User talk:Karanacs/Archive 12

WALL-E review
Can you review WALL-E for me Karanacs? Secret Saturdays (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I love that movie. I can't guarantee I'll be able to do a review, as I'm one of the delegates and it's also my responsibility to close some FACs.  If it gets down toward the bottom of the list I will definitely take a look as a reviewer. Karanacs (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statement
I know I am CoI from actually editing the page or really having anything to do with it, but your statement at the Catholic Church page bothered me - "idea that the Catholic Church views women as inferior". As an individual who knows Catholic dogma and works in it enough that I am unable to edit any pages relating to the Church because of my position, I find it a little troubling that you would say such a thing. It is historically ironic that the same people who make the claim above tended to be those who state that the Church worshiped Mary. You cite quite a bit, but ignore that the Catholic Church were the first ones to stand up against divorce that was skewed horribly against women, that they allowed women some kind of power, and that there were female saints along with male saints which verified the sacredness of the females. The role of the Magnificat and the Hail Mary are also ignored because of a skewed approach to the sources. They also overturned many superstitions and rituals among Jews and Gentiles that were horribly skewed against women. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ottava. I have no intention of getting into my personal beliefs (although I will repeat what I've told NancyHeise before - I was raised jointly in the Catholic and Methodist churches, married in a Catholic mass, have attended mass at St. Peter's Basilica, and every member of my extended family is either Catholic, Methodist, or Greek Orthodox, which gives me an interesting perspecive on religion), as neither mine nor yours are relevant.  There are a significant number of scholars of the medieval period who blame the church's attitudes about women for the way society treated them (in many cases, essentially making women property).  There are a signfiicant number of scholars who feel that the church's stance against divorce is actively harming women today.  I've seen scholarly research about the church's canonization of women that point out the small number of female saints and attribute some of the elevations to political motives.  I've seen a lot of scholarly research about the church's attitudes towards women being responsibile for the witchcraft scares (and the executions of thousands of women) in the 17th and 18th centuries. It does not matter whether or not we believe these scholars; the key point is that this is not a fringe viewpoint, and as such it must be at least mentioned in the article.  We cannot quote sources we agree with and ignore those we dislike. Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can point out thousands of scholars that claim the opposite of most of your statements. And the "witchcraft" scares always dealt with -males- first and foremost, and the most amount of people that were burned for heresy and witchcraft were males. Need I have to dwell, or would a simple nod to groups like the Knights Templar and their destruction be enough to establish this. The view point is not fringe, but it is also not mainstream nor common. For years, it was taught by Protestants that Catholics believed that 1. the world was flat and 2. the world had an edge, even though Catholics followed the Ptolemaic model of a round earth. This is an encyclopedia article and should deal with facts, not propaganda on sides in order to further an agenda. I worry greatly when someone starts throwing out broad claims that were used in many, many propaganda pamphlets. After all, Jews have been claimed to do all sorts of things from being in league with the devil to robbing poor beggars. Should we include that as fact on an article about Judaism? I would hope not. But as I said, my job keeps me unable to have anything to do directly with that page so I can't really do anything about what goes on there. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you forgot - my occupation involves me combating anti-Catholic propaganda by groups such as the Watchtower and other entities that go around spreading lies about the Church. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a very large difference between propaganda pamphlets and the writings of modern historians and social scientists. Karanacs (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The statements about Columbus and the flat earth were held in most text books until the 80s. There is no difference between propaganda pamphlets and bias in "historians" works. The claims about the treatment of women is speculation and always will be speculation. Speculation allows for the introduction of bias. No one here lived back then. No one here could document ever facet of society. The only thing that can be known are inferred. And Karanacs, I am honestly surprised that you make it seem like historians would be objective. Look at Irish history sometime, or Israeli history, or any other controversial area. Look at the difference between Marxist theory based historians and non. Look at the difference between Feminist based historians and non. Bias is extremely rampant in academia and always will be. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, historians have biases (we can also look at Catholic historians vs non-Catholic historians). However, on this project we are not to judge the "truth" of their work but instead survey what the prevailing opinions are, and make sure that those prevailing opinions are included. Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But then that gets into the issue of Weight. In terms of Coverage, claims about there being a Catholic bias against women are balanced by defenses against such claims, and both are an extreme minority of reports and information on the Church. This would be appropriate for a page devoted to claims of bias against women by the Church, but on the main page of the Church it really seems to be giving way too much to the claims with little statement that they are well defended against by the Church. NPOV and Weight are very key here. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, NPOV is extremely important; it means that we cannot completely ignore viewpoints we disagree with. Your own bias is showing here. Karanacs (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As I stated, the view point would also need to be pointed out as a view point with there existing an equally opposite view point, and elaboration would fail WP:WEIGHT. And, Karanacs, I began by stating that I am far too biased to edit the page or have any direct input on it. I am just here to express frustration on what appears to be a completely one sided matter that ignores thousands of defenders that claim that the criticism is rubbish. I would prefer Wikipedia to not pick a side as the article seems to be doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have some ideas for how to present the cultural influence section much more neutrally. I'll let my thoughts percolate for another few hours and post a proposal on the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

An Epic directed by David O. Selznik with a cast of thousands!!!
And sorry for my deplorable review. I'm embarrassed. --Moni3 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And I appreciate any review, even if it is only on a few sentences or a few sections.  Any little bit can help the article improve. Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the best section header I have ever seen. Awadewit (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
Do I have to keep arguing this ideological point? The AFD consensus was that these forks are not new concepts or OR at all. Else using a general biog on JFK to write about his election campaign would be OR, as far as I can see.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles have survived AfD; I'm not giving much weight to those objections. Karanacs (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

4 Minutes
Thanks for promoting "4 Minutes" to FA. You will see more quality articles from me, in the coming days. :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent! It's always nice to see nominators come back for another try :) Karanacs (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Marshalsea
Thank you. :) SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto ! (Glad I didn't have to sort through it when I'm still trying to catch up from travel :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant to review it thoroughly last week, but real-life deadlines mean that one and a few others got left for a bit longer than they might othewise have been. Hopefully next week real-life will go back to being nice and calm :) Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe for you it will :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie
Hi Karen,

first of all I want to congratulate you on your new born baby, you must be exhausted!

Anyway, a former featured article for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie, one archive User:SandyGeorgia did not promote and you didn't for the second achieve.

I know you are probably very busy between your offspring(s) in addition to Wikipedia articles, but if you get the chance would you mind doing a quick scan through the film article and fixing up on a few things that you could spot, and make any request over at WP:Peer review where I recently posted the article there.

Also, I put the Peer review tag on the talk page and I think I did something wrong, I was wondering if you could fix it while you are at it too.

Thanx and enjoy the weekend!

ATC. Talk 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ATC, for your kind wishes :) Unfortunately, right now my list of to-dos is pretty long and I'm behind on reviewing. I don't think I will be able to review this.  You might check the list of movie-related featured articles and see if any of the authors of those would be able to review for you.  Karanacs (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanx anyway though. I will look there. Enjoy the long week ahead! ATC . Talk 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Madonna BLP
Hi Karancs. Do you really have a dog that thinks like a person? That's awesome! i don't know whether you remember me, but you recently helped promote the article "4 Minutes" to FA. I saw that you love being involved in the BLP wikiproject. Hence I thought of asking your expertise on the Madonna BLP. I believe it has reached the potential to be a FA in Wikipedia and is the best example of how a biography can be structured, devoid of the personal life tabloids and fancrufts. Would you take a look and iterate any misgivings that you see? Kindly --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, right now my list of to-dos is pretty long and I'm behind on reviewing. I don't think I will be able to review this.  Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. No problemo! 04:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re User_talk:Mattisse
Hi, Karanacs. Since we should not further clutter up User_talk:Mattisse, I thought it better to respond here. Unitanode has, as far I can see, had no interaction with Mattisse until the last couple of weeks or so, and then only at Mattisse's monitoring page and now at her Talk page. That's interesting. Unitanode's recent comment at User_talk:Mattisse was too vague to serve any constructive purpose. I pointed that out and supported Mattisse's suggestion that further discussion of Mattisse's conduct should be placed at the monitoring page. In short, I was trying to stop the bickering that was already going on. --Philcha (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not matter whether the user commenting on Mattisse's behavior has any history of interaction with her or not; in fact, a user without such history should be taken more seriously by Mattisse, as she would have no reason to believe that user was part of any conspiracy against her. You, on the other hand, have a history of supporting Mattisse and attacking the motives of any user who posts about her conduct (and you have done so here, in a more subtle manner).  I am disappointed in your mentorship tactics. Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Philcha, Mattisse's mentorship would probably be of greater benefit to her and to Wiki if you would resign. If you're not willing to do that, then please at least stop bothering other well intentioned, busy and perceptive editors with your unique way of viewing situations.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandy, your comment is extremely unhelpful especially when the person in question has been a very close and old friend of a handful of people Mattisse has had problems with, and that user has been very active against John Carter during and after an RfC filed against one of the parties of the same group. The individual is not neutral and is inflaming the situation. Karanacs, as witness to many of the events, should have known it and I am confused as to why she did not point it out. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone is bringing forth a valid complaint, then I don't care WHO they are or what their background is. If the objective of this mentorship is to help Mattisse learn how to self-regulate, then all complaints should be evaluated on their content, not on the contributor. Focusing instead on the complainant is a great way to perpetuate the battleground mentality and confuse Mattisse further. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If that "valid" complaint is in conjunction with a later negative pattern that seeks to cause stress, then that "valid" complaint would better be served by a neutral party. The kindness of a devil can cause the most harm is a very true expression. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrapping Mattisse in a bubble of friendly editors is not productive. Attacking the messenger is not a valid form of dispute resolution and sends the wrong message.  Karanacs (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Mattisse is -not- my friend. She has done nothing but attack me for over a year and criticize my articles. I am not some friendly editor of hers, and she has put forth statements that makes it rather obvious that she feels that I am mean and I don't treat her properly. So, please take that into consideration when I make this comments. Furthermore, having people who long histories of being negative are just as bad as having people who have long histories of being positive. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How have I become a focus of these discussions? My first interaction with Mattisse was, if memory serves, when I noticed a post she made on SV's talkpage. How does this make me an "old friend" of SlimVirgin, Bishonen, Giano, or whoever else? I concur with SG's suggestion above regarding Philcha continuing as a "mentor" or Mattisse. Unit  Anode  21:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your name was not mentioned, but your responding in such a manner does reveal that perhaps your intentions should be held to scrutiny along with your relationship. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unitanode, you might as well give up. It's like talking to a brick wall right now. Karanacs (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is, a bit. I've reviewed both the reports I've made there, and all interactions I've ever had with Mattisse, and I just don't get the bad-faith assumptions that Carter, Philcha, and Ottava Rima have been making about me. (Actually, I get Ottava's a bit, since I actively opposed an inappropriate RFC/U he opened. The others, I really don't understand.) Unit  Anode  15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Philcha's done this to everyone who has questioned Mattisse's behavior. I read through the conversations again and I don't understand John Carter at the moment; he is usually one of the more level-headed mentors and I can't quite figure out where the misinterpretation is coming from. Ottava is .... Ottava.  Don't let it get to you.  It's probably best to disengage right now.  Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think of is that he's believing Mattisse' angry accusations that my moving the clutter on that main page to the talkpage (per what I thought was her request) was somehow disruptive and had ulterior motives. I also challenged his bringing up Giano's name, which I thought wasn't helpful, so maybe that has something to do with it. Who knows? I think it's more than a little ironic that the move I made that was so excoriated by Mattisse, Carter, and Philcha has now been reinstated. Good luck, there. I've completely disengaged from posting to that page, as it seems a bit of a lion's den right now. And I just noticed that Moni had to protect the page. Wow. Unit  Anode  15:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unitanode, you may as well disengage now, rather than beat your head against the wall. Perhaps you can get out a stopwatch, though, to see when a mentor actually shows up and begins to sort the mess created in their absence :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I had popcorn handy - this is turning into quite a circus. So much for mentorship helping to quell disruption. Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My opinion? What a cluster-fuck. And that's that. Thank the gods that I just replied calmly to the comments at WT:FAC and left it at that, didn't try to contact the mentors or anything. It's pretty clear the mentorship isn't working, although why it isn't is not the result of any one editor. Is it really that hard to just get along with folks??? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My one attempt at acting as a mentor didn't work out so well either. I think Moni was right to open the request for clarification; without a very clearly defined scope and structure I don't think mentorship will work..  That, and you need mentor(s) who clearly understand the problem and know how to deal with it as well as a mentee who is open to change.  If any of those elements is fuzzy, we just create more drama. Karanacs (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Forget the cookies; pass the prozac :) I do have a successful mentorship under my belt, and it worked precisely because I did the helping and advising, while an admin did the necessary blocking to get the message across.  ATC is doing fine today :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw her article at FAC and was impressed with how she handled the nomination and the archival. Good job to both of you :) Karanacs (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It took round-the-clock work for a month or two ... something that other mentors might need to take notice of; of course, that was before I had FAC duties, and there's no way I could devote that kind of time now. But that was an issue I foresaw in the current case.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I find it odd how you can say that your time as my mentor didn't work out so well - I stopped edit warring and I stopped getting blocked. However, as many people know, my previous blocks were extremely iffy, so, it could have been just a coincidence. Regardless, was that really appropriate? These are things that you chastise Mattisse about. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You essentially fired me, so I thought you didn't think it was that useful either. I've also noticed the last few weeks that there are very similar ANI threads (including calls for mentorship) about you as there were before I became your mentor.  I don't think I was a very good mentor, and I don't plan to volunteer for such a task again.  Karanacs (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and this time around they lacked a sock puppet to cheer them on to pass any actions. But regardless, the mentorship ended when someone made a comment on my talk page and I responded that I don't think of people on Wikipedia as my friends, which upsetted Ceoil enough that he removed his name from the mentorship, effectively ending the whole thing. Regardless, I can have you talk to some well respected people that can explain to you the corruption that went into the attacks against me if you want, and how the whole thing was bs to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're walking a very fine line, here, Rima. "Corruption" is quite a serious accusation. U  A  17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how ArbCom already ruled that there was abuse, your statement reveals ignorance. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how you tried to open an RFC about this very thing, and couldn't even get it properly certified, perhaps accusing me of "ignorance" about the matter isn't your best course of action here. And I know that obliquely alluding to "corruption" isn't your best course of action. U  A  22:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lets be blunt. You started in March. Your editing style has been that of a user who knows what they were doing from the beginning, and you involved yourself early on in high profile cases. In particular, you involved yourself with matters surrounding Bishonen and WMC, issues having a rather blatant meeting point. Your insinuations above are inappropriate, as Geogre was desysopped for using a sock puppet in incidents such as trying to push for my blocks, and other matters which resulted in half of my block log. Now this is Karanacs talk page. If she has a problem with my comments, she can address me. She, unlike you, is an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your above post is so wildly out-of-bounds, that there's no way for me to respond without being uncivil to you, which I won't do. My first post to you in this thread was just to let you know that using phrases like "a sockpuppet to cheer them on" and "corruption that went into the attacks against me" was walking a fine line. In retrospect, even that is well over the line. I will say this final thing to you: your "bluntness", and the associated insinuations about me are completely unfounded, and if you insist on repeating them, you'll find yourself at either an RFC or Arbcom very shortly. You do not intimidate me. U  A  23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What Unitanode claims "My first post to you in this thread was just to let you know that using phrases like ... was walking a fine line". "Following an investigation, it has become apparent that Geogre has intentionally or carelessly used this account on a number of occasions for purposes not permitted under the sock puppetry policy, namely to create or contribute to a false impression of consensus". Over the line? Then please, file a complaint against ArbCom. Your defense of him is really interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nowhere do I mention his name, nor do I defend his sockpuppetry. My initial post to you here was simply to let you know that accusing people of "corruption" (especially given that the RFC you attempted to open on that basis wasn't even certifiable) isn't advisable. You've taken it down these other roads. U  A  00:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't happen to be the RFC that you were edit warring during, lodging inappropriate personal attacks, and attacked John Carter, then happened to pursue Mattisse after John Carter was involved there in what appears to be a direct violation of WP:HARASS, now would it? I find it interesting that you would bring up that RfC, act as if not being certified meant that the actions were not real, and then try to claim that I was not referring to Geogre before when Karanacs would have known that I was. For someone who is brand new, your enthusiasm on the matter sure is interesting. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So now you're going to lie about me? I didn't edit war there, never "attacked" John Carter there, and haven't "harassed" anyone. You need to stop this nonsense now. You're completely out of control. U [[User talk:Unitanode|A ]] 02:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can call me a liar all you want. However, Karanacs can see that John Carter had to resort to protecting his own page to get you to stop your aggressiveness. "and little more than an excuse for Ottava to take out his anger on Bishonen" is an unfounded personal attack that was asked for proof which you refused to provide. Why is it that you think your actions are appropriate? And what do you think they are proving when this is a page of someone who I have dealt with for quite a long time and who knows me far more than you know either of us? What do you think your eagerness at the Bishonen related matters, which directly ties in with the Mattisse matters, and the pursuit of John Carter for both, is really accomplishing? Checking from your contribs, you have edit warred quite a bit over the 6 months you've been here, lodged many personal attacks, false accusations, and made claims that were very inappropriate. It is an interesting course of behavior, especially when you started acting like you had a long history of involvement in matters that you were only around for 2 months at the time. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are lying. Pointing that out isn't out of bounds at all. Carter was chastised for protecting his page, as no one at ANI thought it was appropriate. Checking my contribs, I don't edit war, unless you count reverting the edits of an indef-blocked sockmaster. Checking my block log, it's clean, so quit making things up. You're either going to stop accusing me of things I didn't do, or you're going to find yourself at ANI again. I'm about finished taking all your insinuations and implications. I'll ask you one last time: please stop. U  A  02:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Being chastised for using ops does not mean that there was no reason to use the ops. His only problem was not having someone else do the page protect that was rather warranted. Also warranted would have been a block for your over aggressiveness and attacks on him during the week with him asking you four times to stop. Your aggressiveness is a major problem. Your enthusiasm for topics you were not previously involved in makes no sense. There is no reason emotionally or rationally for you to be as involved as you appear to be. And a clean block log does not mean that you did not break various policies. You were asked multiple times by people to stop and yet you keep going on and on. Why is that? I find that a large portion of my time recently was devoted to a 10 part DYK, fixing two GANs, and prepping a new page for FAC. I also have a 11 part DYK that I am working on now. And yet I have a lot of history and involvement with the case. You appear to have no direct reason to be involved from your contribs, yet you are showing up everywhere and acting as if you are extremely involved. That really does seem odd. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't imply that working on content gives you the right to make implications and insinuations about people. I'm not friends with Bishonen, Geogre, Giano, or anyone else you've battled with in the past. I've seen their writing and respect it, but that's about it. I have no previous history with Mattisse, and I've made it clear that I just happened to see her post on a page I watched. As for you, your disputes are rather noisy, and no, I don't have any previous experience with you either. I've simply allowed myself to get dragged FAR too much into this absurd discussion with you. I'm finished with it, and if you post even one more insinuation that I'm lying, we'll take it to ANI. I'm finished taking this from you. U  A  02:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * " you've battled with in the past" And yet you make personal attacks, edit warred, and went after people in their defense in a manner that is rather interesting. Why defend them to such a level that would easily have gotten you block if there is no relationship? And what would you know about a "battle" especially since you started in this March? And who said anything about my content work giving me the right to do anything. It was obviously a statement that I, as an involved user, is only devoting about 10% of my time to the case where you, someone with no visible relationship to the matter, is devoting 90% of your time to it. Your devotion to the topic sure suggests someone who was seriously connected to the matter. It is an odd thing for someone who appears to have started in March with no previous relationship to the cases nor any visible interest in the area that would have brought you a connection to the matter. Why is that? Is it just a coincidence that you stumbled onto a matter that would seem unlikely for you to randomly happen on, started speaking as if you knew of the history, started making attacks about said history, and acted as if there was a serious personal connection to the matter when your contribs would suggest that there wasn't? And then why continue it onto another matter in which would seem to a new person to have no connection yet had a major connection? And why would those two matters be the only two things you are operating on, which would suggest that there wasn't a coincidence? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for all this, Karanacs. I just couldn't seem to let Rima's attacks here slide. Feel free to transplant our exchange here to my talkpage, if you wish. U A  23:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Aggie Bonfire for TFA
I was reading through the Aggie Bonfire talk page archives to see if there would be anyone in there interested putting Aggie Bonfire up for request as a featured article on the 10-year anniversary. If you are interested, I'm trying to build a bit of a coalition before the time for nominations opens up: User:BQZip01/TFA request; add your signature if interested. — BQZip01 — talk 20:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was already TFA on December 22, 2007. We won't be able to get it on again. Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Other articles have appeared more than once, and I'm hoping for an exception. No harm in trying. Do you support such an exception? — BQZip01 —  talk 20:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. The only exception that I know of was Barack Obama, and the second time it was paired with McCain, which had not previously appeared.  That was an extraordinary situation; the 10th anniversary of a tragedy that really only affected a small group of people doesn't measure up to that.  (I will, of course, be observing the date at home.) Karanacs (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for butting in here) I came to your talk page by clicking through links from some of the Mattisse mess and thought to myself that you seem like a sane person with a level head on your shoulders. Then I got to this section and found out you are an Aggie!  Yikes!  In my experience Aggies are just a little too full of themselves.  What happened to you to turn you into a "normal" person? ;-) Tex (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At least we don't have a horse bottom pointed at your school ;) Is it the constant wind and pure desolation surrounding Lubbock that cause Red Raiders to be so...interesting? Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all that wind and lack of trees builds character! Ever hear our coach talk about pirates and such?  'Course there are characters all over our great state.  I once flew from Dallas to College Station in the row behind R.C. Slocum and Bum Phillips on one of those little puddle jumpers.  Slocum couldn't get a word in, but Phillips was a riot.  Anyway, it's nice to meet you.  Hope to see you around.  Tex (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline AfD
Hello, in relation to the Outline of Louisiana etc. AfD, you may want to read the pages at WP:WPOOK, the page at WP:OUTLINES and the recent discussions here and here. Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your interest. I am well aware of all of those pages and have read most of the linked discussions. I do not believe that outlines belong in mainspace, and their implementation thus far has done nothing except make me more concerned. Karanacs (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK sorry, didn't recognise you from the many discussions. Highfields (talk, contribs) 21:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Michele W.D.
Sorry about what happened concerning this page I didn't know, not sure if you had read my note on the talk page when I put in to contest the delete of the page, hope you did. I would like to try and re-write her page after I finish up with what I'm currently working on now, could be a couple of weeks it's my first edit attempt. I'll try to collect what is needed for the re-write and do the work in my sand box and if it's o.k. with you, will come ask for your approval on the page, it will be my first so it should be a good experience for me and I'll probably learn alot during the process. I would also like to say these two books are we'll worth reading if you can find them, The Fisherman's Lady and The Marquis' Secret by George MacDonald 1875 a couple of my favorite. If not you might find at least one of them here, http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/l See ya around I guess, do they say that here... John Francis Tinkermen (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * cross-posted on Tinkermen's talk page There's no need to be sorry! My first article was deleted, too - there are a lot of rules here, but once you learn them editing can be a lot of fun.  I'd be happy to look at any draft when you are done, just let me know on my talk page. Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Aw...
I can't post humor?! Awadewit (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry!!!!!! I was trying to view the page in my watchlist and I think I accidentally hit rollback. I am going to be logging off now until my eyes stop being tired and I can see what I am doing.  I'm so sorry!! Karanacs (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Whew! That's happened to me too many times ... that rollback button is dangerous!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Give that pretty bauble back, nobody needs rollback. I'm proud to have absolutely no "rights" at all on this project. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So if I make you a rollbacker, you'll quit, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been a rollbacker and had to ask for it to be removed several times now. It's a matter of principle for me. If you made me a rollbacker again I'd have to ask for your desysoping. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on, MF, that little button can be a real timesaver; why cut off your nose to spite your face? :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite simple. Twinkle is far easier to use and better. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Poke
Karanacs, please review your e-mail before you go away for the weekend. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we had company last night. Will do so late tonight, unless I can figure out how to access that email account from where I am. Karanacs (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

invitation
Can you please come here and discuss. Thanks.  Nancy Heise    talk  06:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tags
This was an edit conflict between you and me. I was attempting to see if the two editors will revert the specific tags; on the other hand, the whole article is disputable, and the general tags are probably a justified warning to the reader; I may well revert myself in a short time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Catholic Church
Ah! I hadn't realized you were an admin, too. I tend to shy away from protecting a page based on a dispute that I am actively involved in. You've been less involved in this particular one so I guess it's more acceptable for you to use your admin tools than it would have been for me to do so.

I think it would be useful for you to leave a note at Talk:Catholic Church explaining why you protected the page and then offer to lift the protection if editors will avoid edit-warring. Perhaps a comment that an editor can be guilty of edit-warring without actually violating WP:3RR. Sorry! Never mind. I missed the fact that you had done this in the middle of a section on Talk:Catholic Church. I had expected a separate section at the bottom of the Talk Page.

Then, please lift the protection sometime in the next 24 hours. I think we are making slow bug substantial progress towards resolving the disputes. It would be a lot harder if everything had to be done via tags.

Thanx.

--Richard (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably should have started a new section, but it made sense to me to put the notice in the section that was already discussing the tagging. The protection should be over now; I thought 6 hours would be enough for everyone to cool off a little. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping
Karanacs, I sent you an e-mail; please ping me on WIki if you're around at 23:30. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen the email yet, but I'll do my best to be online then. Karanacs (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, no longer needed, go bake cookies and enjoy your family! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unenviable job
I don't envy you and SandyG in having to close FACs like Mandell Creighton's. Whatever you decide is likely going to upset someone. Like me for instance, because you archived it. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * These are the days I need cookies or brownies. Maybe I'll bake tonight.... Karanacs (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have scotch? Cookies are fattening ... and if I come over, I'll drink up! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't drink (I prefer to get my extra calories through sugar), but I think hubby has rum... will that do? Karanacs (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A Cuba Libre (otherwise known as Una Mentira) will do ! (For those who don't speak Spanish, a reference to Free Cuba being A Lie :)  Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Never the less, a curious decision! Giano (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good grief, with the typos in that post, people will start to think I do drink! (Not.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the harm if you do? I only stay off of Wikipedia when the walls start melting. --Moni3 (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, when I've been out for the evening, I usually say so :) My typos, unfortunately, occur at all times, but mostly before caffeine ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Out for the evening"? Is that your euphemism for shitfaced? That's my euphemism for "I've been away from the computer". My normal typing and language is pretty much the same no matter what I've been ingesting. I'm perhaps a bit more sarcastic when singing Ray Charles. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Out for the evening" means I don't drink alone and I have wine with dinner when I go out :) My current euphemism is "Damn Diet"; don't ask! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German border image issue
Thanks for the message on my talk page! The last issue raised by Awadewit has been resolved, it now just needs someone to add an OTRS ticket number to File:Helmut kleinert memorial.jpg. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please check your mail... -- ChrisO (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Karen, I got fairly involved at Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1, so you can take it on? Since they're working against a mainpage deadline, you might want to look in before next Tuesday. There is an outstanding OTRS issue, that ElCobbola and Awadewit are working on. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm watching that; as soon as ElCobbola and Awadewit are happy I'll deal with it. And sorry, Chris, I can't check email until later tonight. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting out the closure. Don't worry about the email now - it was just a confirmation of the OTRS permission, which ElC has sorted out. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a wonderful article, ChrisO - you did a fantastic job! Karanacs (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks, Julian! I had no idea that was going to be on the main page today or I would have cleaned it up a little more. Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Peer review: Free State of Galveston
Hello again,

I recently created a new article Free State of Galveston. I put out a peer review request and, since you are a history buff, I thought you might be interested.

Anyway, if you are, feel free to take a look.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite. I will take a look this week. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm a bit behind this week due to real-life deadlines and a crisis of conscience over the latest drama. I'll still try to get to this over the weekend or Monday. Karanacs (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Review left here. My sincere apologies on the delay. Karanacs (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Wanted to make sure additions were relevant
Hi. I had a short conversation with you a few weeks ago about the relevance of an entry that I made from a book that I was going through, and I wanted to ask about a revision that I just made to make sure that it was viable. I am going through the book Real Estate Damages and it has some great information about the effect of various disasters and events on real estate properties. I added a small section on the 1964 Alaska earthquake page titled Lasting Impacts. This section briefly discusses some of the impacts that the earthquake and following tsunamis had on the land values in the area. If you wouldn't mind quickly checking the page when you get a chance to make sure the addition is okay, I would appreciate it. Youknow009 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded on user talk:Youknow009 . Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Another
I'll leave Featured article candidates/Kerry slug/archive2 to you as well, since the nominator seems unsatisfied with my first closure, and a fresh set of eyes may be needed; I've left a query for. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you
''I know you aren't working on the Republic of Texas-era articles, but I thought this appropriate nonetheless. It's nice to see so many new articles created on Texas history! For a while I've been the only one...now I'm not so lonely ;) Karanacs (talk)''


 * Nice to feel appreciated. :-)
 * Thanks.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. Thanks for the review on Free State. Very thorough. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why it took so long! I've done a lot of work reviewing articles at WP:FAC, and even for more informal reviews I stick to that pattern.  You've done some great work - I enjoyed reading the article.  It's especially timely; some of my husband's now-deceased relatives often frequented the Balinese Room during its heyday, and the family ofen laments the building's destruction in Ike. Karanacs (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to start a new section, to take up room, but thanks for the barnstar. I don't know if you saw my response, but it's no big deal to me. A main page date is a main page date, assuming Illinois quake gets the 10th.  ceran  thor 19:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions: Free State of Galveston
I hope you don't mind my pestering. Can I ask for some clarifications on your feedback? Please don't feel obligated to respond if you are busy. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As a general question, since I am not a writer by profession can you offer any more specific guidance on how to improve the writing style since obviously this is a concern for you throughout the article?
 * Also, regarding citations, there are some cases where you ask for a citation on a statement that is described in the citation on a preceding sentence. Are you recommending that for any statement that could be questioned it should be cited even if it is the same citation as the sentence before?


 * There are quite a few references to Cartwright with no page numbers. This wouldn't be acceptable at FAC level (unsure about GA).
 * Can you clarify? I assume that you are talking about the Texas Monthly article (Cartwright 1993). Texas Monthly published the article online (the link is provided in the references). I don't know what the page number would be in the paper publication. My understanding is that a page number should not be necessary in this scenario.


 * The first paragraph is a good start, but it doesn't flow well to me, and the chronology is off just a little. We may need a little more detail about the history of Galveston.
 * Sorry to be dense. Can you clarify? I didn't intend this section as a whole to be strictly chronological. I was simply attempting to give a general impression of what happened in the city immediately preceding this time without being too detailed. What details would you recommend bringing out?


 * I'm not sure it is accurate to say that Galveston "began its life as part of" Lafitte's piracy. From my reading of Lafitte's biographies, I thought the island was pretty well abandoned when Lafitte was driven off.
 * I debated on what to say here. More than one source mentioned that Lafitte's legacy influenced how the island later developed. What I have read, although it is not detailed, is that the island was not completely abandoned though it was probably just a few stragglers that remained. Campbell's Bayou on the coast, for example, was established by one of his captains that did not go with him after he left. Probably, though, I should just take this out (it was more of just an interesting side note).


 * I would like some more details on the ethnic changes and why these groups chose to come to Galveston.
 * Can you clarify? I was trying to keep this section short (I'm sure I will get dinged in FA if the background becomes a large section). The only purpose in mentioning this was to point out that the Maceo's coming to the island was part of a larger demographic trend (and that trend probably made it easier for them to become established). My inclination would be rather than elaborate to just remove the statement.


 * I'd like a little more background on the two gangs. Did they form as a result of Prohibition, or did they already exist in some form before that?  Were the gangs local, or branches of more widespread businesses?
 * Honestly I have not found any details on the gangs. My impression from what I have read is that gangs were a part of the landscape since the 19th century. These two gangs definitely existed before Prohibition though it is unclear exactly how significant they were before. I have no idea where to find more details in that regard.


 * What made the arrests "fortuitous"
 * I chose that word to be terse but apparently at the expense of clarity.


 * If you can find appropriate sourcing, it would be interesting to know how much of the annual tourism industry was a result of the vice businesses.
 * I'd love to find these kinds of details too. But I would have no idea where. Such info, of course, was never officially published. Membership at the major clubs from what I gather was a closely guarded secret. And the legitimate and illegitimate tourism was closely tied (people stayed at the hotels and visited the casinos). So it is not entirely easy to separate anyway.


 * Any more info on Al Capone and Albert Anastasia?
 * Have not found any. From what I gather they never tried that hard. It seems the Maceos made clear that it would be all out war if they tried to come in and they figured the location was too remote from their core areas to want to bother (I read in one source [forgot which] that Al Capone said something like "Texas is too far from Chicago").


 * definitely need citations for "San Antonio..
 * I did provide a source. Are you saying that the source isn't good enough or that each individual sentence needs to have that same source specified?


 * "some have argued that the city ..." do we have any particulars on who has argued this? This is really vague attribution for a pretty hefty statement.
 * I provided a reference. Are you suggesting that the author of the reference should be mentioned in the prose?


 * Are there any further details on the effect of gambling legalization in Nevada? Since Galveston was essentially allowing the gambling places to run free, I wonder how big the effect was.
 * Excellent question. I really would love to know more about that. Various sources talk about an influence and that some people moved operations there but I have seen no general analysis of the degree of influence. ANICO funded a lot of development there and was probed in connection to the national mafia which suggests there was a lot of connection.
 * On the second point, the fact that Galveston was allowing gambling to run free wasn't the issue. The state cops and the government still were always an issue. At by the end of WWII things were changing in Texas so the gambling operators were finding themselves under more scrutiny (they were getting away with things mostly but the threat of individual businesses being shut down was getting more serious). Having a legal place to operate gambling (and for customers to feel safe from the police) was a big deal no matter how "open" Galveston was.


 * Any info on why Fort Crockett was shut down? Was it related to the vice stuff in any way?
 * I assume the answer to the second question is yes since the time frames coincided. But I have not seen any sources that discuss the relationship specifically or even discuss the purported reason for the shut down. I *believe* that it simply played out that all of the entertainment businesses simply crashed very quickly and there was no longer a reason to have the base (remember, Fort Crockett had become mostly an army recreation center by that time so, if the entertainment businesses were shutting down, why send soldiers there?).


 * I think the article might be organized a little awkwardly. It seems that End of an era and the Prohibition and the Maceos sections could be combined into a history section.
 * I started to organize it that way but it seemed to me more confusing to do it that way. That is, it seemed that either I should do the entire article as a strict chronology or else organize it as
 * What led up to the era
 * What the era was like
 * What happened at the end and afterward
 * In the "What the era was like" sections I didn't try to be chronological but rather topical. I can't see a way to combine the general discussion of Prohibition and "End of an era" as a section separate from everything else in a way that wouldn't make it less readable. Can you suggest a more specific article layout?


 * Thanks so much! --Mcorazao (talk)
 * copying questions to article talk page - will reply there. Karanacs (talk)

NowCommons: File:Spanish Missions in Texas.JPG
File:Spanish Missions in Texas.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Spanish Missions in Texas.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos
Hi Karanacs! Just wonder why this candidacy was archived. I (and a couple of other editors) responded to comments made by reviewers and was waiting for a response from them whether these issues had been addressed. Should I have asked these reviewers for a response? bamse (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It had been up for over two weeks without gaining consensus for promotion. The oppose for prose didn't appear to be in the process of being addressed.  I recommend that you take a few weeks to talk to the reviewers who commented and to work on the prose.  When those reviewers are satisfied, renominate the article.  Hopefully the next nomination will go more smoothly. Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advise. The oppose for prose had been addressed through a copy-edit by Truthkeeper88 which unfortunately was not mentioned on the review page. I will give it some time to rest and maybe come back to the article at a later time. bamse (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Michele W.D. Bio references
Hi I've worked very hard in trying to put together the correct references to show a reason for inclusion, I haven't put together a draft or listed any personal information at this time I'm just trying to see if I can get an o.k. to go ahead with creating the topic article and if it will probably pass this time for inclusion based upon on what I have so far. I will invite the other editors as we'll to take a look. I've created a discussion page for Michele W.D. in my sandbox where you can leave me a message.Tinkermen (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you've had the chance to come look yet but another editor already created a new Bio for her again this weekend after I left you and the othere editors a note, I hadn't invited him to the discussion not sure why that happened? Also while your looking over weather I have enough references for inclusion could you take a minute and look at the new article topic I am creating for the book Divorce Busting, it's my first article, should I make it a STUB? Is it ok as it is or do I need to make some changes? ThanksTinkermen (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the article that was created by the other user, and it looks like it meets policy, so is unlikely to be deleted. You can use some of the references you found to expand that article.  Can you provide a link for me to see your sandbox copy of "Divorce Busting"?  Then I'll try to take a look soon. Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved it to namespace Divorce Busting (I wanted to try being bold "my first article" after being here 20 some odd days doing reference research) I'll continue to work on it as I learn more and make it better. I sent you an email hope that was o.k. Tinkermen (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the assist and for letting the Bio stay, I know there is still some finish work that needs to be completed there and I'll get back to it soon. I now understand alot more about guidelines and how you made your determinations from this experience. I read your comments this evening (DB) and I will take care of the citation issues soon to, Still so much to learn it looks like, but I'm having a lot of fun during the process. I like doing this stuff, probably hooked for life now as one of my many many past times. But being an electrician I will always need back up when it comes to the grammer and spelling. I can figure stuff out but putting it into words everyone care comprehend is another thing. lol Tinkermen (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm stok'd just made my first edit "MWD" related to removing a book title that had been changed ("Fire your shrink" title was changed to "change your life" at some point) both were listed on the page and I also removed the citation that was with it, Citations are tricky business this is going to take some time to fully grasp how to do, but now I have a page to work with. Adding I bet is alittle harder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkermen (talk • contribs) 07:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep rookie mistake there ^ I see, I'll just say "OPS" instead of sorry this time. I'd sure like to here the story behind the article Francois Savoie, looks like it made it in at some point, You must not have given up to I'm guessing. The Bio you worked on Georgette Heyer is the bar I can see for how a Bio should look and feel. I'm going to need a few more references, this could take a while. Tinkermen (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This place gets addictive really fast. I'm glad you are starting to have fun - once you get over the learning curve it gets even better :) The first article I created, Francois Savoie, was on a totally distant ancestor of mine (and also of approximately the entire Cajun population in the US), but he came nowhere close to meeting the notability guidelines (I had no idea then that there were notability guidelines).  The editor who tagged it for deletion was nice to me and helped explain what I did wrong, so I decided to try again.  That was just over 3 years ago. Now I try to return that initial favor :)  I'm always willing to answer question, but sometimes I'm slow to respond if real-life or other wiki-work is taking up time (Tuesdays, for example, I spend at WP:FAC).  Lots of people watch this page, though, so you can always start a new section at the bottom, leave a question, and hope someone else answers.  Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Thanks for the kind words about Georgette Heyer - that's one of the articles I am most proud of working on. Ima Hogg was the most fun. Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Over the weekend I started working on her Bio, wow this is so cool it's unlike anything I have ever done before, trying to piece together her life's story step by step sentence by sentence with 60 something plus references and news articles and all of the information I have learned about her over the last couple of weeks. It's actually very time comsuming having to look back for the correct info in the list of references and stories I have because I have to keep going back and forth reading all of them over and over. Missing key points of info I don't have but would like to add is a bummer to. When I get this some what going in my sandbox I will ask for a review, probably a week I figure at this rate. I'm going to try adding her other books into the story-timeline as best as I can. Tinkermen (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A question
Hi, Karanacs. I don't want to be a pest, but I noticed you archived the FAC for SMS Derfflinger due to lack of reviewers. I was in the process of working with one of the reviewers over his concerns about a particular section, and I wasn't expecting the FAC to be closed when it was (I realize it's been a month, but I didn't know if these things could be bent slightly or not). There are three editors supporting it and none opposing, and the less subjective criteria (i.e., images, links, etc.) have been addressed. Is there any chance you might reconsider your closing? I'm not trying to give you a hard time or anything, I just wasn't expecting the review to be closed as it was. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously I see that the archiving has happened but the review page was still open when I went through it and gave my support earlier today; is the process too far gone for it to achieve promotion in this tranche? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an unusual situation. It is rare for a support to be entered after an FAC is closed but before the bot archive everything.  I was already torn over this article; it had been up for a long time but was very close to promotion.  Because there was some confusion among the reviewers about the close, I decided to rethink this one. I also had not seen Jackyd's latest note removing much of his concern, as I was working off an earlier version of the FAC page.  I have now reversed my decision and promoted the article.  (Note to anyone watching this conversation - this will not become a common occurrence. I repeat, this is an exception and it will not become a common occurrence.)  Please let me know if you see any issues with the steps I took to manually change the status.  Karanacs (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good (you beat the bot :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * oopsie, you didn't beat the bot, but it still looks good Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I pretended I was a bot. It's all part of my master plan to take over the world ;) Karanacs (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you can join the club that Maralia and I sponsor! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)I think I found an issue, since the article was a GA, nominally the bot would remove its listing at WP:GA and update the counters for that process accordingly. Since this was a manual promotion those steps were not completed. I'm sure it can be done manually, but the counts are a bit complicated for me to understand. -MBK004 04:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, even if it needs some tidying, your flexibility in this unusual instance makes you tops in my book, Karan (and tks Sandy for endorsing)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for looking this over again, Karanacs, I really appreciate you taking the time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is time-consuming to reverse the bot, so good for Karanacs for taking the effort! I asked Gimmetrow to look in, here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've done the appropriate GA steps now. Thank you, MBK004, for fixing some of my other mistakes.  I am not a very good pseudo-bot yet. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Joey Hamilton FAC
Being relatively unfamiliar with the FAC process, can you explain your closure of the FAC. There were no opposes, which makes it weird to me that it was closed.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 03:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I now see it was closed due to lack of reviewers, which to me seems unfair since the article may or may not meet the criteria, but it wasn't given a chance to go through the process of FAC.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 03:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Giants27. Unfortunately, we cannot promote articles to FA status unless there is consensus that it meets all the criteria, and this nomination had received no supports after 3 weeks. This usually means one of these scenarios: a) FAC reviewers were busy and none/few of them read the article or b) reviewers read the article but did not feel that it fully met the criteria but did not feel strongly enough about it to leave a comment.  If b), a lot of times a good copyedit can help engage the reviewers more.  If a), sometimes just waiting a few weeks will help the article gain better notice.  I do recommend that you have Giants2008 look at the article one more time, as he usually does a great job with sports-related articles.  I know this is frustrating - rest assured that you have done all the right things, and hopefully next time it will go more smoothly. Karanacs (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough explanation, the close now makes more sense.-- Giants 27  ( Contribs  |  WP:CFL ) 19:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Free State of Galveston
FYI: I've done some significant revisions to Free State of Galveston. If you are interested in copyediting feel free. Or if you want to wait and see what the GA review has to say about it that is fine too.

Thanks again for all your help.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A question on sock puppetry
Is it sock puppetry to create a new user account solely for the purpose of anonymously accusing another user of sock puppetry? A strange question, perhaps, but that seems to be what is going on here:     Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hee, hee. Right... a new definition of SPA... Sock Puppet Accusation! --Richard S (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a lot of experience with the sockpuppet/alternate account rules. It's possible that this could be a violation because some of the prohibitions include "don't use alternate account to stir up controversy".  It's also possible that this is an okay use - I'm just not clear.  Without some clue of who the sockpuppeter might be (I have a guess but zero proof), checkusers can't run a search to see.  It might be useful to bring this up at the administrators' noticeboard to get input from admins who actually work in the sockpuppet investigations.  That would provide documentation of further problems related to Catholic Church and may give further clarification of whether this is an accepted use of an alternate account, but likely wouldn't result in sanctions for anyone.  In the meantime, I'm going to ask at the user's talk page if they are an alternate account. Probably won't get anywhere, but worth a try. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Karen, I have some experience, think I can help. Harmakheru, if you feel the user meets WP:DUCK then report it at the spi noticeboard and ask for a checkuser, if necessary.  ceran  thor 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that this account is not a new editor. The problem is a lack of evidence to indicate the main account. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI (plural)

 * Bakshi
 * I closed 2 thru 8: I'll let you have this one. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ode
 * Brooks–Baxter
 * I closed 1 and 2: I'll let you have this one. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Slow going at FAC, after I took the morning off to pitch in at FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Update. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What an exciting weekend at FAC! Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And then there's FAR :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"
ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Upper Pine Bottom State Park FAC
Thanks for the heads up. After 3.5+ business days I have heard nothing back from the Pennsylvania Lumber Museum, so I put a copyvio tag on the high res scan on Commons and uploaded a low res, fair use justified verison here at File:Pine Creek Log Raft.jpg. Do you want me to ask Awadewit to check this asap? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * She'd already agreed on the FAC that a fair-use alternative would be okay. Thanks for going to such lengths to work out the copyright issues. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I might try asking the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission later, but don't want to hold up the FAC any longer. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs TPS
I can't locate the old post where I once analyzed all posts at WT:FAC and determined that Mattisse was dominating the page. Do you have any recollection of where I put that analysis? I can't find it in my talk archives. I also can't find the post where she mixed up GrahamColm and Colin, while attacking one of them. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember both those posts, but I don't remember when or where. Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If they're not in my talk archives, they must be in WT:FAC archives, but I don't know how to go through that amount of volume to find them. And I really thought the percentage of WT:FAC posts was on my talk page, so I'm surprised I can't find it in my archives.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found and diffed the talk page dominance-- it was one-quarter, not 40%. I haven't found the Graham/Colin mixup.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was on my talk: User talk:Maralia/Archive 6. Maralia (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Maralia; I never would have remembered when or where to look for that. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev
Your comment on my suggestion on what to do about Khrushchev at his FAC page would be welcome. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't get too involved with content issues. My general advice would be to examine individual sections to see if they could be spun off, rather than spinnong off half the article.  For example, look at Ronald Reagan - it does an excellent job of summary style, with lots of main tags for sections.  Eubulides helped quite a bit in restructuring Inner German Border - I might be worthwhile to solicit his opinion (or that of AuntieRuth55). On the other hand, if you can explain on the FAC page why the length is necessary and consensus is that the article length is okay (I don't think all the reviewers have checked back in on that yet), then we'll abide by that.   Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is fine. I'll leave notes for the reviewers who have not yet weighed in.  And I'll know better next time.  Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A belated thank you
Huge apologies for my appallingly bad manners - I just got sidetracked by stuff and never stopped to express my thanks for your barnstar of over a week ago. It was much appreciated. Warm regards, Manning (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan
Request opened by Moni3 here --Moni3 (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC
Certified; I will have limited time this week; but you may want to add the incredible wording of the poll itself, especially since there was a comment that she's done this before. (Also Nancy is genuinely a single-purpose account; I looked up her edits when Xandar was canvassing for his views on naming policy, and 64% of her mainspace edits were on Catholic Church alone.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the full text of the poll wording now, and moved the RfC to the approved section. I wouldn't necessarily describe Nancy as an SPA.  She does concentrate on Catholic Church, but she has done a lot of work on other pages related to Roman Catholicism as well (bringing 2 to FA status).  Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And if she weren't so darned obstinate and contentious, Catholic Church would FA by now and the lion's share of the credit would belong to her. Let's not forget her good qualities while trying to pick the mote out of her eye. (and yeah I know that's not what the Scriptural passage says) --Richard (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Catholic Church would FA by now and the lion's share of the credit would belong to her." Absolutely true.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The lion's share of the credit will still belong to her, even if someone else picks up the baton now. Pmanderson's charge of SPA is just ridiculous. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed again that she will still deserve the lion's share of the credit. I'm not sure the suggestion that she's an SPA is so far off.  Nor that it's necessarily a bad thing: she's been very focused.  At the same time, the fact that she's branched out somewhat, both at FAC and to some other types of articles, is I think a good thing in that it should allow her to gain some sense of perspective.  --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All I can add is that if I were in Nancy's position, which I hope I never am, like her I would not take part in the RfC; I'd walk away from the article, wishing it well. If, after a decent interval, it still wasn't up to snuff and wasn't being worked on, then I'd consider getting involved again. But sometimes you just have to walk away. Even I know that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it will. The main question is whether the article can clear the last hurdle to reach featured article status; under the current atmosphere that could take years. Karanacs (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Certified. I read through pretty much the whole thing in detail, and couldn't think of anything I'd add.  Thank you for doing such a clear and thorough job. Harmakheru (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC
I hope you don't think I derailed your RfC with Nancy. I do feel that RfCs are somewhat broken, as there is no real community forum except through them and they are overall incredibly problematic. It is strange how many of them just don't seem to take and have active participants but others are just swamped. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone is welcome to submit their opinions at an RfC, and I see nothing problematic about the view you posted. Did you do something else I haven't noticed yet? Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, its just that the RfC is dead with little interest it seems. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In case you hadn't seen this. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw it, thanks for your effort. Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Cough
2 and a half supports, no actual opposes, and three people just put comments down today which were being addressed. I'm not sure why you closed it as I will just have to relist it immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been up a long time, and three different reviewers commented that the prose needed work. Please address that concern before renominating; I will remove the nomination if it goes back up in less than 2 weeks (per the nomination instructions). Karanacs (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Three different commentators -just- commented a few hours before you closed it that prose needed work. It went 14 days without any commentary and had two and a half supports. Karanacs, I really do not want to have to go to Raul for this. You do not close FACs with 2 and a half supports and no opposes. Comments do not mean anything and that has always been the tradition. If they wanted it closed, they would have opposed. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that it is frustrating to have an article on which you worked very hard be archived. I believe that you have a misinterpretation of the FAC process. Comments are absolutely not ignored and are always included in the determination of consensus (in this and most other processes).   I would also note that there was an oppose on prose from Fowler, which you chose to ignore.  While I may not have archived the FAC with just his comments as I know the history between you two, others agreed with his points.  It would be to your advantage to attempt to work with reviewers you disagree with rather than pretend they are not there. You are welcome to fix the concerns that were raised and bring the article back to FAC in a few weeks.
 * Further, I think it quite unwise for you to make these types of comments (threats to forum-shop/get someone's access revoked because you disagree with the outcome) considering there is an open ArbCom case about this exact same behavior. Many people, including me, consider this tactic a form of bullying.  If you truly feel I've abused my responsibility, you are more than welcome to approach Raul with your concerns. It is highly unnecessary and somewhat insulting for you to first come here and basically tell me to change my decision or else. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I misinterpreted? It was there for 20 days with 2 and a half supports and no other responses. You closed a FAC just hours after a few comments while holding the comments as opposes. Raul runs FAC. If you think turning to Raul is bullying, then you are the one who is bullying. You are in the position of power, and everyone knows that Raul is the one who all appeals about process go through. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I gave you the courtesy of allowing you to know I had a problem with your actions. I could have gone straight to Raul. I didn't. If you think that it is inappropriate to do so, then I will make sure to do everything behind your back in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I predicted, this incident has already shown up at your Arbcom case . Your heated rhetoric is doing you no favors right now, Ottava. Stop and think about how what you say comes across, because many, many people appear to interpret your people quite differently from the way you intend.
 * Your brought a concern to me (good). I responded with my reasoning (good).  You then told me to change my mind or you were going above my head (bad).  If you have a problem, please do talk to Raul. For your own sake, stop blowing smoke everywhere else. Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OR, I am going to give you advice in the strongest possible terms. You have taken this three places now (here, my talk, and FAC talk), and are also threatening to take it to Raul.  That is forum shopping.  You've taken it to WT:FAC for broader review; I strongly recommend that you refrain from posting further on this to either Karanacs or me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have taken it to one place - FAC. If you want to say the above is forum shopping, then I have no confidence in your statements and I would prefer no further contact with you. I find your statements completely inappropriate. Goodbye, Sandy. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * . Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Engaging the reviewers who did leave comments is definitely the recommended next step. If you work to satisfy all of them in the next few weeks, the next FAC nomination for this will hopefully be a breeze.. Karanacs (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please reread it again. It is clear that the concerns were addressed before you closed the FAC and that he was not around to make it clear that they were. This is what happens when you close FACs without leaving adequate time for people to check and see if there was any outstanding issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As Johnbod's comments were not the only outstanding issues, this by no means changes my mind. Ottava, I'm not reopening this FAC, nor do I feel that I made an error.  I accept that you disagree with my decision, and that is your right.  I don't think additional discussion about this will be productive and request that we let the matter rest. Karanacs (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are unwilling to accept that 1. you were wrong about the "comments" still being outstanding and 2. that you were wrong about it being appropriate to close a FAC just a few hours after comments come in, then I will not be nominating another FAC as I have no confidence in your ability as a coordinator. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is, of course, your choice as to whether to participate in the review processes. Are you intending to withdraw your open nomination or let it run its course? Please leave a note for Sandy or I if you choose to withdraw. Karanacs (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not be discussing things with Sandy anymore and I have no confidence in your judgment. As such, I have posted at Raul's talk page. If he wishes to remove it then he can and probably will. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ottava, it is disappointing to see this childish display of petulance from you, and I use those words quite deliberately. What on earth do you hope to gain by this? Karanacs behaved perfectly properly, and I've yet to see anyone but you who thinks otherwise. You brought this on yourself by ignoring F&f's comments instead of dealing with them, so you only have yourself to blame. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that it is proper to close something only a few hours after comments were posted and based closing the page on those comments being posted, then you live in a very different world than I do. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've realised that we inhabit very different worlds for some considerable time now, but variety is the spice of life. Had I been in Karanacs position I would have done exactly as she did. You've been through FAC enough times to know that reviewers' comments have to be dealt with, not ignored because of a personal feud. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If Fowler's concerns mattered in the closing, then the page would have been closed days ago. As Sandy and Karanacs said, the decision was based on Tony1's and SlimVirgin's commenting but not supporting. Thus, being given only a few hours to "turn" them towards supporting while they were not even around is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
I'm delighted! I'm just a bit too busy right now to get my mind around writing a major article so doing some FAC work is keeping me happy! Amandajm (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You picked exactly the right work - your comments have been very helpful to a lot of nominators (myself included). Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also very pleased about not-so-little Nikita. I won't bring an article of that size back again and will participate in any discussion and not that it was not meant to be a precedent if necessary.  I don't imagine for a second that Fifelfoo will accept this as a precedent, either.  With (two) articles on Chamberlain coming down the pike ... the number of serious candidates who are now running for ArbCom means that I would be surprised to win, but well, I don't run away from a fight, either!  But point is, the flow of articles from me will probably not diminish.  Considering Helen Douglas after Chamberlains, possibly with a view towards a featured topic on Nixon's early political career.  OK, I'll go way and ramble in my articles.  Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just grateful you're working on improving biographies of these extremely influential leaders. Whether your output decreases or not, any improvement is helpful! Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With Ironholds working on Andrew Bonar Law, I'm very hopeful we can start bringing the Prime Minister bios up to the standard that the US President ones are reaching. I've been thinking about Clement Attlee ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Image reviews at FAC
I won't be doing any more image reviews at FAC - WT:FAC. Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm extremely sorry to hear that, but not at all surprised. FAC tends to burn out image reviewers quite quickly.  I think it is the most difficult part of the review to do, and often the part that makes nominators most antagonistic.  I hope you'll continue to review other parts of the criteria -- your other reviews have been missed!! Karanacs (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I hope Awadewit will reconsider. The work is valued.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but more rational requirements would make things easier all round. When we rely on Bridgeman-Corel asserting that there is no copyrightable skill involved in creating a photo of a 2D PD object, it is perverse to insist on source details, which can have no copyright. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I often rely on Bundesarchiv photos, which were given to Commons by an agency of a sovereign government. Their description page is in German.  I think we can rely on them without the need for translation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of endlessly complaining about the deficiencies in our current image reviewers, review images yourselves. Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you're not talking about me. When have I complained?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom talk page
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions/Proposed decision. I have provided evidence contradicting multiple claims provided in your statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Karanacs, the first community ban was proposed by Durova. I'll try to find the diff, but I'm certain it was her, not Bish. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd forgotten about that one. I don't want to go into the entire history of calling for Ottava's block/ban, though;  the Bishonen one was the catalyst for the mentorship, so I think that's all that's pertinent to my statement. Karanacs (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A correction in the Rfc
In one section of your Rfc, you mentioned about Nancy using an 1840 tract to support her view, a claim to which Nancy denies. The misunderstanding might be due to the fact that your diff is incorrect which led her to think you were referring to Richard P. McBrien's book. Here is the correct diff: and the entry in googlebooks she mentioned is  which is a 1840 book by Giovanni Battista Pagani. --RelHistBuff (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which was never suggested by me to be used as a source. I provided a diff to an 1840's book to prove a point on the talk page that there were historians in previous centuries that agreed with the Church's POV. I was responding to Harmakheru's request, not offering a source to be used in the article.  Nancy Heise    talk  05:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

M.W.D.
I'm finished, Done ,Co-put, desiring to move on to other subjects, edits ect. I hope to merge the article in my sandbox M.W.D. into the other one some time during the week or next weekend after you have blessed it. I've dotted every "i", cited every "reference" and did the best I could with what I found out about her. Please "No more Bio's" for me, there very difficult and draining on what limmited brain cells I have left in my small head.Tinkermen (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick advice
If you have a minute, can I ask some quick advice (since you are a better writer than me)?

One thing that I have tripped over more than once and gotten negative feed back on is expressing "irony" in the article text. That is, there are certain cases where I will use the expression "Ironically ..." and be accused of using "weasel word." There are some situations, though, where I need to use some sort of phrasing to express that something is a surprising contrast. In other words, if I don't acknowledge this then it sounds as though the text contains a mistake. A simple example is the following in an article I was working on. The following is a simple example.


 * The mistrust of Standard Oil was partially the result of a mistrust of "carpetbaggers," which ironically was also the source of mistrust of labor unions.

In this case the word "ironically" is not attempting to introduce information but rather just say to the reader "No, you're not misreading this and, yes, I recognize that there is a seeming contradiction" (somewhat like adding [sic] to a badly phrased quotation).

Any suggestions on better writing here are appreciated.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Occasionally, words like "ironically" are quite appropriate. If the sentence can be reworded to allow the user to draw that conclusion without us pointing it out, that is better.  I don't know the context here, which makes it difficult to rewrite.  Which article is it? Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This particular example came from Texas Oil Boom. But I have been dinged for similar things in other articles (sometimes not with the word "ironically" but with similar words intended to clarify that the contrast was not accidental but intentional). --Mcorazao (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

FAC Convention of 1832
Hi, I've commented on FAC Convention of 1832 in relation to 2c. I'm bumping your talk because its a rather late comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
...for your edits here. I'd been over the article at Ceranthor's request but I think I'm approaching copyedit burnout at the moment, because parts of what I'd written didn't read properly and I just couldn't see why :( Bless you for fixing my crappy prose; I'd hate to think an FAC foundered because of me. EyeSerene talk 17:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was pleased when I read through the article to realize that it is in much better shape than many similar noms - you did good work :) Time permitting after I finish archiving/promoting today, I'm going to do another brief copyedit of the aricle, just to clean up a few loose ends.  I think the article is close and with a bit of teamwork Fowler's opposition should be able to be satisfied. Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very good of you, thank you! EyeSerene talk 17:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Bakshi proposal
Karen, I'd like your thoughts on User:SandyGeorgia/Bakshi proposal before I put it forward to the community. If you disagree, please db-g6 it for me. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We are thinking along exactly the same lines. I just posted this  on Ibaranoff's talk page but can strike in favor of the proposal. Karanacs (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will ask for feedback from Steve and DocKino before moving forward (and TPS commentary welcome for now, too). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with the concept. Something needs to be done.. yikes. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems fine to me. I think it's really quite close--if the nominator will only address Steve's source suggestions seriously, I feel it will be ready to move forward. But yes, that must happen before it's returned to FAC yet again. DocKino (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If anyone has any proposed wording changes or missing diffs, please add them to the talk page there, before I bring it forward (waiting on Steve). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm late! OK, let's see if I can get this comment through the door before I run into another edit conflict. Sandy, on the face of it your proposal looks a good idea; as evidenced by the last couple of hours alone, Ibaranoff24 has not took the implied criticism (of the FAC being archived) well, and has throughout each of the previous FACs refused to take major points on board beyond making the most cursory amendments he feels necessary. But to play devil's advocate for a moment, there is a concern that this would set an uncomfortable precedent: allowing editors who have a history with the article to determine when the nominator (with whom there is also now a history of minor antagonism) can bring the article back. It's entirely possible that both DocKino and I have lost our perspective. Still, I can't see the harm in at least proposing it to the community, so I've no objections on that score, even if I might need some convincing to support the move. On a technical note, does example [2] go where you intended? Steve  T • C 22:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That very concern (precedent) is why I thought to propose it to the community for feedback. I, too, am concerned about the precedent, but also concerned about reviewer fatigue. If you say it's a no-go, I won't propose it.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I say, I don't see the harm at least proposing it, and I'm sure someone else will bring the precedent issue to the table. Sorry this is taking up so much of your time, btw; I feel somewhat responsible. Steve  T • C 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My thought was to give the community more of a say in this; it may well be that reviewers don't mind how often it comes back, but we also need to do something to lower the heat surrounding this FAC. I wonder if posting the proposal now would just inflame. The weight is really more on you and DocKino, since you have to keep entering the same opposes, but it might be worthwhile to see how the entire FAC community feels.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I ADDRESSED ALL CONCERNS. Put the FAC back up. Now. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC))
 * They were not addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewers. It is unproductive to continue the stalemate between you and they.  This has persisted across numerous FACs, and it has to stop.  Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They were addressed. It is a complete lie to state that I didn't address the concerns. The FAC is not done yet. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Ibranoff, FAC has long operated under the premise that reviewers decide when their comments have been addressed, not anyone else—assuming that they are actionable. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All concerns that I could act on were addressed. The reviewers were not given enough time to strike their opposition. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC))
 * I know this is extremely frustrating for you, but it is also frustrating to the reviewers. They do not agree with your position (and have said so across multiple FACs); you do not agree with theirs (and have said so across multiple FACs).  That is perfectly acceptable.  What is not acceptable is to continue bringing the article back to FAC when we know the same stalemate will likely occur.  Please read the advice I left on your talk page.  Karanacs (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There wouldn't be any problem here if it weren't for Antisemitism. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Ibranoff, I guarantee you that comments like those will not get you anywhere. Nobody is being anti-Semitic, regardless of whether you meant that figuratively or literally. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ibaranoff, that type of commentary is unacceptable. I give nominators quite a bit of slack when their nomination has been archived, but this goes beyond that. If you make another remark like that I will block you for disruption. Karanacs (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) (cross-posted to )

York Park
That's fine. Have a good day :)  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 19:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Note for Sandy, I told Aaroncrick to bring York Park back whenever the copyedit is done, even if that is shorter than a few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll recomment Aaroncrick on talk to post a diff when doing so, lest someone else remove the nom as premature. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It will be a while before it's nominated again.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Davenport, Iowa FAC
My current FAC for Davenport, seems to be going slow. It's been a week with one partial support and no opposes, just a few users who have commented. What happens if it continues at this pace, with no more specific supports or opposes? C T J F 8 3 chat 21:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Big 12 WikiProject
Hi, I've noticed you've been involved in editing Big 12 related articles. I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondered if you'd like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Alert
Bad dog day; going to the vet in a few hours. I've tried to reduce the FAC page (and have gotten beaten up as a result :) and I've left some notes at WT:FAC. I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about your dog :( I noticed that you've gone through FAC several times in the last few days.  I'm almost caught up with my watchlist and plan to try to review some this afternoon.  The holiday was nice, but I'm sooo glad the kids are back in their daily routines today - maybe they'll start sleeping again!! Karanacs (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

&#x7b;&#x7b;cite book&#x7d;&#x7d; on Mary Bly
The template has been carefully crafted so that it is just as useful in bibliographic lists on an author's article as in references elsewhere. Please do not casually undo extensive work without asking first: it took me some considerable time to look up the details for those books, the idea being to make it easier for readers to locate copies should they desire. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the cite book documentation states that it should be used in list of works. It should be used in bibliographies that are used to store citations - not those that are lists of works.  Furthermore, this is not an accepted format for Featured articles (see Honor%C3%A9_de_Balzac, Edgar_Allan_Poe, Georgette_Heyer, Mary_Wollstonecraft, Mario_Vargas_Llosa, and any other author article marked as an FA.  It is also not an accepted format for GAs (see [Julia_Alvarez#List_of_works]], J._D._Salinger and others).  This article is on my list to improve towards FA-status, and I would prefer not to have to undo all of this when I get it ready to nominate for GA or FA.  Furthermore, why we would want to increase the number of templates on the page?  Those can lead to slower response time.  Please follow existing standards and remove these templates and the excess detail.  Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, please be careful about edit-warring. Per WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, and you should have discussed before continuing the controversial changes. Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it really depressing that you are justifying removing useful information from an article on the grounds that you have it on your list. Please show me where it is not accepted that bibliographies contain publication data: this would seem to indicate otherwise. Please do not lecture me about server response times: if you care to investigate the history of these citation templates you will discover that I was involved in their creation from the beginning and that this issue has been well documented as dead. Please do not also lecture me about edit-warring: I was adding useful information per the MOS and you removed it without warning. —Phil | Talk 17:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The MOS does not require publication company or ISBN and it certainly does not require the use of a template. I applaud you for your work on the template as it is exceptionally useful for citing sources; I am disappointed, however, that you are insisting on going against established standards for FAs and GAs. Karanacs (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignorant question on referencing
Hi,

If I'm not being too much of a pest ...

Poking around I was noticing some FA articles that don't seem (to me) to follow even GA-level referencing practices (specifically citing entire books without page numbers). E.g.


 * History of Minnesota (e.g. citations for Gilman, Risjord, Lass, etc.)
 * History of Puerto Rico (e.g. citations for Rouse, Abbad y Lasierra)

Am I missing something about how the standards are applied? Just wondering from the perspective of using other articles as models for my own.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question! Those articles passed FA in early 2007 and early 2006.  Standards have increased at FA and GA significantly in that time period.  When looking for examples, it is usually a good idea to check the article history to see when they were promoted.  This is on the article talk page.  There is a big box that say something like "This article has been identified as a featured article..."  In that box is bolded text that says "Article milestones".  Click show next to the article milestones and you'll see when it was promoted.  Eventually, articles which don't meet standards anymore can be taken to Featured article review, where editors can discuss what work needs to be done to improve the article to the current standards.  Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for all of the opposes reviews you've been posting at FAC. :) Seriously, your thoughtful comments are very helpful to nominators. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm delighted to see you reviewing again, too! I was really missing reviewing; it's a nice intellectual challenge.  The backlog made a nice excuse for me to take some time off of delegate work.  Sandy has done a great job picking up my slack.  Karanacs (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church
OMG the length! Groan! That article was seriously discussed on FAC...? The length is the chief "area that I would like to see changed". Trouble is, merely checking the 39 archives and 4 FACs for previous discussion of the matter would take weeks... I do see something in the February FAC about the History section being too long, and Nancy H protesting that it's short in comparison with its subject; that's probably true; but then I wouldn't suggest removing any material, I would recommend a seriously summary style article. Do you know if that has been discussed? It doesn't appear on the Talk:Catholic Church/Unresolved issues page—and isn't really an "issue", I guess. More a question of how to organise information. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Yes, it has. Marskell put up excellent suggestions, that have so far been ignored.  "But listen: adding "bad stuff" isn't necessarily the answer. Removing the gloss is the other option. This is broadly what they did at Islam and it worked. It's a concise, clinical article that avoids value judgements of the type I'm criticizing here." ... and ... "The editors at that article did two things right. First, they avoided extraneous detail. The two sentences above could easily be turned into two paragraphs. Deliberately, the editors avoided such expansion. This is the biggest difference with RCC; you have POV concerns in part because your article is so long. Second, they avoided apologetics and value judgements. Go to the family life section (also added for FAC): it doesn't imply that you should like or dislike polygamy. It states that a man may take four wives and moves along." and see User:Marskell/RCC.  His point was that, if the article is structured like Islam, it can avoid the apologetics, and the arguments and counter-arguments to neutralize the POV.  There have been suggestions to use summary style throughout the FACs, and yet the article continues to be mired in back-and-forth POV arguments, rather than just taking Marskell's suggestion to write a shorter, clinical article without judgments.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, At the last peer review we trimmed the article extensively before sending it to FAC. However, each time we have gone to FAC, the reviewers always ask for more, not less information. I would like to know if there is an acceptable response to a FAC reviewer who asks for more information and elaboration on a subject. If I say no to their request then the article does not pass because of their oppose. If I say yes and add information then the article's efforts to stay trim are compromised. I would appreciate advice in this area as I do not know how to respond to these comments and still keep article size down. At the last FAC there were 25 supports and 9 opposes (Note: there are two pages to this archive, link for page 2 is located at top of page) Of the 25 supports, there were several who had opposed the previous FAC but switched their vote to support for this last FAC. These included Ealdgyth, Ling Nut and Mike. Some of the opposers wanted information that was unsupported by references (Vassyana, Taam, Geometry Guy). Other opposers, (Marskell and Savidan) wanted a complete rewrite in favor of their own unique vision of what the article should be even though their views did not come up for consideration in the long and well attended developement process leading up to FAC. I could not see how rewriting the whole article at FAC was going to satisfy the 25 supporters who liked the article the way it was.   Nancy Heise    talk  10:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The acceptable response to reviewers who ask for more info was explained by Marskell and linked above; if an article presents POV from one side, it has to be countered by POV from the other side, and that is why the article keeps getting longer and longer, and is mired in POV arguments. Marskell proposed that the solution is not to add more "bad stuff" but to remove some of the gloss and keep it straightforward.  Also, it would be helpful if you stopped referencing old FACs and PRs; that is not how consensus works on Wiki.  When/if the article reappears at FAC, it's a whole new ball game, and continuing to rely on your notion that Wiki is a "vote" will not advance the article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is that simple at all. Many FAC reviewers, and talk page contributors, regard omission of particular things as a Catholic POV conspiracy, and a number of Catholic or historically-minded one regard omission of other, different things as failing comprehensiveness. These judgements are indeed difficult - the article is pretty much summary style already, I would have thought. Accusations of POV are thrown around wildly by both sides, and though there is certainly a lot of it shown by editors in talk, it is actually often very hard for partisan editors on each broad side to agree what is and is not its own or the other POV when text is looked at in detail. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the history section is using summary style appropriately. As one previous commentor at an FAC for this article said, the history section often appears as a collection of overly detailed analyses of individual incident rather than a broad overview of the entire history. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It may not use summary style ideally, but until you get to the 20th century, when things do fall apart rather, it does use summary style, and I see no incidents. The current text remains largely that produced by you as a slimmed-down version, does it not? Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Within the last few weks, several editors have again started pushing the idea that we need to drastically cut down to the basics, as many of us feel the article has a definite Catholic-POV slant. There has been quite a bit of pushback....  Discussions are ongoing. Karanacs (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To my memory, the slimmed-down version I had come up with wasn't approved. Although some elements of it were incorporated, much of it was not. Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out the my support for the last FAC should not be taken as support for the article as it stands nor as implying that I don't think Marskell's approach might have value. It was a support for the article as it stood at the time, not a support saying that the article was perfect. Personally, it might be good to see what happens if a sandboxed version of the article trimmed using the Islam article approach might not solve some of the difficulties. Certainly, as the article stands, it's very bloated and I'd be inclined to not support purely based on that. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is 89kB of readable prose? OMG. Awadewit (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's 89kB of unreadable prose. The unreadability is a function of the length. Nancy, you ask for advice: I would appreciate advice in this area as I do not know how to respond to these comments and still keep article size down. My advice is to go in for a serious summary style. I believe it's the only way, and no, Johnbod, it's not already summary style. By "serious summary style", I mean that the "History" section shouldn't be longer than three paragraphs. That's a summary. It's long enough to a) get an overview—a very concise overview, yes—and to b)find the "main article" History of the Catholic Church, itself a summary style article. Such a change would admittedly involve a lot of work, not so much with Catholic Church, but with the articles to which most of its material would be exported. Actually I also agree with de-bloating the extant material, per Marskell and Islam; but from reading bits of Talk:Catholic Church, and from admiring the elaborate reaction to my own drive-by removal of one word—one evaluative, POV word—I strongly suspect it's psychologically impossible to get any consensus for a de-bloat. A pity, as it would IMO give a better result, and involve a more reasonable amount of work. Bishonen | talk 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC).
 * That would involve a totally different scale of compression from what is normally described as summary style. Apart from the 20th century, the history already consists of, what - a couple of hundred links, only connected by the barest minimum of prose. None of this would, if cut further, need to be "exported" as this article only contains the headlines that are covered in hundreds of other articles, obviously of wildly variable quality. The Islam article is not a suitable approach to adopt - imo it was only got away with given the particular issues around Islam, & I for one would oppose CC at FAC if it used a similar approach (as would dozens of others from all POVs, you may be sure), and probably oppose keeping Islam in an FAR. The fact of the maater is that people wanting specific stuff put in outnumber those wanting stuff taken out at FAC by a considerable margin, though of course many are perfectly happy for parts of the article they are not personally interested in (all that boring religious stuff, typically) to be cut wholesale.  Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Johnbod, we won't know that a trimmed down article won't work because it has never been tried at FAC, or at all. What we do know is that a 15,000 word, back-and-forth gloss vs. "bad stuff" won't work, and has never been found by reviewers to be neutral (1d) and would probably currently fail on stability (1e).  The old adage of "if what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it" comes to mind; in a trimmed down article, nominators can argue that the detail is covered in a daughter article, and this article is only a summary and a clinical overview. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm dubious about that. Look at the article as it was for the first FAC, and the reviews there. It was a lot more like Islam then than it was at the last FAC - Nancy pointed out Islam had been used as a model - yet sank like a stone, admittedly after rapidly degenerating into what has become the standard Southern belle dogfight. Many more reviewers, notably Karanacs & Ealdgyth, wanted stuff added (and changed) than taken out - there was a pretty long shopping list. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue at the first FAC was the POV slant of the history section (the Crusades section was one of the more amusing examples). Reviewers then requested text to offset the POV. Then other editors wanted to offset what they saw as POV, and the cycle repeated.  If we can get down to a truly neutral section - with as little opinion on either side as possible - then I really do think the article could be very successful with a short history section.  I don't know that it will ever be as short as 3 paragraphs, but it can definitely be shorter. Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That was one issue, but you, Ealdgyth and others had long lists of "no mention of ...", "only a passing reference to..." and so on. All valid points I'm sure, but this is where we end up. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At that point, there was no subsidiary article (or it was so horrible that it was not worth reading). At this point, I hope, the History of .. article is better, and summary style can profitably be used. And, frankly, what has been tried in the past isn't working so let's see if something else works? I'll point out it's been about a year (at least) since the first FAC, right? We've had a number of others, and I certainly don't require that everything I mentioned in that FAC be considered at THIS point in time. As I said above, we have to take the article as it is now, not rehash old stuff (on everyone's part). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd never read it before & only looked to see how true Sandy's comment above was. The failed GA History of the World is not a great advertisement for extreme summary style. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: Ealdgyth-- almost two years: the first FAC was Feb 2008, and the article was about 7,000 words. The article has doubled in size, has remained mired in POV wars the entire time, and NancyHeise hasn't understood that, no matter how many editors she pings for "votes" on the talk page, neither FAC nor consensus is based on votes.  It's unfortunate that so many experienced FA writers have offered to help, and been rebuffed, because the article should be featured by now and many would like to see it featured. Anyway, I hope Marskell's old idea will at least be considered, since the current approach hasn't proven to work.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me know when the next step in dispute resolution begins. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still hoping for a Christmas miracle and that this won't be necessary. If worst comes to worst, I think you would likely be a named party.  I'd also leave notification on the article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would, on the whole, prefer not to be. My ideal for the article would be for Richard, Harmakheru, and the other rational editors of various points of view to work it out between them; it's not my field, and I would prefer to trust them. I do have other things to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Denton
Thanks for the review on Denton. Even though it didn't pass, I'll be incorporating your suggestions sometime next year. Cheers,  Mahanga Talk 04:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is in good shape. Hopefully it won't be too much effort to bring it the rest of the way and get it featured.  Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese Restaurant
Hi, two copy-editors have worked on "The Chinese Restaurant", I believe it now meets FA standards.-- Music 26/  11  16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Still needs a bit of work I think. For instance: "... he is sitting by the door of the restaurant at when George, Jerry and Elaine enter the restaurant ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Archived. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And quickly renominated. Nev1 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And quickly removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please give some more comments on what I should do, I believe the FAC was closed too early, as there were no more issues. SandyGeorgia told me I should go to you as you were the last editor with open issues and the only one to oppose.-- Music 26/  11  11:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't reread the article since the copyedits so won't comment on the prose right now. I do believe that more research needs to be done for themes for this episode.  There has been so much written about Seinfeld, and this is a fairly important episode, so there should be enough information available to write a small themes or styles section.  You may need to do research in journal articles or other offline sources. Karanacs (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I couldn't find anything. It's very difficult to write a theme section for a comedy show (though I know it is possible), I would like to but all I could find was a handfull of sources that gave an indication in one, maybe two, sentences. If you could please reread the article I can re-nominate it again. As I see no big problems right now. Also, if you happen to come across some sources you can send me a message.-- Music 26/  11  14:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You may want to talk to Awadewit. She found a great deal of research for a South Park episode and may have tips on other places to look for Seinfield episodes. Karanacs (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Parker
I'm thinking of writing a new FAC, but before I invest time and effort, I'd welcome your views on whether there is any mileage in this proposal. I've asked Sandy too. Thanks  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reply, I think you are right. If I do this at all, It will be as the wreck of the Essex with the Richard Parker bit as an interesting(?) later development  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston
Hi! In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Consulate-General_of_Switzerland_in_Houston

You referred to CSD - The problem is that other consulates have articles too, and several of them have passed AFD (See Articles_for_deletion/Consulate-General_of_Indonesia_in_Houston) - And this should have been apparent considering you filed the AFD request for the Indonesian consulate. - So because saying "it is a consulate" satsifies A7, I would like for this to be undeleted. If you wish to send this to AFD, then I would be happy to see how that goes. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am also going to kindly ask for the restoration of Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Other consulate articles have been deleted at AfD, so there is no blanket precedent that consulates have notability. The difference in the AfD arguments was the extent of the references.  I deleted those that made no claims of notability and had no references that mentioned the consulate in more than passing.  You are welcome to request a review at WP:DRV. Karanacs (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case I decided to start Deletion review/Log/2009 December 9 WhisperToMe (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Plaza Saltillo (Capital MetroRail station) and friends
These do not fit criterion for speedy deletion "A7", since they are not "about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization, or web content". Please undelete them; thank you. --NE2 09:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What NE2 said. Furthermore, precedent at AfD says to keep railway and metro stations. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I'll restore them and nominate at AfD. Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You forgot the talk pages. --NE2 08:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There was nothing on the talk pages except WP notices. If they are kept at AfD I'll restore those. Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now the talk pages have the old AFD template but not the project tags. Can you restore the revisions and then reinstate the tags? --NE2 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As well as the former history of Category:Capital MetroRail stations. Hello? --NE2 13:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Hi Karen. I'm gathering the information and sorting it into organized paragraphs. I have a snow day today so I should be able to finish by tonight. I am so grateful for the link and for you pointing out that source to me - it has tons of great info. FYI, I'm going to send you an email with another unrelated question I have. Thanks!  ceran  thor 15:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nicknames
Nicknames - except malicious ones - are fine; several people have resolved on Sept, for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the substance: I believe the way to deal with a revert warrior is to present a novel text. It may answer his objections (often because of a trivial tweak), and it will at least show him irreconcilably stubborn if he reverts everything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Cleomenean War FAC
HI, I was wondering why the article's FAC was closed after only a week? Thanks. Kyriakos (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I missed this post yesterday. Reviewers had listed serious concerns with the quality of sourcing used (that the article relied primarily on primary rather than seconday sources).  Generally, this type of sourcing issue takes more time to resolve than is generally allotted in an FAC nomination. I encourage you to work with the sources that were recommended and bring the article back to FAC when you've addressed that concern. Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion's regarding Mattisse
The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here
 * is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
 * Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
 * Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose.  Modified by next two motions. 
 * "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
 * User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Original Annoucement

York Park
Thanks for your kind words. I think I'm done, If I miss one please forgive me.  Aaroncrick  ( talk )  Review me! 20:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks for the speed of your response! Karanacs (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Images
We're guessing that the image issue has been resolved now. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * NW just entered an official declaration - good work! I'll probably leave this one until Sandy does her pass through FAC on Saturday.  Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Railpage Australia
Think it's a sock FAC  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax  07:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Karanacs!
Thanks for all you do at FAC. Have a wonderful holiday! Please have a sloppy drunken hug and some embarrassed shouting (also drunken) from Moni3. --Moni3 (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Alamo - Thanks
Thanks for the comments about my change at Battle of the Alamo[]. I didn't know the about the redlink policy before you mentioned it! Transmissionelement (talk) 19:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP seems to go back and forth on how prevelant redlinks are in articles. I didn't know about the guideline until I'd been editing for quite some time.  Thanks for your effort, anyway :) Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Apart from this :), your copyedit(s) was perfectly fine. I was away in Maryland, so I didn't see this until yesterday. Thank you for all your help.  ceran  thor 16:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nancy again
See my comments at Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise; what's the next step? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just about caught up with my watchlist and now see the latest at Catholic Church. RfCs generally run for 30 days, so this one should not be closed until Nov 26.  After this, the next step is either mediation over a particular content issue or requesting an ArbCom case. I think this will end up at ArbCom sooner rather than later, but I don't have the time right now to gather evidence, and may not until after the new year. Karanacs (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that Nancy was blocked by SarekofVulcan just as I was filing an edit-warring report. I don't follow the article as close lately as I had been, but I'm going to start reporting edit-warring on both sides as I see it. There have been enough general warnings on the talk page that we should all know what the accepted behavior is.  Maybe this will help the editing environment. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)