote some material and suggested the section on Reprints and translations. I feel he had a hand in bringing this to FA level and I would be very pleased if he received a star! Thank you, Karanacs, and I cannot tell you how very happy you've made me! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank YOU, Susanne, for writing such a wonderful article. You can edit the FAC nomination to add Ruhrfisch as a conominator, and then he'll be given credit at WP:WBFAN too. I hope to see you at FAC again :) Karanacs (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Roger Waters

I lost my cool at RW and now SG has closed the FAC based on some edits I made to one of SV's FAs. Is this close appropriate? — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not wish to be involved in the closing, as I had left comments on the article previously. I will concur that your behavior toward SlimVirgin was unacceptable (and SV and Sandy can by no means be considered friends). Please note that promotion is not dependent on whether the number of supports is greater than the number of comments/opposes. Karanacs (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What does promotion depend on? I had 6 supports and one oppose. Plus, the comment toward SV was not anti-semitic, and SG should be ashmamed of herself for suggesting I am an anti-semite. My grandmother fled Poland in 1939, being a Jew herself, she lost most of her family to the death camps. — GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I let you down: twice

My sincere apologies, Karen. I did not read FAC this weekend, or last. Last weekend, as you know, other events eclipsed my time to read FAC. This weekend, each time I sat down to read FAC, another event came up. And I dread reading through, to see if reviewers are now, finally, checking sources beyond the Yoeman/woman work done by Brian and Ealdgyth. I don't want to read through now, because of our previous agreement that you do Monday thru Wednesday, and I don't want to get in your way. Let me know how we can divide the work this week so there is less of a burden on you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to read through this weekend; I thought you were still dealing with other things. I meant to run through last night but decided to do actual work (the paying kind) instead. It's good to see you back on wiki at your regular level again :) Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am still dealing with other things (and owe lots of people thanks), so I chip away at other Wiki work while I'm concerned I don't have the focus needed at FAC, and now that we have another thing to watch for. I did just glance through, and found many instances of reviewers specifically addressing sourcing and plagiarism, so I'm proud of the troops! I also found templates had crept in again in our absence :) Let me know if you want me to help out this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/archive2

Closed? Why was this closed? If I understand your edit notice, there are three reasons: actionable objections have not been resolved, consensus for promotion has not been reached, and insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. The latter two are clearly not the case--did you close this based on the use of the abbr tag? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Justin - I'm not Karan but I think I might be able to help answer your question. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "the latter two are clearly not the case". It was mostly likely that Karan closed based on the second - consensus for promotion has not been reached. The nomination had been open for over three weeks (well prepared articles commonly move through FAC in a week, many in two) and there was no consensus for promotion. In fact, while a few people had commented, no one had explicitely said that they believed the article should be promoted. FACs are never promoted with less than three "support" declarations, most have more than that - up to a dozen or more in some cases. Take a couple of weeks, maybe take the article through a peer review, ask some other editors in the same area to look it over, and then bring it back to FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

True I completely misread that--as though you have to have consensus to not promote it. Hm. Well, I guess I'll go to it again. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't get discouraged by not getting FA the first time, Koa. FAC delegates often have to archive nominations simply so the page doesn't get crushed by nominations. I was interested in offering my own review, but simply didn't have time to get to it in the FAC timeframe. I'll pop by sometime soon to give my own comments on the talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)