User talk:Karanacs/Archive 13

A small favour?
Hello, karanacs and a Happy New Year to you. You don't know me but I've come to ask you for a small favour concerning User:Jack1755. He is a young lad who has written a number of historical articles, very good ones in my opinion. You recently left this message to him after he put up his article for featured status for the second time in a week or so. Your message of course was perfectly all right and was actually good advice. He does though feel a little peeved about it and has retired from wikipedia. I hope you don't mind me asking but, as he's a young lad and a very good article writer I wonder if you could leave a little message of encouragement to him. Thanks. Jack forbes (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 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) 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Georgette Heyer article
Hello,

This regards your undoing my edit on the Georgette Heyer article. The statement, "Three months later, she was diagnosed with lung cancer, probably caused by the 60–80 cork-tipped cigarettes that she smoked each day (although she claimed not to inhale)" is not a clinical cause of death. If this is stated this way in the reference you cite (which I cannot easily verify /s a trip to a library) then you are quoting someone else's speculation. This type of thing has no place in an encyclopedia. --- Michael David (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is actually what the source says. I don't agree that the existing text is presenting this as "a clinical cause of death", but I'll add some attribution there to ensure that there isn't unnecessary confusion. Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. The term "caused by" is leading enough; and the word "probably" simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. At any rate, why is this statement even necessary? -- Michael David (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When I read a biography, or obit, about a person, I often wonder what the subject person would think and/or feel about what is said about them. While the BLP subjects can come back and change it in a wiki, or protest it in hard copy, the dead ones will have it, forever, as a part of what's remembered about them. Thank you for the revision you did make. However, I still feel that the biographer should be ashamed of themselves for making such a gratuitous statement about their subject and, that Wikipedia should feel ashamed for repeating it. -- Michael David (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't really see how this information is gratuitous. Many, many biographies discuss the health matters of the subjects. It is not a secret that cigarette cause lung cancer, and we have a source which makes the connection in this case.  The article makes no judgement on whether the smoking is morally wrong or not, just states the conclusion of the biographer.  (Note also that the biography in this case was authorized by Heyer's son.) Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Technically, isn't heart failure the cause of every death? Many events and people's lives are not well-documented, so historians can only speculate on the cause of death or on other details that have become important in retrospect. This is why "probably" is useful, even in an encyclopedia, but only if it is cited to a reliable source. --Moni3 (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think today it's usually lack of brain activity that signals death, but hey, that would mean we live a world of zombies. More seriously, doctors have struggled for thousands of years to even determine death, much less attrribute a cause.


 * PS. Why is it that every article I look at needs so much work? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I stumbled over this the other day, and quietly backed away. Afraid. Like a coward. --Moni3 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Foxy lady. Articles without inline citations are really hard work though. I've been struggling on and off for over a year now to get this one even up to GA. I don't doubt it's all true, but you know what reviewers can be like. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw your edit summary and thought "Finally! Someone has taken a hint from Sandy's posts at WT:FAC and recognized just how hawt I am." The disappointment is so crushing that I must now go lie down (and take a nap so that I can stay awake through the 2010 BCS National Championship Game tonight) . Karanacs (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Have pity on a poor Brit. I've got no idea what "hawt" means. Or what this game is of which you speak. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Is "hawt" some kind of Southern drawl version of "hot"?) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew you were smart ;) Yes, "hawt" is a funky version of "hot".  When a woman is "hawt" it makes it much easier for her husband to sell her ;) Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Supernatural (season 2) FAC
Hi, I know that FAC stuff is generally supposed to stay on the nomination pages, but the nomination is already 14 days old and could end soon. A week ago you posted comments on the FAC here, and haven't responded since. I don't know if you have it watchlisted, but I assumed that you had a holiday break and maybe forgot about it. Anyways, I believe I have addressed most, if not all of, your concerns. I just wanted to make sure that all concerns were addressed, in case one of the other FA directors closed the nomation. Thanks. :) Ω  pho  is  22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, but I promise I didn't forget you! Sandy won't be doing promotions again until Saturday, so I wasn't in as much hurry as I should have been.  I'll try to look at it today/tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I wish you'd close wife selling quickly as well Karanacs, before the feminists descend on it. I could yet take a battering there. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What feminists? We've already put our price out on WT:FAC and no one has yet taken the bait.  (PS, unsure if I'll go through on Sat or Sunday this weekend, but it won't be sooner.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Stop right there SandyG. I find powerful women so sexy. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You should (they are). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, just wondering if you knew when the nomination would probably be closed? Thanks. Ω  pho  is  05:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I will look at it on my weekend runthrough. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was wondering what the policy is if there is a single oppose to a nomination with many supports? A user opposed based solely on the lead (most concerns being merely overlinking), and when I tried to address his concerns, he started getting snappy and changed to "strongly oppose". Right now he is demanding a fourth copyedit, though I would highly disagree that it's needed based on the concerns he listed. Thanks. Ω  pho  is  16:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * An FAC can be archived if there is a single oppose and multiple supports, provided the oppose is actionable. An FAC can also be promoted even if there is unstruck opposition, provided the opposition is not actionable or the nominator has provided a convincing rebuttal of why those changes aren't necessary (etc),  or consensus of other reviewers is that the opposition should not be considered (etc).  Prose is always a subjective thing, and Tony1 is considered on of the best FAC reviewers for prose.  He generally only gives an example of what he sees as issues, so fixing each individual thing he points out is often not enough, because similar issues may be found through the rest of the article.  It never hurts to have someone else look through the article just to make sure that there aren't other prose issues that you haven't caught (it's easy to miss those when you've been over the writing so many times). Karanacs (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the concerns he listed are just linking issues, though, which would take only a few minutes to fix. I understand the prose stuff he was talking about, as I was also iffy on some of it. It's the lead though, which is a summary of the article, and it can be difficult to summarize stuff without making it unreadable to non-fans. Do you mind looking at his concerns listed and seeing if you think another copy-edit is needed for it? If so, can the nomination be held open while a copy-edit is done? Thanks. Ω  pho  is  18:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Karanacs is recused from closing that FAC, because she entered a declaration; it is in my ballpark. Her comments about Tony's oppose above are correct; you should examine the rest of the article for similar issues, and ask Tony to revisit. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since I participated in the review, I won't be closing this one. SandyGeorgia generally does her pass through FAC on the weekend, so you should have the rest of the week to take any action. I don't think I have time right now to take a further look at this one (sorry!).  On my last read I thought the episode list was very well-done, and I remember thinking in my first read-through that the section on Writing needed some work. I'd recommend asking user:Peregrine Fisher to take another look - (s)he usually does a good job with fiction articles - and perhaps user:Masem would take a look?  Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging by Tony's attitude, I doubt he'd count Peregrine Fisher as a copy-edit since he's already looked through the article. I contacted Masem, but he has not replied, so I think I will ask Bignole. Tony has also not responded to the FAC in a few days. Since I have responded to all of his concerns (either fixing them or arguing against them), what happens if he never responds before this weekend? Ω  pho  is  16:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Join a worthy project...
WikiProject Magical Realism Reconsidered! Awadewit (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the direction
Thanks for pointing out the style manual, I hadn't seen that. Gig em! LarryJeff (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those aren't the most common guidelines, and a lot of people don't know they exist. Thanks for helping with the article, and gig 'em right back at you :) Karanacs (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Wishing you happy new year and hoping your Christmas was merry! I hope we can continue to work together on various projects on which we seem to intersect occasionally here on Wikipedia. You are a very good reviewer and I appreciate your comments even though at times we have disagreed. We may disagree again in the future but I hope that will not stain our Wikipedia friendship. My most treasured friends are those who are not afraid to tell me exactly what they think and are not offended when I do the same. Honesty is an important element in a friend.  Nancy Heise    talk  07:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Nancy. I had wanted to leave a similar message on your talk page but was unsure if that would be welcome.  I hope that you and your family had a wonderful holiday, and I look forward to a productive 2010. Karanacs (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Hotspot
See here, here, and my note. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

*Ahem*
Excause me, but can you explain yourself here for what you did here? GamerPro64 (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Andy explained that pretty well.  Considering that it has been weeks since the first nomination was archived and a new nomination has already been opened, I fail to see why this is really relevant right now. It's time to move on, focus on your current nomination, and in the future, phrase your questions a little less rudely.  Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tracking page
Would you mind if I used your idea here for myself in tracking my closures of MILHIST A-Class reviews? -MBK004 20:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. I've found it especially useful for tracking the reviews that I have done, so I know whether to revisit or not.  I haven't maintained it as well for the closures I've done - I need to update that so I can track patterns. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll drop a link here when it is done just in case any of your TPSers are interested or even yourself. -MBK004 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As promised: User:MBK004/Article reviews -MBK004 10:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MSM FAC
Thank you for your comment at Featured article candidates/Marriott School of Management/archive2. If you're up to it, I would invite your further participation in this FAC. —Eustress talk 19:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite, but as an FAC delegate I don't get to review very much anymore. If it gets to the bottom of the list I'll try to dive in. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Image reviews
Elcobbola is now spotchecking some of the recent image reviews: see Featured article candidates/Halley's Comet/archive1. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting, Sandy...it made me realize that today is Tuesday. Which means I'm supposed to be promoting/archiving today.  I have an insane number of appointments/meetings/errands today, but I'll get through as much as I can later this afternoon. Karanacs (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You could leave a note for Gimmtrow, and defer 'til tomorrow. We've now got to sort the image reviews and re-add those needed (unstrike on the list at WT:FAC).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Needs inline citation for sentence (I think, I just started helping to try and clear out the backlog
Hello! Your submission of Parysatis II at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Needs inline citation for sentence (I think, I just started helping to try and clear out the backlog)

NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi Karanacs, I was wondering if you could let me know what still needs to be done with Featured article candidates/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1, i.e. what issues remain unresolved with the FAC? I was under the impression that all outstanding issues had been resolved, but having seen this, I assume there are still issues that need to be addressed. I will be glad to fix whatever still needs to be fixed. Thanks in advance and sorry to bother you, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting on a second image review. Zscout is new to images, and until he has a bit more experience, we are trying to have dual coverage for articles with a lot of images. You guys have done a great job so far - I fully expect this to be promoted soon. Karanacs (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks - I just was not sure what else was missing / needed to be done. Sorry to bug you and thanks again, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: pre-FAC review
''Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten that I promised to help. I got sucked into the latest BLP controversy and have spent the last few days rescuing older articles in danger of deletion. I'll get back to you next week. Karanacs (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)''


 * No problem. The FA is not a priority for me. Just a nice-to-do.
 * BTW, I played with the look of the Texas History Navbox. I hope it's to your liking. :-) --Mcorazao (talk) 05:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Telegraph and Texas Register
Hello Karanacs, Your latest submission has been reviewed and the hook would need shortened slightly before promotion can take place. Any questions feel free to ask. Kindly Calmer   Waters  08:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC pr/ar
Hey, Karen; I got busy on something and couldn't stop :) I'll pr/ar tomorrow: maybe you can defer 'til Wednesday or Thursday?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can wait until Thursday. I've got lots of stuff scheduled for Wednesday right now.  Karanacs (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandboxed section for FAC
Karanacs, I just posted at Sandy's talk page; I won't repeat that post here but of course I'm curious to get your reaction to the sandbox too. You had said you were "intrigued" by the marker idea; what do you think of this approach? Mike Christie (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work, Mike; it's so good to have you back ! I responded on my talk.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Conversions on ship articles at FAC
When you have time, could you look in on Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria? Best, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah.. um..
I submitted this right after you did yours. Weird. Anyway, do you think I should remove mine since yours is substantively the same? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  17:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Better to let G guy sort it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) How funny, that we had the same idea at the same time. Go ahead and leave yours - the mentors can decide how to handle it. It will be another good test case for making sure the alerts page runs smoothly. Karanacs (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * RegentsPark has removed the duplicate. If there is any information in the second alert that would be useful to retain, feel free to let us know. Thanks both for raising this. Geometry guy 19:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, it's all good. Karanacs caught the spirit of what I was trying to say, and probably more elegantly. She just owes me a Coke is all. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  20:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * :) Okay, thanks! Geometry guy 20:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Some lists for you
Hi. Here are some list of unreferenced BLPs that you might be interested in.


 * Texas A&M articles - 15 articles
 * WikiProject Texas articles -

Copy, advertise, move or do whatever you want with the lists. Rettetast (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Texan Revolution
There's a discussion page, but I'll just note this here so we can skip the edit war. You are quite right that many historians do refer to it as the Texas Revolution. Google and Google Book show both are used, and Texas is somewhat more common. However, given that there isn't any consensus, grammar should trump local usage. It's not the America Revolution, the Glory Revolution, the France Revolution. —LlywelynII (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been bold, but this is an extremely controversial change, and I'm going to revert all of the pages you've updated recently. The next step in the process is discuss, and I will open up a section at Talk:Texas Revolution. This may require an RfC. Karanacs (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * LlywelynII, you are wrong. "Texas Revolution" is the conventional form and you were wrong to have moved the page without a proper discussion. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

La Reine Margot
I've started reading the above. I just bought the Oxford Classics edition, thinking it would be reliable. Of course, when I received it from amazon, I discovered that it was abridged! Apparently, it is based on the "famous English" translation and abridgment, but still, I would have liked the entire text! Awadewit (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you like the book anyway - even an abridged version should be pretty long and involved ;) I enjoy the French authors of this time period more than their British counterparts, and this is my favorite of those.  It's been a year or two since I read it - I may have to go find it when I get home :) Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm already confused! I'm trying to read without consulting the footnotes, as it was awfully troublesome to keep flipping to the back of the book (what is wrong with the bottom of the page!?). I may succumb to reading the "List of historical characters", though. It reminded me of some awful literature articles on Wikipedia. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a weakness for pre-1800 British and French royalty, so I was already fairly familiar with the history. I can see how it might be confusing if you don't have that background knowledge.  Last time I read this novel I was inspired to pick up Leonie Frieda's biography of Catherine de Medici (a very well-written book), which confirmed a lot of the details. Karanacs (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Lady of Quality
I was just looking through the list of GANs and I saw you've nominated Lady of Quality, and it's been in the queue for almost four weeks. Emboldened by what I've learned from Awadewit over the past few months I was going to offer to review it, but when I glanced through I saw that there appears to be nothing on the book's reception, which seems like quite a major omission. Is there some valid reason for that? I'd be happy to review it, but without something on its reception it's hard to see that it meets the "covers its major topics" GA criterion. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking a preliminary look. I haven't been able to find anything about the reception.  Even today, romances novels generally do not get reviewed, and 40 years ago it was even rarer.  I actually found a source when I was writing the article on the author that states that her books were never reviewed in a serious newspaper.  I will go add that to the article, now that I've thought about it.  Or, if you think that the article can't be comprehensive without such a section, I can just withdraw the nomination.  Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, don't withdraw it. I did wonder whether the reason might be that Heyer's books weren't generally reviewed by the critics, so just making that clear would resolve that issue. I'll have a look through The Times archive to see if they've got anything to say in any event, and if I find anything I'll let you know. I'll sign up to do the review now, and hopefully get it done in the next day or so; you've had to wait too long already. Hopefully you'll be able to tolerate all my nit-picking suggestions, as I must be one of the most irritating of reviewers. I want everything to be just so, even in a GA! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a very short section on publication and reception with some general info about Heyer's books. I would very much appreciate a search through the archives of The Times - I don't have good access to a lot of British sources.  I'm also thrilled that you'll be taking on the review - your advice always helps make my articles better :) Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you may be surprised to learn that The Times published a review of Lady of Quality written by Philippa Toomey on 19 October 1972. It's short, but it's quite complimentary. It ends: "Some of it is very funny, the characters are affectionately drawn, and there is, this time, that "bat's squeak of sexuality", an ingredient hitherto claimed to be missing from Miss Heyer; though it can be heard by those whose ears are adjusted to the correct frequency. Lady of Quality is the same again. But did anyone ever complain about being given another pretty little present by Fabergé?" Here's the url, but I'm not certain you'll be able to access it from the US. If you can't, I can take a screen shot and email it to you. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just sent you an email so you'll have my address. I would appreciate a scan, if you don't mind. I'll be working on the other things you've identified soon. Karanacs (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, it'll be on its way shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC of Tropical Storm Marco 1990 - one of the opposes
Question. Is there way you can pry Tony1 to actually look at the replies I made to his oppose on Tropical Storm Marco (1990)'s FAC. I pinged him on his talk the day he made them. (see here) I never got any replies on the FAC, and definitely not on the thread in question. Its been almost ten days and nothing has changed. His oppose just sits there. Is there any actual way to pry him to review his review? Mitch 32(We the people in order to form a more perfect union.) 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Sam Loxton/archive1
Hi there Karanacs. It's now the bottom FAC and I've expanded the politics section and explained by it shouldn't be expanded further, and so have some other folks, but haven't been able to elicit a reply from User_talk:Rebecca. Thanks  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket )  03:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Petlyakov Pe-8/archive1
The article just got a rewrite yesterday. I just asked the opposing reviewers to re-read it to see if their issues had been addressed. I was expecting until the 15th to get them to look at it again. Can you unarchive it to allow them a chance to review the changes?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's rare to have FACs unarchived, and we generally do not do that if there were outstanding opposes. You're welcome to bring this back in a few weeks when you are satisfied that the opposition has been addressed (and your other FAC has been promoted). Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC exception
I missed the bit about having to wait two weeks after a FAC has been archived to bring up another and I nominated Featured article candidates/HMS Lion (1910)/archive1 yesterday. So I ask for an exception since some comments have already been made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine. The rule is pretty new and hasn't been widely publicized yet. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC: Voyage of the Karluk
Just a note to say that due to computer breakdown my access will be very limited for a few days, and I may not be able to reply immediately to further issues raised by reviewers. There are no problems at the moment - 7 supports, no opposes - but I am waiting for an image review.
 * Later: Disregard this, I'm up and running with a borrowed computer. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. It looks like the article is well-prepared, and hopefully you won't need to babysit very much. Karanacs (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You have email
Re Lady of Quality, just so that the conspuracy theorists don't get their knickers in a twist. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that last night - thank you very much! I hope to work on the article today or tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest twist
Please bring on the next stage of dispute resolution on Catholic Church. The latest sincere believer has taken to removing and disparaging File:Catholicpopulationsnew.png, claiming that it has no source. It is a map of the world's countries, tinted by percentage of Catholics; it claims a source - a list of percentage Catholics by country. Our good soul's complaint is that the original has no map; I have duly commented on the obvious (if it had a map, we could not use it without a waiver of copyright). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time or mental energy at the moment to go to the next step of dispute resolution (you may have noticed I haven't been dropping by that page as frequently). If you or someone else wants to start it I'll present evidence, but I'm not going to be the point person right now. Karanacs (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Ben Paschal/archive1
I felt it was too early to archive, I was replying or fixing to each concern, and I had spoke to a couple of editors who said they were going to review the article by this thursday. Can I get a second chance please. Thanks Secret account 19:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It had been up for about three weeks with no support, and that's usually the cutoff. Since you'd resolved the feedback you'd already gotten, it's fine if you want to nominate a different article quickly, but for this one you should wait a few weeks per the guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC delay
I noticed that you did not promote Inauguration of Barack Obama (FAC) today. What is it lacking in your opinion?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I promote next, I'd help out here, except for that big pink edit message ... "If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide all relevant links." Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony1 has concerns, and one of your supports is from an involved reviewer. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is involved?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably Hunter Kahn, the GA reviewer (or Ruhrfisch, who PR'ed?) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, it is one of those, but I don't understand why? Neither one is really involved.  Ruhrfisch made some minor edits prior to supporting, but in the grand scheme of the thousands of edits to get this to where it is neither has done much.  Ruhrfisch has 9 of the 3445 edits and Hunter has 17, but none in the last 6 monts.  Also, aren't GA and or PR reviewers suppose to give an opinion if they have one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Given Tony's concerns, and the fact that this is the 4th nomination for the article, I would like to see at least one more support from someone completely independent. Sandy, of course, may have different criteria when she goes through the list this weekend. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion/archive3
Please advise on whether I should be allowed to renominate so soon. Thanks for your time. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there was serious opposition at the previous FAC, I'd prefer it if you'd wait a bit. Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Every concern has been resolved. I wouldn't count Fuchs' lone oppose vote, which began with "Overall, a very good article its contributors should be proud of", as "serious opposition". Sorry to seem difficult, but could you elaborate on what you mean? — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 20:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Serious meaning "actionable". Sorry for the confusion! Karanacs (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay... How about tomorrow, March 1? — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ...March 2? — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 17:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your previous question. The general rule is 2 weeks. Karanacs (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic church
Hi, I lost interest in that article a day or two ago. I have already written to the other participants on one of the issues:


 * I should say that as an "outside observer" I find this discussion just unbelievable and surreal. This could not be happening.... I am not taking sides on the issue - I really do not care about this subtopic. But the types and tones of arguments presented by various sides is just amazing and makes me wonder if "any" progress can be made in this type of atmosphere. I would strongly suggest to all sides to calm down and be more focused, but I doubt it will work in this atmosphere.


 * My feeling is that current Wikipedia rules are inadequate for moderating heated talk page debates, and there is almost no way out except fatigue causing some participants to give up. I think I am going to stop watching this talk page for a while and just drop in very occasionally - reading this type of material is just non-productive.

Therefore, please remove me from the arbitration issues since I think that talk page is just a headache at best. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would probably be best if you left this note as a statement on the Arb request page, as it is actually very relevant to the case. If the case is accepted, then your name would mostly likely be removed - the arbitrators and clerks often shuffle that once they've read the statements.  Please note that I did not include you based on any accusation of poor behavior, but solely because you had been active recently. Karanacs (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will do that. Thanks. But I REALLY think the wikirules are inadequate therein. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statement on the Catholic Church arbitration request
Please note that there is a 500 word limit on the request for arbitration page. That includes your initial statement and replies to others. Yours currently stands at close to 800. Please shorten it so it is below 500 words as soon as possible. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Exceptions are quite frequently allowed, and this case is much too complex to summarize in 500 words. (I've suggested that NancyHeise reduce her 1500 words to 800.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 500 words is ample. As this case is likely to attract a lot of commentators, it's especially important to enforce the word count. Should you require more words, you can create a page in your userspace and link to it on the main arbitration page.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dr PDAs script had told me I was at 500 words, but I guess that was wrong. Thanks for the heads up - I'll fix it. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated sir - thank you for your cooperation.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 15:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For the heads up. Its been a couple of months since I edited the article, so I'll have to read up on talk drama between users since then before I can give an opinion. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft
Thank you for your work thus far on the above draft RFC. I think it's about time we move to the community discussion phase. The proponents for and against outlines can argue until they are blue in the face, but what we really need is disinterested community opinion on this. Thanks, –xenotalk 15:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See also my latest ping at above, in case you missed it.
 * I think User:Karanacs/Navigational pages RfC draft (the other rfc) is as clear/complete as I can make it. Getting more input/assistance there, from yourself and any other interested/informed/polite editors would be great. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the Navigational pages draft is going to be specific enough to be helpful. I did a bit of copyediting and am happy with the Outline RfC draft and would support moving this to WP-space somewhere and opening the RfC. What do you think? Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian Meckiff FAC
Hi Karanacs, could you not shut this down for a while as Anon Diss and Laser brain have agreed to take a look at it. I am a bit surprised as I prepared normally like the other FACs and am trying tow ork through the issue  YellowMonkey  ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll )  07:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

your comment was inappropriately placed
I was telling Tom, thank you and why. I didn't name names. There was no personal attack there but since you are bringing it up, yes, I think that your efforts to have me banned through an RFA and an Arbcom brought encouragement to those who most needed instruction in WP:civil. I told you first on my talk page, then Raul, and third after you opened the arbcom. I am hoping at some point you will see what you could maybe have done differently to be a better admin. If I had intended to heap criticism on you, I would have opened an RFC against you myself or an arbcom but I thought that would be mean. So I didn't. I just did what my religion tells me to do - "if you are angry with someone tell him his fault" - which I did. Your response was to open the RFC so I guess you did not take my kindness of telling you your fault to heart. I wish you had because that would have saved us a lot of time and energy and the page would have probably been further along by now.  Nancy Heise    talk  22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nancy, one wearies of reading your misrepresentations. First, Karanacs has not acted as an admin on the Catholic Church, nor has she acted as FAC delegate.  She is another editor, just like you.  The evidence for this is that, if ArbCom saw any indication that Karanacs had abused of either her position as FAC delegate or admin tools, they would be rushing to accept the case.  Second, please cease the endless and pointless "us against them" mentality, which you also bring to every FAC and most talk page discussions.  RFCs are not brought "against" anyone; they are brought as a routine part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution: please read that page, as there has been no indication that you ever have.  It would be helpful if you would say "RFC on me" instead of "RFC against me". Third, wiki is not a "vote"; please try to read and understand that page as well.  I'm growing tired of seeing your attacks on Karanacs' good faith, and may consider adding my input to the ArbCom if they don't cease. You appear to view yourself as a kind and gentle soul, but I see stubborn and willful intransigence, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, IDidntHearThat, failure to assume good faith or engage dispute resolution correctly, and failure to understand NPOV or consensus, that has poisoned the environment at Catholic Church and prevents anyone from engaging there to improve the article.  Have you actually read any of Wiki's policies, or do you only pick from them what suits you, as seems to happen with article sourcing arguments at Catholic Church?  You also have a very fundamental misunderstanding about the role of admins on Wiki; they are no different than any other editor, until/unless they use admin tools.  Perhaps you don't understand that Arbs are asking for admins to get involved so that, for example, the next time someone like you attacks Karanacs' good faith, they can be blocked.  That is what admins do.  Please read some Wiki policies, learn your way around here, and understand how Wiki works. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have also never called for you to be banned. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of dispute resolution, and I'm getting very tired of explaining it to you.  For the last time, dispute resolution is for resolving disputes.  Making snarky comments in an attempt to poison the well is absolutely not a way to resolve disputes - it instead has a chilling effect on discussion.  When these types of comments are aimed at me (even when you don't go so far as to use my name), I'll continue to call them out, as I am an eternal optimist and hope that you will some day figure out either a) the difference between editing as an editor and editing as an admin and/or b) how to resolve a dispute the wiki-way.  Karanacs (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandy, your entire thread is a personal attack followed by a threat. I know what dispute resolution is, I know that Karanacs completely skipped several steps before taking it to arbcom. Your assumption that I don't know Wikipedia policies such as WP:consensus and WP:NPOV is really surprising - I invite you to spell out for me what you think I have missed about those policies in my work on Catholic Church because it seems to me that neutral point of view for Karanacs is the one that excludes basic facts about the Church that just so happen to be positive. I think you are too quick to come to Karanac's defense. She is a human being, an editor and an admin. As all three, she should be able to bring herself to say something to those editors who come to the page spewing venom but she says nothing. Instead, her actions just encourage them because even though I do not engage in the venom spewing, she finds things to write up about me in an RFC and arbcom but somehow omits these other editors who really need help to learn how to be civil. Others have pointed out her bias, I am not alone on this. I thought I was being kind by not writing up an RFC or taking it to arbcom because - as human beings - people are capable of just telling someone when they have messed up. But it sounds like, according to you, on Wikipedia there is only one way to tell people and its RFC's and arbcoms. It should not have to go that far. I think that Wikipedia should have annual admin reviews on which everyone can have input because I think there are a lot of admins who use their position in inappropriate ways. That's been my experience on Catholic Church - I think that Wikipedia should know that and I should not be threatened with arbcom " I'm growing tired of seeing your attacks on Karanacs' good faith, and may consider adding my input to the ArbCom if they don't cease." for telling them I think that's an abuse of power as well.  Nancy Heise    talk  01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That does it. You still don't understand that adminship has nothing to do with it. WHAT admin power has Karanacs abused?  Do you even know what admins do ? Do you read anything that is linked to you?  I do believe you may have the worst case IDidn'tHearThat I have ever encountered.  I'll be participating in the ArbCom now.  You Just Won't Learn: not everyone who challenges sources, neutrality or article naming is "anti-Catholic" and you and Xandar (and from what I read, now possibly also PMA, but I haven't followed enough to know) have created a battleground on the article, are the only things standing in the way of article improvement, you continue calling for "votes", don't understand consensus, have exhibited classic ownership and failure to assume good faith, and the content issues at Catholic Church are all the result of these behavioral issues.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine Sandy, I think it is good to "get it all out". I want the opportunity to respond to your accusations so why not have your say as well.  Nancy Heise    talk  02:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Piccard
Greetings, Karanacs. Thank you for your administrative action to close Featured article candidates/Jeannette Piccard/archive1. But I wondered why you closed it. The article received reviews for links, images and sources, but only one person commented on the content. I don't think this needs to be reopened, but I would like to understand your process. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Susan. Thank you for asking so politely - usually nominators are not quite so diplomatic ;)

The nomination had been open more than two weeks and didn't have any supports. It also had one oppose, with the reviewer commenting that it would take significant work to deal with her concerns. Added to that, there was so much text on the nomination page that other reviewers were likely to be scared away from commenting. I didn't think leaving the nom open would help the article's chances. I recommend that you keep working on it to address Slim Virgin's concerns, and renominate it in a few weeks when you feel like you've worked out all the kinks. With a clean nomination and these issues cleared up, you'll hopefully be able to attract more reviewers and get the article passed more smoothly. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will try again later. But I suspect that only one commenter (who was the oppose vote) is sometimes not enough. And now I have to wonder about what you think: "I didn't think leaving the nom open would help the article's chances." because you didn't comment. Probably sour grapes. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Susan, I don't understand your most recent comment. I have not read the article in question, and as I was not acting as a reviewer, my job is only to look at what had been written on the nomination thus far, and to judge whether I thought the article could meet the promotion criteria within the next week or so (as it had already been open more than 2 weeks). One oppose vote is not always enough to close a nomination, but this had received no supports (and without supports, an article cannot be promoted). In my experience, when a nomination has that much text, it is very difficult to convince other reviewers to come take a look at the article, and unless reviewers could be attracted - and would support - the article could not be promoted now.   Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Karanacs, I'm replying because your edit summary said that you're confused. I wondered why the nomination was closed. (That's what I came here to ask.) Now I understand what that step is (it's your call, your decision). Best wishes, -SusanLesch (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All yours

 * Featured article candidates/Liberalism/archive2‎. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Milhist
I know you have a lot on your plate, but would you consider standing to be a WP:MILHIST coordinator for this term? It's not a lot of work; mainly you would be needed to give opinions on random topics at WT:MHCOORD. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  06:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the invitation to run, but I don't have the time to be more involved - and I think you guys are already going a great job! Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism FAC
Hello, can you please take down the Liberalism FAC? I've decided to try for GA first per suggestions from the reviewers. Thank you. UberCryxic ( talk ) 22:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * done. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

TFA question
If I'm just curious about the discussion that took place about a specific TFA, is there an archive for that? I don't seem to be finding one. Do I just have to look through the history of Today's featured article/requests? C T J F 8 3 chat 07:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Only about thirty percent of TFA's pass through TFA/R, the rest are chosen by Raul. Since he does this on his own, there is no discussion to refer you to.  Hope this helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church (2)
You are more than welcome, although I must confess my surprise at being thanked and lauded by (two admins now) for invoking IAR. I plan to continue carrying out the changes I outlined in the talk page, and I'd appreciate any and all guidance as part of the effort to make the article smaller. I assume you share the same broad goals on that front. UberCryxic ( talk ) 17:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you and I are on a very similar wavelength overall on this article, but you have the advantage of not having been involved in the last two years of "discussion". IAR is, I think, the only way to get anything done on this article in the present environment, but that can't be done successfully by those of us who have been present for so long. Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is anyone working on shortening it yet, ala Marskell's old suggestions? Has anyone reposted that to talk for the benefit of newcomers (it's somewhere in archives, posted by me) ... I can't bear to look.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go dig that up - thanks for the reminder! Karanacs (talk)
 * User:Marskell/RCC. Karanacs (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted important excerpts once on the article talk page, that summarized his points ... they should be somewhere in archives. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see that...will have to look again. Karanacs (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Xandar is dragging you through the mud when you did nothing wrong. I regret getting myself involved with this article, but now that I am, I'll stick with it until the end. UberCryxic ( talk ) 03:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And has Xandar been banned or something? Wow things move fast. This is like a soap opera...except online. UberCryxic ( talk ) 03:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently - I thought Tom was offline and filed an edit-warring report, and YellowMonkey picked it up before Tom mentioned the page protection. We'll see if it sticks. Karanacs (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Per Tom's suggestion, I have placed the article in my sandbox. I chose the version with your last edit. Feel free to carry out any changes there if you want to. After it's done I'll present it to Tom and we'll see what happens. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 04:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Feedback
Hi Karanacs. Please consider this as non-binding feedback for the future. When I read the notice you sent here, I did wonder (even perhaps doubt) its neutrality. I don't think there would've been any doubt if the words "and shorten" had been omitted. I believe the editor who made this notice only found issue with that part also, and subsequently felt the need to state "rejects that proposal in favor of keeping more information in the article", which on its own would have again raised the same doubt for presumably 'the other side'. Ideally, if she'd simply raised her concern with you, I'm sure you'd have been open to addressing her concern and would have removed the mention of 'shorten', and there very well may not have been an issue. Instead, she unfortunately chose to place her "notification" after one was already made, and muddied the waters with the inclusion of diffs, and engaged in other problematic conduct after that, and was correctly blocked for it. Of course, this other editor's post was canvassing at its worst, and was also later correctly removed and blocked (though not necessarily blocked for that, or that alone). Anyway, before I digress with this little chit chat, I will emphasise for clarity's sake that this is my view, and you (or others) may reasonably disagree, even in part. But I still hope you bear the first part of my message in mind for the future. ;) Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec with Tom) Thank you, I do very much appreciate your feedback. I included "shorten" because there had been consensus on the talk page that something needed to be done about the length, we just hadn't agreed on what to remove. From past discussions, I was also pretty sure that this would be one of Nancy and Xandar's key objections to the change, and I was trying to include her perspective as well, and I assumed that shortening/removing text/etc is sometimes of greater interest to observers than simply restructuring. It didn't occur to me that this would be perceived as non-neutral, but I guess I wasn't looking at it from the perspective of those who don't follow the talk page. Next time I will place any proposed notice at the article talk page to get additional input to make sure that we all agree on the wording. Again, thank you for your explanation. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't well thought out for me to invite active participants in the dispute to write a neutral notification. It was inevitable that anything either side wrote would be viewed with suspicion by the other. I should have taken the time to write something myself instead of pushing it off onto Karanac. Tom Harrison Talk 15:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea, lesson learned by all :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church (3)
Tom just said the straw poll is over. We had 65% support. Those are very good numbers for change (almost to override a presidential veto). UberCryxic ( talk ) 22:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed him saying that. I'll go take a look now. 22:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * cross-posted at UberCryxic's talk page) I just read Tom's posts at ANI and the article talk page, and I think you are misinterpreting. He appears to be declaring the straw poll invalid because Nancy and Xandar are blocked, not declaring that any set of arguments has prevailed.  I suspect your changes will be reverted immediately when Xandar's block expires; it would probably be best to wait until after they come back and continue the poll. Karanacs (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Tom didn't just declare the straw poll invalid. I believe he is also leaving the page and has now left us on our own again. That was my understanding of it. I think we're on very good grounds&mdash;per every Wikipedia policy and support from a dozen established editors&mdash;to carry out these changes. See my comments in the talk page. UberCryxic  ( talk ) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that policy - and consensus - favors a change, but I worry that the process is going to lead to increased strife next week. Karanacs (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm unwatching the article (at least, that is, until another talk page attack on one of us pops up). I don't know how you do it, Karanacs, but my hat's off to you.  Keep trying!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have Venezuela, I get Catholic Church. They even have something in common - both celebrate Mardi Gras :) Karanacs (talk) 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me ... I was actually trying to work on a Ven article yesterday when the latest nastiness popped up! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Lookie here! You don't have real problems until someone puts one of this big ugly copvio tags on one of *your* articles, after you carefully summarized info in a way that you were quite proud of !!  Keep smiling :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There will be no more strife. Your troubles are over. Breathe a little easier...and smile. UberCryxic ( talk ) 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Crazy stuff
Have I missed any steps? User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been following this more closely than I. Just keeping current on the article talk page has been a challenge lately! I don't see that the Mattisse and Catholic Church stuff should necessarily be intermingled - the only connection I really see is that a subset of the same people were involved (although who knows, I might be ultra-naive). I would actually welcome any user RfC filed on me so that Nancy/Xandar/et al would be forced to actually provide some proof of all of their allegations, but that does not appear to be forthcoming.  Much more fun, I suspect, to throw about allegations with no proof. I am very grateful, however, for the involvement of any so-far-uninvolved admins (including Tom harrison, despite questions over his neutrality), as their perspective will be useful if matters lead back to Arbcom. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The questions about the intermingling are because Wehwalt has raised a familiar theme in both cases, and re-raised and re-raised them, keeping the issues alive even after they were put to rest. Either he knows something no one else knows, or he's stirring the pot, or I don't know what, but the question exists as to why he is doing this.  I'm keeping track of the side issues so you can edit the article !!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

ROFL
"confesses his sings"??????? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'd ever heard me sing you wouldn't doubt that this was necessary!! It's an assault on all mankind ;) Thanks for bringing that to my attention - I'll fix it. Karanacs (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Squabbles at FAC
thank you! Enough was enough, and it was time to end it! Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

A little problem
I have a problem at Featured article candidates/Give It 2 Me/archive1. I had requested for comment from one of the users, however that person placed a support, prompting another user to say that I was CANVASSING, which was not my intention at all. Hence I striked out that support, is it fine? Please reply as I don't want the FAC to be not promoted because of that. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia will be promoting/archiving this weekend, so I left her a note pointing to this message. Karanacs (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * got it. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Before I do anything nuts
You ok with this? The only thing that should be fixed during or before the transition is the collapsible tables. --Moni3 (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did it. I couldn't help myself. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let us know when you think you would like the article at FAC. Either it will languish at GAN for so long you'll be back from your break in time for FAC, or we can cut the PR short and take it to FAC with enough time for you to participate. --Moni3 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any comments on this? I'd rather have you at the FAC than not, so any decision I weigh in on would have to have your input first. --Moni3 (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Galveston
Hi,

I don't know if you had noticed but I put Free State of Galveston up for FA (see Featured article candidates/Free State of Galveston/archive1). I know you've been busy but if you still have an interest in the topic I thought you might want to comment. There has not been a lot of discussion except for one reviewer who appears to feel that it is hopelessly flawed. :-(

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I did notice that, and I would like to comment but can't right now. SandyGeorgia and I are the FAC delegates, but she is unavailable for promotions this weekend, so I'll be doing all the promotions/archiving until next weekend.  If I comment on the FAC, then I can't close it and it will be there for a while.  If it isn't ready for promotion/archive by the end of this week, then I will put my reviewer hat on and leave comments, as Sandy could take care of the closing next week.  I'm sorry that I haven't been able to be more help with this one! Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries. At least the feedback I've gotten is helping to improve the article which is what is most important. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. I am in the process of getting a second peer review on Texas Oil Boom with an eye toward possible FA nomination. That one I believe will be more challenging to get passed (i.e. I probably don't have the skill set to get it through without a co-author). But, IMHO, it is one of the single most important aspects of the state's history. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ARGH!
.... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) What a lovely day you are having. See and . I've got the page watchlisted, but drop me a line if I miss something. Karanacs (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thing is, I really don't CARE. Either is correct. Makes me glad I live in the states...Ealdgyth - Talk 19:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

York etc.
Suggest you go and look for something called the "SE page". There you will see discussion on the matter. Mister Flash (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you'd have seen this ...
... because I reverted it as soon as I saw it. I'm not sure Moni3 is happy with the way the article has developed over the last day or so, particularly the pruning that's taken place. Personally I think it's quite a bit tighter now than it was, but I tend to be fairly brutal in cutting to the bone.

The Donner Party has lost 6kB of readable prose, down from 67 to 61kB, and is now 10,599 readable words. I think we could probably get it closer to 10,500 words, but under 10,000 might be a struggle. What's your view? Are we making the article better or worse do you think? Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess that last question of mine has been answered now :lol: Malleus Fatuorum


 * We've had such a blizzard of comments that I'm uncertain what we have left to deal with, if anything. I've encouraged Kristin Johnson to be bold and edit the article herself if she feels there are inaccuracies or significant omissions; at least one of the books she mentions hasn't even been published here in the UK yet. I'm not sure I'd have been so keen to start on this if I'd had an inkling of what a trouble it would be ... ah well. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Sam Houston ~ Stephen Austin image
Both Huston and Austin were central figures in the Texas Revolution, the likes of which gave birth to the Republic of Texas, which is -exactly- what the image commemorates. The iamge that, for some reason, you find 'inappropriate', has not been 'spammed everywhere'. The image appears on Huston's, Austin's and one of the Alamo pages where it is well placed. Why is there no image of Huston or Austin on the Texas Revolution page, all the while there is one of Santa Anna?? Can you offer a legitmate reason why the image is not 'appropriate'? GWillHickers (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen that image pop up all over my watchlist in the last few days, in articles that it really doesn't relate to closely enough. A more appropriate picture for Texas Revolution would be pictures of the battles, pictures of the battle flags, and individual pictures of Houston and Austin.  A stylized stamp - which has an incorrect silhouette (for the time frame) of the Alamo anyway - isn't as appropriate as many others would be. 23:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply posted at bottom.

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao
Hi Karen! Thanks for your consideration of St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao. I noticed that it wasn't promoted, and your talk header states that happens for one of three reasons: (1) actionable objections have not been resolved, (2) consensus for promotion has not been reached, or (3) insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. I'd like to ask which of those it was for this review. We resolved all the objections & had one reviewer actively support and three other reviewers say "The article looks good except one thing" (and that one thing was resolved in every case), so was it #3? I'm just asking because I'm trying to figure out what else needs to happen with this article for it to pass. Thanks again for your time. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Noraft, thanks for your good attitude throughout the nomination and now! It's always a pleasure to deal with nominators who welcome feedback :)  In the case of this article, there were several concerns about its comprehensiveness - that more details would be welcome to truly flesh out the article - and a concern about the level of sourcing used.  In addition, the fact that there was only one support after several weeks and a large amount of text had been written, made me think that it was unlikely that a consensus would form at this time to overlook those issues.  Usually, when the FAC gets long it's harder to attract reviewers to an article.  I suspect that to get this article through FAC successfully you'll need to do another thorough search for more sources.  It might be helpful to get others, who may have access to different sources, to help.  Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issues were all taken care of, and all the reviewers that had sourcing concerns said so, except one person who said the article was in good shape except for one source ("Everything fixed except Baidu Baike, but I'm afraid I can't support that being used as a source at FA level."). I removed that source and found three others that said the same thing, but that editor never returned to the article to formally support. One editor (TonyTheTiger) voiced concerns with length, then another agreed with him, back when it was 1000 words. TonytheTiger supported the nomination when it was 1600 words. The other editor who said it was thin also did so when it was about 1000 words. There was a third who literally said "At 1089 words, including quotes, the article seems slight; more like a good dyk, than an FA." The article was expanded another 500 words after that. I don't think there were concerns with comprehensiveness by time the nomination was closed. Also, all Elekhh's issues were answered, and the ones that weren't, he said weren't an issue for FA promotion. We had two officially support (counting me), nobody oppose, and two more say "its okay except for X or Y issue" and those issues were fixed. That tells me that consensus was clear. I'd like permission to renominate without waiting the obligatory "few weeks," because (with TONS of love and respect!) I don't think it was resolved right. Of course this is just my opinion, and yours is just as valid as mine. But if you feel I may have a point, could I renominate it, pretty please? Also, if you still want me to wait, I'll wait, and no hard feelings! I'm a fan of cheerful disagreement (if there has to be disagreement at all), so just let me know. Thanks Karen! ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! 13:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominator support doesn't count - all nominators think their article meets the criteria or they wouldn't nominate! A lack of official opposes does not really matter - the key is a lack of supports, and this article did not have enough supports to show a consensus for promotion, yet had several reviewers mention problems.  The issue was not the word count; Johnbod was concerned that the article was not fleshed out enough.  Consensus did not support the nomination to be closed successfully, and it should not be brought back immediately.  I recommend very strongly that when you do bring it back eventually that it should not be in the exact same format.  Have a peer review, solicit Johnbod's help on searching for other sources to flesh out the coverage of the art and architecture, look throught more sources.  Otherwise I suspect you'll have the same problem in the next nomination. Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Houston/Austin image
Up until lately there were no portraits of either Houston or Austin on the Tex'Rev page, just Santa Anna, the man who was defeated by Houston, et al. As for the image of the Alamo being graphically correct for the time period, it was my understanding that it was the way the Alamo originally looked before it was battle scared. -- One could just as easily make a similar criticism about the first painting on that page, 'Battle of San Jacinto', which looks like something out of a child's story book. The cannon that is depicted in the 'Mural from the Gonzales Museum' looks like a wooden toy. -- As you can see, it is very easy to find 'fault' with just about any picture...if one is so inclined. I too would like to see other pictures of battle flags, etc, but the lack of these things on that page doesn't seem to be a basis for attacking this image. 'Dabomb87' has placed the Houston/Austin image further down on the page. I am hoping it will not be a cause for grief of any sort. In any event, I do appreciate the effort you and others have made to these pages, and was hoping that such images would be a welcomed addition. GWillHickers (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Khark(o/i)v
Hi - noticed you were online, could you take a quick look at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring and and block/protect as necessary? It's been reported for a while, but the problems are ongoing. Thanks! Knepflerle (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Many apologies for disturbing you; you were a first familiar face I saw around who possessed the requisite buttons.  Best wishes! Knepflerle (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I know there has been a backlog at the 3rr noticeboard off-and-on lately, it's just not a place I usually hang out. This was pretty straightforward, at least. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Karanacs (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought it was a nice and straightforward case; I'm not so mischievous as to drop a complicated one in your lap out of the blue! Thanks again, Knepflerle (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for protecting the page. (Taivo (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC))

Protection of Main Page article
Do you have any thoughts on whether or not the current Main Page article wife selling ought to be semi-protected? Has consensus changed about this? See here and here. Paul August &#9742; 20:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Donner
Did you mean to remove " eating those who had succumbed to starvation and sickness. " here? I know Kristin thinks the second clause is redundant, but (per the argument on the talk page and my edit summary when I initially put it back ) it really isn't if you want to give them a fair shake. Yomangani talk 18:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I certainly want that back in, it's not at all redundant. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's back in the lead now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't mean to do that...thanks for catching it! Karanacs (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion: Free State of Galveston
Hi,

If you don't mind my asking your advice again ...

I was wondering how much more work you think Free State of Galveston needs for FA. Basically from the standpoint of how educational the article is I am pretty happy with it so I don't have high motivation to spend a lot more time on it. But if the effort to get it to FA is straightforward I thought perhaps it might be worth the trouble. Not having gone through the process I'm not sure how to judge.

--Mcorazao (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to do a pre-FAC review for you (which, of course, means I'll recuse myself when/if it's eventually brought to FAC). It may take a few days...I'm in the middle of writing a new article and I need to finish it so I can nominate it for DYK. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Outline bump
Hello. A gentle reminder for User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft.


 * 1) I'd appreciate your replies in the 1st and 3rd threads at the talkpage there.
 * 2) I'm wondering whether it's time to ask/remind people for wider input? Whether we choose some of the other admins who've previously expressed concerns, or archive Wikipedia talk:Outlines and place a pointer from there to the RfC draft, or other small-scale notification options?
 * 3) I'd also really like to get some more general-feedback from you - what is still unclear in the draft-notes (oversimplified vs still-too-complicated)? and what our next steps and next topics should be?

No rush. Just a nudge. Slow and steady wins the race. (I watchlist everything too, so feel free to indulge in extended mumblings here, if you want to keep the RfC talkpage readably-short! I want to give more context&musings throughout (and keep writing-then-deleting paragraphs), but I'm trying hard not to overwhelm anywhere.) Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's on my list of things to do. I'm working my way down the talk page now.  If I can't find time this weekend (I'm usually offline on the weekends), I'll look in Monday. Thank you very much for taking so much initiative. Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See also User talk:Dragons flight regarding his idea at Village_pump_(proposals). (I'm out for the day. Car repairs and moss-removal and such...) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've written a draft of how I envision the RfC, although I think more work needs to be given to the arguments. Open for feedback :) Karanacs (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts:

The main objection to just addressing the "Outlines" alone, is that any decision will have ramifications for the other "navigational pages". The decision will be used as precedent, or the thin edge of a wedge. E.g. Dbachmann believes that Lists of mathematics topics should also be moved out of mainspace. He also thinks we "[got] rid of the "glossary" and "list of topics" articles" which isn't accurate (though individual editors have argued for this to occur).

Rather than a "Support/Oppose" division, and rather than just covering Outlines, I was hoping/envisioning that an RfC would: and
 * Cover the various available-solutions for all "navigational pages"
 * Ask for other solutions, and for input on what unconsidered-ramifications each solution would have.

Briefly (uncontextualized), the solutions I've seen suggested so far include: I believe options 2, 4, and 5, have the least drawbacks, whilst still differentiating Navigation vs Article. Option 4 seems ideal to me, at the moment. (I won't elaborate for now).
 * 1) Move various pages to portalspace
 * 2) Move various pages to a new namespace (Navigation:...)
 * 3) Move various pages to projectnamespace (Wikipedia:...), as WikiProject subpages
 * 4) Tag "navigational pages" as __NOTCONTENT__ and leave them in mainspace (Dragons flight's idea)
 * 5) Tag "navigational pages" with a banner, like Outline header, to differentiate them from articles

Thoughts? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - tweaked at 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if this gets off the ground. Johnbod (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, you're welcome to help craft this at User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft. When it's ready it will be well-advertised. Karanacs (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy new year! If you could give this thread a re-read, in the next couple of weeks perhaps, and let me know some of your thoughts/suspicions/inklings/leanings/etc, that'd be great. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at creating a separate User:Karanacs/Navigational pages RfC draft, incorporating some of the above ideas, and the previous working notes. Hopefully that can provide the basis for some further dialogue. Let us know what you're thinking. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely missed the last bump on this - sorry! My talk page gets a lot of traffic sometimes and I don't always notice new messages in the middle.  I've noticed that there has been action on this recently, and it's on my list of things to do!  Karanacs (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I sent you an email on Friday (this notice just in case your emailuser directs to an irregularly checked gmail or similar ;) I do see that you're working hard on an arbcom case; perhaps the outlines can be your distraction and mental-cleanser from that? ;) Talk soon. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church research
Because you have far more experience with featured articles than I do, it would be a better idea if you did this by yourself. I know that's a very daunting task, but I can't imagine anyone more qualified. Additionally, I'm concerned about my biases. I'm an atheist and my opinion of the Catholic Church is not very flattering. I was happy to involve myself with this article as far as fundamental Wikipedia policies were concerned. However, I don't think I should be involved with actually writing its content. Unlike Nancy, I recognize that my personal opinions might occasionally conflict with the aims of Wikipedia. I'm also fairly busy with work and school, although I always overcome those limitations if I have the will.

This is my advice for you, if you want it. Do whatever you think is necessary to improve that article. Do not worry about anyone else. Go full speed and overhaul everything as you see fit. After you're convinced it's ready, you can even try FAC for what would undoubtedly be your crowning achievement on Wikipedia. It's difficult to know who to trust with this article. To say nothing of the others, I don't even trust myself, so I know things will go well in your hands. Good luck. UBER ( talk ) 03:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One other thing: you seemed concerned in my talk page that "bad things" would start happening to this article. I don't think you have anything to worry about. I've dealt with far worse on Wikipedia. If you think the fights over this article were tough, try Michael Jackson back in 2007, when apparently it was controversial to call him King of Pop in the lead. But I got that and a lot more done at that article (now featured) despite opposition from long-standing editors and administrators, who were all totally confused about what it means to have an encyclopedic article on one of the greatest entertainers of all time. Those who try to game Wikipedia for their myopic ends, and you know who I'm talking about, will always fail in the end. That's been one of my most important guiding principles through the years, no matter how intimidating the opposition. UBER  ( talk ) 04:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Posted some comments here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Free State
Just FYI, if you decide you want to play with Free State of Galveston please feel free. I guess I have reached the limits of my abilities at this point.

--Mcorazao (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was sorry to have to archive it, although the main reason was the lack of comments in general. I'll try my hand at a copyedit soon, but it may be wise to find someone else to help out too.  Tony1 didn't approve of the prose on my last FAC either! Karanacs (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: Ruhrfish helped big time in rewroking Free State. Ruhrfish recommended someone else do a final once over to check for any mistakes. If you still have an interest feel free to take a look. I guess I'll plan to put it up for FA again soon. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic sources
Which three or four books do you think most urgent? I should be able to look through one of them tomorrow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That depends on whether you would like to concentrate on history or the other sections. If it's history, I think one of us needs to read Norman's The Roman Catholic Church: An Illustrated History for a good overview.  For the Early Christianity section, one of the books Harmekheru recommended here would probably be useful.  I don't know if I'll be able to get Brent's most recent through ILL as my library won't/can't order any that are under a year old;  I can order Norman, but likely won't have time to look through it before May.  The structure/hiearchy/membership information needs severe revamping in the article but I'm not sure if we've even identified the right books to read yet.  Honestly, I think there is soooo much reading that needs to be done in general to turn this into a decent article that you can probably pick whatever interests you and we'll work from there. Karanacs (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'll take Brent. Even if he's not quite as wonderful as Harmakheru thinks, he should lead to the recent literature. Tomorrow, however, I'll see if I can check Bodenkotter on the web; I am curious whether the business about Rome being the capital of the Western Roman Empire was his, or whether this is another case of not reporting sources accurates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked Bokenkotter, and on page 36 his book says that Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire. He was speaking of the early days of Christianity, before the East/West split.  I think Milan became capital of the Western Roman Empire in the late 3rd century, right? Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the issue PMA mentions (Rome being capital) was a bit of an editing mash. I think that paragraph of the article originally meant the early Church, and then stuff about Constantine was added, making the time frame less clear. Gimmetrow 17:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds likely. I'm working on a revamp of the Early Christianity section at User:Karanacs/Catholic Early.  It relies way too much on Bokenkotter right now, because that is what I'm currently reading. Any help is welcome... Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently Ravenna was the center of power after Constantine (according to Bauer). The draft looks good. I'm reading Bauer, Bokenkotter and McBrien at the moment. Notes are here and may, or may not, be helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * After Alaric made Milan (and Rome) unsafe. Milan was the center of power in the West from Diocletian to Honorius; that's why Saint Ambrose was in a position to excommunicate an Emperor - he was bishop of the capital. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Balancing FA with new editor recruitment
I just wanted to thank you for your efforts to explain a bit of Wikipedia's policy to User:JohnsoKr at Talk:Donner Party, but I was a bit dismayed that I was the only person to leave her a personal message at her user talk page and that you seemed more interested in getting to FA than the input of an expert. As she is new to Wikipedia, it is natural that she would not understand our rules - that this might derail a first FAC attempt is, perhaps, unfortunate, but the article could be stronger in the end, with her help. Besides, imagine how much Wikipedia would benefit from someone with expert knowledge contributing in this area! We should be doing everything we can to recruit editors like this. We were all newbies once - I remember the first time someone had to tell me to add sources to an article I wrote - do you? :) Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see the confusion in my comments there - I use "FAC status" to mean "meets the FAC criteria" rather than "gets that gold star". I was quite concerned about the possibility of original research and, regardless of whether the article got promoted (I was a little suprised that it did already), the fact that it wouldn't meet that part of the criteria was problematic. I had previously welcomed Ms. Johnson on the talk page of the IP that she was using before she created an account, and since she had used that IP after I left the message I thought it would be silly to leave a very similar message on her new talk page.  Thank you for taking the initiative to welcome her, and thank you also for your detailed comments on the article.  There is obviously still room for improvement, but we are getting there. Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my misinterpretation! Awadewit (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize! I obviously need to pay more attention to what I'm typing, and I'm glad to get that nudge from someone I respect :) Karanacs (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject NINES and 18th Connect
I thought you might be interested in the above project. Like all things academic, it will move slowly. Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Pull a Moni
Somebody better whack me before I pull a Moni ... I swear, you are Saint Karanacs!! I don't know how you've done it for so long ... Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You already pulled a Moni last time! I've got a thick skin, and my AGF-meter is pretty big.  It's only recently that the AGF-meter has started getting full and my temper has started fraying.  I'm Cajun - it's reaallllly important that I hold on to my temper or I could throw a hissy fit of such humongous proportions that Moni would ask for lessons ;)  So instead I go get chocolate.  I'm gaining weight :( Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ah, chocolate ... so that's what I'm missing !! I can pull a pretty mean hissy fit in Spanish :) Hang in there, Karanacs ... don't want you to lose your sainthood!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cake works pretty well too. Even better is to pair the two - brownies! Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No baking here.. it's over 80 and I'm fighting a rear-guard action to avoid turning on the AC... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm? Snow melted already where you are? You live in the tropics or something? [/me goes outside to build a snowman. ] :p Bishonen | talk 22:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC).


 * No, Midwest, we're just REALLY warm today for the season. I do NOT want to turn the AC on just yet, but .... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you'll need your thermal underwear on your trip to England. It's currently 48 here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Last time we went to Europe, ya'll had a heat wave ... 35C in Vienna and higher. I expect by the time we get there in a month and a half we'll bring the heat with us. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bah, that's nothing ... it was 42C when I was in Seville once ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What's a Moni? --Richard S (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You had to be there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How to proceed?
I'm ready to begin rewriting the Middle Ages section. The first sentence in the section is chronologically misplaced, as the conversion to Arianism occured in the 3rd century before the fall of Rome, so it seems that an entire re-draft is necessary. What would be best: to begin my own version in my sandbox using the sources I have at hand which can then be integrated with your draft, or add to your draft? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I've created a rough draft here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is the best idea. My plan is to present these on the talk page section by section.  If we try to do too much at once I think it may be difficult to get consensus. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. The only pressure is to get the books read and notes taken before library fines become too steep! Once the material is captured in a subpage it can be moved slowly to the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I turned in my Bokenkotter copy today, even though I had only gotten through the first 1100 years. My copy of MacCulloch's History of Christianity arrived yesterday, so I'm going to try to get through his coverage of the first 1000 years before going back to Bokenkotter.  After that, I can either order Norman through ILL or get McManners' The Oxford illustrated history of Christianity from another branch of my library.  Both will have to wait until May (going on vacation a week from Saturday, woohoo!).  Any preference on which might be better (or that you don't have access to)? Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * From what I can see on-line, McManners seems good. My local library doesn't have it, and our ILL is slow. Let me know if you get it, and I'll work at running down Norman. I'll be busy with work during the last two weeks of April into the beginning of May so my editing will slow down then. After that life gets crazy—children (?) home from college and out of high school, etc.—so am trying to do as much as possible now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I'll get McManners when I come back then. I'd like to have something to present on the Early Christianity section in May.  I think that (my version of) this section is pretty close anyway, I just don't want it to rely so heavily on Bokenkotter, and, of course, it needs to be shortened.  The Middle Ages section will likely be much more complicated!! Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to let you both know that I have Bokenkotter, McManners, Duffy, and a bunch of others if you need backstopping later in the article creation process. Can't really get too involved as we leave for Texas (Scarborough ren faire and the hill country wildflowers) in a bit under two weeks, and then Europe at the end of May. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to get involved later that would be really, really helpful :) I'm only reading on the first 1000 years right now, and will have to get all those books and finish them up again later unless we get more help.... We're doing the opposite of you;  Europe in two weeks and the hill country in May. The flowers just started getting pretty last weekend, so they should be gorgeous when you arrive.  Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll spend my time reading and bringing myself up to speed now until I get too busy in May. The summer is starting to stack up too, so it's helpful having Ealdgyth as a backstop. Thanks! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft
User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Book of interest
I thought you might be interested in this. Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is really cool! Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Karanacs (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Open Boat
Hi. Did you notice my oppose in relation to OR?? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. You must have commented as I was reading through the FAC (and I usually don't refresh once I've started my run-through). Can you please work with Maria to get those issues resolved?  She's pretty good at following up with issues, but if you don't feel satisfied, let me know and I'll try to get involved too. Karanacs (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This will be taken care of quickly. Because the oppose vote was not factored into the final FAC decision, may I move hamiltonstone's comments to the talk page?  This would allow for further discussion, etc. María ( habla  con migo ) 12:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fine with me. Karanacs (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Botification of closed FACs
Just in case you have not read the discussion at WT:FAC, since Gimmebot is not currently doing its job, I've stepped up to manually do its job. I've already gotten started on your latest pr/ar. -MBK004 01:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that thread earlier today. MBK, you are awesome.  Karanacs (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't believe it, I just edit conflicted with Gimmebot on my last one! -MBK004 02:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Only on Wikipedia.... ;0 Karanacs (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: In case I haven't told you lately...
Thanks! All that is applicable to you too, you know. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank-you for the barnstar! It was a pleasure to write; I'm glad you enjoyed it. Cam (Chat) 04:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)
Hi, Karanacs. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination), you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church update
Hi Karanacs. Hope you had a wonderful time away! I'm leaving you an update so you don't have to trawl through history to see what's been done during your absence. The GA review is finished and I've started to work on some of the suggestions from the review. I've copyedited slightly, even with the knowledge that substantial changes may still be incorporated, using the logic that the article should be as clean as it can for now. I've also added a few images, per the GA comments, but stopped because it caused some discussion. Most notably, I've been working on reducing the file size: it still takes almost 30 seconds, sometimes longer, for the edit window to close, which makes the editing excruciatingly slow. Most of my recent edits have been to move in-text citation templates to the sources section. I found about 15 to 20 that were duplicates and I reformated and consolidated. If you have questions about what I've done, ping me. Also, I have Norman and a quick spot-check was disappointing. Each bit of the article sourced to Norman was problematic: either not in his text; only a small portion in his text; in one case in the text but lifted directly into the article. I've added cite tags to the parts not in the text, and rewritten the others. I'm not impressed with Norman, but we can discuss the reasons later. I have a busy week beginning tomorrow, and then anticipate a number of small trips during the summer, but I'll be around to help as much as I can. Again, welcome back! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the update!! I need to tackle my watchlist, and will keep the Catholic Church article to last.  I spent a great part of the last week marvelling at the wonders of various Catholic churches (there are no words to describe the feeling of walking on floors that are over 1600 years old), which will hopefully be just the motivation I need to start working on this again in earnest.  I am disappointed to hear that you have a poor opinion of Norman so far; I read an article in Newsweek during my flight that quoted him a great deal, and was hopeful that it would be a good source.  I'll work my way through the talk page soon, and if all goes well, I'll be back at my books tomorrow! Good luck resolving your busy period. Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! User:Erik is gone, Moni is still mostly MIA, Eubulides is gone, Ealdgyth is out. Malleus is up and down ... and it's been hard to hold FAC under 40, with such a lack of reviewers!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still a week behind on my watchlist. Funnily enough, I didn't miss WP even once while I was gone...but here I am again anyway.  Thanks for the update. Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you have a fabulous time? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! We spit in the eye of the volcanic ash cloud and made it to our destination anyway, and I got to eat gelato every day :) Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you had gelato at Biboli in Firenze! (I got horrific food poisoning from a corner store when I lived in Italy-- wanted to die.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lucky! I used to have a gelato place near my house, but it closed down :( Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was in England at Christmas didn't miss Wikipedia while I was gone, so take your time. Savour the memories. Florence is one of the more gorgeous place I've visited, and I am envious of you. I've just cut out material that is duplicated in the History of the Catholic Church article, and I believe more can be cut to achieve a good summary, but expect some protests against the cuts. Am in the Reformation in my reading and believe that section needs a re-work, but will wait until the dust settles. Am trying to tie up loose ends before I disappear into work for the next week, but if I have time I'll write a review of my impression of Norman in my sandbox this afternoon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Florence is one of my favorite places :) The trip was good for me, not only because I really needed a break (and new shoes), but also because it has put some of what I'm reading about the early church in better perspective. I've now caught up on my watchlist and have read through the Catholic Church talk page and archives, although I haven't read through the article to see what's been changed.  I'll be digging back into McCulloch later today, and will check on your sandbox later. You have been incredibly productive - I probably won't be able to match that output level!  Good luck with work. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to comment at the moment, but speaking of sources, have you found what I wrote about Norman in my sandbox? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet, I will go check that out. Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised at all at the potential plagiarism issues (I caught a few, from other sources, a while back - I do not believe that Nancy truly understood what that meant, at least in the beginning of her work on this article). From your analysis, and the selected quotes,  I don't think I would consider Norman a good source.  Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Currently I'm reading about the Reformation, and when things slow down a bit for me next week, I'll begin making notes. I'm inclined to return Norman to the library. What's to be done about the close paraphrasing/plagiarism? Cite it to Norman while I have the book and then replace later? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)