Karanacs

• Currently at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Agua Dulce/archive1
• Next up: Welcome to Temptation
• FLC push: List of Alamo defenders‎
• Write Battle of Refugio, Battle of Coleto, Goliad Massacre, Goliad Campaign
• Review Battle of the Alamo and create comprehensive list of what needs to be done on the talk page (back to the library!)
• Create articles for books that received the Romance Writers of America's RITA Award.
• Tornel Decree

Ping me if you want me. Petty stuff has resulted in a threat that I believe is personal and meant for you. Regardless of why or how, it may have always been personal. Something is not right here. Indeed, other voices are needed.— Maile (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am not too worried. We have a user who is seemingly obsessed with ONE sentence in an FA-quality, 6k+ word article and is blowing up the talk page of the article. At least he's not edit-warring :) I agree that something isn't right, but I can't quite put my finger on what. All we can do is keep plugging away. You're reading Fowler's SA book, and I am about to start either Tucker's or Calore's. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've gone as far as I meant to in Fowler's book. That one chapter is all that's relevant to the article. If you want me to read more of the book, let me know. I still have it — Maile (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're right - for this particular article, I assume there's nothing else relevant in the book. Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Made a couple of minor tweaks, feel free to revert if that doesn't work for you. - Dank (push to talk) 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I also made a slight tweak to your tweak, Dank. It sounded like Houston was asleep when the Battle of San Jacinto broke out. Other than that, and I'm the one who wrote the original blurb, I'm fine with what you changed. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK, Dank. Your latest tweak makes it a much better sentence all around. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, heck, Dank, I just realized that you made it "Texian army of English-speaking settlers". Tejanos (Mexicans born in Texas) under the command of Juan Seguin were also in the Texian army and fought at San Jacinto. I tweaked it again. Tag! You're it! — Maile (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

• And a P.S., Karanacs. Don't know if you've seen this version, but it's Official Trailer on You Tube. Just guessing, but it looks like they're kicking off the series with the Travis letter from the Alamo. The trailer makes it look like Travis sent out a gazillion copies and everybody is reading their own copy...including Santa Anna. No one who died in the Alamo is listed on Texas Rising at IMDb. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's today: Texas Revolution, precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Whenever you resurface again. BTW, hope you got through the serious Texas weather this past week. If you ever get around to the Battle of San Jacinto, I think today must be the first I looked at it. Spurred by reading the old talk page threads I was archiving that questioned why Houston was retreating, and why the Mexican army weren't warned at San Jacinto. Much of it is not sourced. It's otherwise evident you're not the one who wrote it. Most of the article is not about the battle itself. Won't bog you down with details, but ping me when you're ready on this one. — Maile (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm around and checking my watchlist, just didn't have the urge to write lately. I have actually never looked at the San Jacinto article. I'd love to have it ready to be featured for the 180th anniversary next year, but I'm not even sure what other books will need to be read before then. I've got 3 Alamo books on my desk at the moment, and then I can expand my list. I will go ahead and add the page to my watchlist, though, so if you do any work I'll chime in. I'm hoping to get serious about the article late summer/early fall. Karanacs (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good, then. You've given me time to do some editing on it, and you can have a look at it later down the line. I was reading the book "Paper Republic" to do a book article. Decided I can't. It takes a numismatic oriented person to do an article on this book. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looks like you don't subscribe, so here's a link for you. They quoted from your FA nomination, which looks wonderfully refreshing in their newsletter. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

There's no evidence that the IP is socking, and the vandalism is only related to one IP. Why the protect? It's also kind of stale. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) Probably because the posts (now suppressed) were exceptionally nasty and might have real-life repercussions. It's hardly worth risking the perp jumping to another proxy to reinsert them. Compare this AE thread. How do you mean, it's stale? It was 12 hours ago. Bishonen | talk 17:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC).Reply

What Bish says. This is the second IP that has posted oversight-worthy stuff on Lightbreather-related pages. The Arb case pages were already protected. I suspect that yet another IP would show up in a few hours. No one should have to put up with harassment. A few days worth of protection for her talk page seemed warranted, and unlikely to have a negative effect on anything else - LB isn't editing much at the moment. Karanacs (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Alright Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sigh. Maile and Karen: I just got up, I see the TFA column was changed 8 hours ago. I've reverted until I can get some feedback from one or both of you. Could you have a look at User talk:Dank#TFA blurbs and article leads and Maunus's point at WP:ERRORS, please, and reply here or on my talk page? (Preferably, don't change the TFA directly, I don't want to give the appearance of rapid back-and-forth in the TFA column.) - Dank (push to talk) 10:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Re-pinging Maile. - Dank (push to talk) 10:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also see WT:ITN#A little help; I'm checking to see how much of a problem it would be today if we have to go over. - Dank (push to talk) 10:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

All night long, THC has been running an hour-long Avenging the Alamo-The Road, which seems to be a prequel to the series. The history of Texas from SFAustin to the Alamo fall, with Texas Rangers mentions tossed in. Author David Marion Wilkinson, historian Andrés Tijerina, H. W. Brands (UT), Albert Camarillo (Stanford University), and a handful of main actors. Brands does most of the talking. They say they threw in the Emily West storyline to have a possible explanation of why Santa Anna went Non compos mentis (my term for his temporary brain burp) at San Jacinto.— Maile (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Karanacs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hey Karanacs, have you seen my email to you? Thanks! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I saw it, meant to respond and say I was thinking about it, apparently forgot to respond, and will get back to you by Monday. Pinkie promise. Karanacs (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Take your time—there's no hurry! I was worried that I'd messed up the address or some similarly silly mistake. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just a small reminder; there's still no hurry. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

My brain apparently interpreted that as next Monday. Sigh. All done now :) Karanacs (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Texas Revolution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• army staged a surprise assault on Santa Anna and his vanguard force at the [Battle of San Jacinto]]. The Mexican troops were quickly routed, and vengeful Texians executed many who tried to surrender.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you haven't already seen it, a few people have been adding reviews on the Texas Rising article. I've started to look at it as entertainment, because it's starting to stray a lot from history. Although...if it wasn't meant as Texas history, that storyline about Emily and Santa Anna is like...well...maybe a soap opera, and it's not bad in that way. Not sure why Indians keep getting thrown into this...so...if they take this series far enough for the 1841 Enchanted Rock stand off between the Comanches and John Coffee Hays...what part of Durango, Mexico will substitute as Enchanted Rock? — Maile (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm planning to catch up on it this weekend (I don't usually have time to watch tv during the week). I figured it would be less than historical, which is why our article was important. It has Brendan Fraser and Bill Paxton, and that makes me happy :) Karanacs (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I've noticed you've edited Romance articles in the past and wanted to see if you had any interest in joining a new WikiProject for romance plange (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely, if there's a romance novel WikiProject I would join! One of my goals this year is to increase the coverage of romance novels, starting with the RITA-Award winning books. Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

awesome!! Oops my link was bad, here it is WP:ROMANCE. I just started it this weekend so am still fleshing out pages. I'm awaiting AWB approval and will then start tagging. I started fleshing out articles last week when I saw that many RITA authors didn't have pages, so I started pages for the likes of Sherry Thomas and more. (Also nominated it for a DYK) I originally thought to just make it a task force under WP:WPBIO but realized that wouldn't do. As you note, books are in desperate need. I was kind of horrified at how lacking the site is in this area, but that's not surprising. Also, don't know if you saw on WP:NBOOK's Talk page but there's a discussion going on to add bestseller lists to notability... My WP knowledge is only strong on bios so if you have anything to add to the guides on novels (or to bios or anything else there) I've set up please feel free. I just see what i have there now as an initial stab until others start joining and add to the concensus....plange (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I perceive you as a person who prefers transparency, so I'm here. This is my opinion of the latest. There will never be an end if we continue to respond. You can make your own decision, but I choose not to feed it. I have seen this before. There seem to be among us certain really, really, really needy individuals who fill up talk pages. Every response is a green light for them to keep going. Whatever it is, this looks to be endless. It does tend to kill motivation, which in and of itself might be what lies beneath. That would be a form of disruptive editing, right?— Maile (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. The arguments are becoming ridiculous and the sheer amount of text is problematic. I do still believe the article needs an overhaul. I've got a stack of books on my desk, just have to find the time to dive further into them. Hopefully life gets calmer this summer! Karanacs (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Comparing behavior:

1. Lightbreather replaced a POV term in the NRA lead with the term used by WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, WP:RS[1] - per three talk-page discussions.[2][3][4]
2. Scalhotrod completely re-wrote the lead, omitting term used by WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, WP:RS.[5]
3. Lightbreather restored #1.
4. Lightbreather asked Scalhotrod, on his talk page, to stop. Discussion head "NRA Lead".[6]
5. Scalhotrod followed Lightbreather to another editor's talk page, went to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles to add LB's question to other editor as an example of ownership statements, then (two minutes later) accused LB of ownership on other editor's talk page.[7]
6. Lightbreather asked Scalhotrod, again on his talk page, to please stop.[8]
7. Lightbreather removed Scalhotrod's "ownership" example.
8. Scalhotrod went to his page, changed discussion head "NRA lead" to "Do things my way," wrote this:[9]

Next you'll probably add a THIRD request because of [1] [This was hidden text]

<snark>You'll need to be more specific, my mind reading abilities don't work on Lightbreathers. Oh wait, did you hurt something else and you're now under the influence of something stronger than Ibuprofen?[2] Or maybe you'd like to post a lengthy list of sources that only make sense to you. And don't forget to notify a dozen or so Editors and Admins that you got a boo boo and that some boy is being mean to you[3][4]...

Is that what you are referring to when you say "Please stop." Heck, why don't you file at ANI for old time's sake[5]. Are you bored over the lack of drama over the last week or so?[6][7] I threw in a dif or two to support my claims, did you like that? Say Hi to Eric Corbett[8], Sitush[9], and Hell in a Bucket for me. Oh wait, you can't...</snark> --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

His edit summary on that last post was Is duh wittle User upset? and you think his behavior and mine are comparable?[10] Lightbreather (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You left out the part where you insinuated another editor was either a meat or sockpuppet [11]. So yes, I do think that both of you are being equally disruptive. Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

FTR, I also believe his ownership example is entirely appropriate and would support leaving that on the page. I saw that before I knew it was something you had written. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Needs to be said by somebody. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You've been working on RITA books, and I've been working on the authors, and I typically probably won't be doing many novels, but I've been using the Sherry Thomas article as a testing ground for an article's layout, etc., and put it up for a sitewide PR to see what the wider expectation is for a writer bio. Anyway, in the course of this, have been getting reviews for her two RITA books--are you okay with me going ahead and stubbing those out? I didn't want to step on your toes if you had them already in a sandbox... plange (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not working in a sandbox - I write directly in the article. If you've got the info, go for it! Right now, I'm trying to get Vision in White (not a RITA pick) ready for a potential FAC run. Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

In every edit History he is calling himself a celebrity from Bollywood and Hollywood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ali567845 --Cosmic  Emperor  13:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, on an encyclopedia note could you take a peek at Tahera Ahmad article. I started a stub and have tried to illicit help from the who you'd think have the most interest in improving the article but alas they have not noticed or decided to ignore. It may be facing deletion soon and I think I've made a case for notability on the talkpage but the writing could be improved. I'm not the strongest writer but my research tells me she is not only a good candidate for an article but also one that helps actually helps the profiles of Muslim women in general. I did tell an anon that if they want to delete after our discussion I will start it on their behalf for full disclosure. Not asking for a !vote should it come to it but help in gauging notability certainly prior to that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about that one. They are right that the coke can incident is really not notable. The other - being the first American woman to recite the Qu'ran publicly - that might be enough to meet the notability criterion. Have you found anything else that discusses how rare that really is, or is it just line items that she did it? This may be a case of she's too "current" for the RSs to have given her enough in-depth coverage to justify the article today. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

The way I was seeing it, being the first women to read quran at americas largest muslim convention is one, being featured as a chaplain in The Calling, a pbs special, and coverage that I can show that ranges from 2011-2015. That's four years of covering her work and opinions, I can understand the pop can being somewhat minor but then there is articles like Kai the hatchet weilding hitchhiker and his murder trial and I look at this woman I can't reconcile how that is so different. Maybe I'm missing something. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Karanacs. I'd like to invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. I've already had lots of great feedback there (so it should be pretty tight at this point), but it would be really nice to get some more, particularly from FA vets. I'd appreciate anything you are willing to suggest. Thanks! RO^(talk) 15:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You've just restored personal attacks/abuse targeting me. You may want to reconsider. I've reverted you and demand that you not restore it, as it's subject to revision-deletion which I've already requested. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) Wikipedia:No personal attacks states that it would be a personal attack if the content is "Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor." The IP seemed to merely be providing an example of personal attacks against other users, not linking to them for the purpose of harassment/attacking. Update (20:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC): Just noticed User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#vandalism?, BLP got it.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

That edit very much violates several policies on outing, harassment, and BLP. Do not restore content like that again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Created this this morning and it got redirected back to the author's page. I haven't worked a lot with books, but doesn't it meet #1 in WP:NBOOK? Especially as it stands now in my sandbox? Should I just revert and place new content and see how it fares if put in afd? Thx! plange (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I believe it does. Revert the redirect and move your sandbox version over what's there. Oh, and can you please sort out that "an historical" nonsense in Sherry's article? Eric Corbett 19:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Wow, shes really reaching for the rope again now. With all the harassment stuff I think she could have gotten some leniency due to responding in tress or something, but getting blocked repeatedly for violating sanctions I think shes in for it. Even GW blocked her. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

In case you miss the two questions on Talk:List of Alamo defenders:

• "this says that Highsmith reentered the Alamo with Martin and Smith" - I'm unclear on which Smith you mean.
• Please have a look at how I handled the entries to Seguin's bunch, just to make sure that's what you meant.

I have to say, you did a lot of reading and note taking this weekend. I'll work on updating the lead another day. I'm been working on the individual minutia for the last 11 hours. I need a break, but I'm trying to head off any questions that might come up in a review. Diddle with any edits you want.— Maile (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the summary, I just logged back in. I spent most of the evening re-reading Lindley. I'll go look back in the book to see which Smith that was, and I'll check on the Seguin entries probably tomorrow. I'm supposed to be working on real work, I'm just weak :) Karanacs (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Karanacs,

Would you mind revisiting the Maya civilization FAC? I have trimmed it to a point where it is below the length of the Manhattan Project when it made FA, which was the first on the list you posted a link to. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Since I'm primarily a lurker on the Battle of the Alamo page, is it worth addressing the flag/absence thereof in the text?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Gaarmyvet, I don't think the flag or lack thereof is significant to the article. Do you disagree? Karanacs (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Gaarmyvet, nobody knows which flag or flags were even at the Alamo, except for the flag of the New Orleans Grays. Santa Anna captured that one, and sent it back to Mexico where members of the Mexican congress stomped all over it. Traditional lore (and John Wayne) have said the 1824 flag flew over the Alamo, but scholars have since discounted that because the flag was designed to support the restoration of the 1824 constitution, while in the Alamo they were fighting for a Republic. What some refer to as the "Seguin flag" was actually the flag of Coahuila and Tejas, which the Mexican army hoisted over the Alamo. The Flag of the Republic of Texas was not designed until later. The Dimmitt bloody arm flag was not at the Alamo. — Maile (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I only thought it might be helpful because casual editors keep "improving" the infobox. Maybe a comment in the infobox -- like that for Audie Murphy's birthdate -- would work. I'll yield to the judgment of those working the issue.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think a comment is an excellent idea. Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Karanacs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I enjoyed the Signpost piece about your article writing. Thank you for the time and energy you put in to making this site wonderful. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Me too, and thanks for the shout-out to your peeps. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Let me add myself to this list. Amazing work. Your contributions have increased the overall value of this encyclopedia.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, y'all! Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

East Texas/Nacogdoches before and during the revolution has been bothering me. It's like Nacogdoches was an entirely different country that was unlike both Bexar and Goliad. I think most of the books we read ignore this altogether. Certainly the movies and television don't seem to know about it. I found something Lack wrote in a chapter in the Poyo book. Here are my notes. The only thing WP has is Fredonian Rebellion and the post-revolution article Córdova Rebellion. I have no idea what we do, if anything. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Lack's other book goes into detail about some of those same instances, at least the pre-Republic stuff. I included the tidbit about the soldiers taking over the election in the Texas Revolution article. For the most part, though, you're right - historians haven't given a lot of focus to that region. My long-term list of articles to improves includes the Battle of Nacogdoches (1832). I had been working to improve Mexican Texas too - there is likely plenty of room for improvement in how that article discusses Tejanos, and if you have any ideas on how to do that, it would be welcome. I haven't done a lot of reading on the post-Revolutionary period, but I think there ought to be an article somewhere about the treatment of Tejanos during the Republic of Texas years. They faced similar poor treatment around Goliad, and to a lesser extent outside Bexar. Karanacs (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Agree on the idea of an article about the treatment of Tejanos during the Republic. That might be a lot to bite off, but it's probably a good thing to do in the long run. 18:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And somehow in clicking links from Fredonian Rebellion I ended up back on the Alamo Mission in San Antonio page and now I want to cry. So much hard work went into that article, and my first glance at it this time showed an uncited/poorly cited bunch of nonimportant fluff (mixed with flat-out untruths - that San Antonio was founded on the Alamo grounds) told in bad prose. How the heck can so many people not know the least bit about how to write? Looks like the same editor who "fixed" it also redirected San Antonio de Bexar to the presidio instead of the town (which I've now reverted) years ago ... and no one noticed. I guess I get to spend my time today fixing the article back to a more coherent and accurate version instead of writing new content. Karanacs (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I've ever looked at that article before. The redirect fixer you're talking about has an ongoing agenda that makes me think they are either wildly loyal to downtown SA, or they're with the visitor's bureau. A number of articles I created, such as NRHP in that city, were later visited by that editor who change EVERYTHING that said the city's name to their their favorite phrase. I would write something like "located in the Bexar County city of San Antonio in the U.S. state of Texas" and somewhere down line it was changed to that favorite phrase of someone else. It was a mania. Like a slow-moving bot. I sympathize with you. I see we now have irrelevant pix in there, also. — Maile (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Congratulations, you have been selected to be either the voice of reason, or the person to point a directional sign on this. I deleted a hunk from the Alamo Mission that I thought was just local politics (and still do). I think somebody has an axe to grind. Most of the bunk was loaded in 2012 on three different articles. Big coincidence, different name but same articles and same stuff. One of these is a BLP article, and it seems borderline libel to me. Should anything be done? — Maile (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I fixed the BLP article. Ridiculous stuff. Karanacs (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Per this edit, Battle of the Alamo is now fully protected for 6 months and can only be edited by an Admnistrator. Don't know where you are, but I hope you're enjoying the summer. — Maile (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I take a break for a few days and everything blows up. I'm remembering why I retired.... Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, would you mind looking at this article and make suggestions on what can be changed to this to make it a GA or better? I doubt it would make a FA but at least one article I started I'd like to be a GA! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Remind me again in a few weeks? I'm way behind - I promised to look at a few others and haven't gotten there yet. Karanacs (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is site-banned. They may request reconsideration of the ban no earlier than one year after it is enacted.
2. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic-banned from the Gun control topic, broadly construed.
3. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is restricted to editing from one account. They must obtain the Committee's prior approval if they wish to edit from a different account. They are prohibited from making edits without logging in.
4. Subject to the usual exceptions, Lightbreather is prohibited from making any more than one revert to any page, except Lightbreather's own user space, in any 24-hour period.
5. Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is restricted to editing articles, their talk pages, and Lightbreather's user and user talk pages. Further, they may not edit articles in topics from which they are banned. They may post elsewhere only to respond to unambiguous criticism of them in dispute resolution fora. The default interaction-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. Should Lightbreather wish to initiate action against any user for whatever reason they may do so only by email to the Arbitration Committee.
6. All interactions bans affecting Lightbreather are taken over by the Arbitration Committee and placed under the committee's direct jurisdiction. The default i-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. For consistency and ease of administration, the i-bans may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action but any resultant appeals may be made only to the committee and only by email. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph applies to the following interaction bans:
   1. Mike Searson (one-way)
   2. Hell in a Bucket (two-way)
   3. Eric Corbett (two-way)
   4. Sitush (one-way)
   5. Scalhotrod (two-way)
7. The community is invited to create and maintain a page containing practical advice and guidance on dealing with serious harassment.
8. The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on improved trust and safety policies for the site.[12], [13] and the community is urged to offer what assistance it can.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather closed

Hello,

I've just renominated Battle of Malvern Hill for FAC. You commented last time. Mind taking a look again. It's been through a copyedit and an A-Class review over at the Military History WikiProject. Link is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive2. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Karanacs. Now the dust has settled on the Maya civilization FAC, I just wanted to say many thanks for taking the time to review the article, it's always difficult to cut back an article and especially so in this case, but spinning off some of that information made for a more concise article, and some if it was certainly unnecessarily detailed - after an epic haul the article made FA at the weekend. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Karen, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? I try to cap these when I can at 1150 characters, and it's currently around 1100. I'm not sure if I made the best choices for what to cut; any suggestions? - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC

 

Precious again, your Battle of Concepción where you "tried hard to keep the article from weighing too heavily towards" one side!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Karanacs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Mssemantics (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Karen, I'll get to this one today. Please look it over. - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I like it. Thank you! Karanacs (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I didn't get to it till today :) How about now? We aim for 1150 characters; I trimmed it down to 1173. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted more space on the main page ;) I tried to make some tweaks, but I couldn't make it sound better than you did. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Precious again, your "mostly forgotten episode that had little actual impact on the war or its outcome, although it has the distinction of having been fought at just about the same hour that leaders in Texas were declaring independence several hundred miles away"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Three years ago ...

historical romance
... you were recipient no. 427 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for Gumbo, spiced with your personal memories: "One day last year I was hungry and chose to rework the article on the particular food I was craving. Gumbo is more than just something to fill your belly. In my family, there were few major events, holidays, illnesses or family gatherings that did not include this dish. There are millions of varieties of gumbo - I can often identify the occasion simply by seeing which particular ingredients my grandmother threw in the pot that day (shrimp and crab on Christmas Eve, crawfish and oysters on Memorial Day, chicken - no sausage - on my birthday, etc)."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for today's Convention of 1833, "another period of Texan political bumbling. When told that one political convention was illegal and its results would be thrown out, Texans promptly called another one. The man responsible for delivering the results was jailed for treason. Nevertheless, Mexico gave Texas trial by jury, and lots of other cool stuff."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for today's History of Texas A&M University! - Saw your edit notice: I have a FAC open, in case you have time and interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for today's Battle of San Patricio, introduced: "This is one of the smaller battles of the Texas Revolution and a terrific illustration of Texan incompetence. One side literally got caught sleeping. The commander escaped due to a series of crazy coincidences. It's a scene worthy of a novelist's imagination."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Seven years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you today for Vision in White, an article that "has something to interest both women and men, those who settle in with a good book to relax and those who'd rather boot up their computer and play a video game, introverts and, well, introverts. Vision in White is a romance novel written by bestselling author Nora Roberts. The book was later turned into a video game, which is really odd for a romance novel."! - DYK that I made vision my motto for 2020? Well, I am now more precise about one aspect, a return of kindness, - see my talk, flowers are white ;) - How are you? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you today for Juan Davis Bradburn, "about the most hated man in Texas in the early 1830s. Bradburn was a Mexican military officer who was most talented at ticking off everyone he encountered. That trait led directly to the first armed encounter between Texas colonists and Mexican troops, and indirectly to the Texas Revolution. There has been only one full biography written about him, although he is mentioned in varying degrees of detail in pretty much every book on the Texas Revolution."! - I have a FAC open, in memory of Brian, in case of interest? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am taking one last run at getting Emily Ratajkowski promoted to WP:FA in time for a 25th birthday WP:TFA on June 7th. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 needs discussants. Since you were a Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 participant, I am hoping you might give some comments.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

You were involved in one of the prior WP:FAC or WP:PR discussions about Emily Ratajkowski. The current discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 needs more discussants. In my prior successful FACs, success has been largely based on guidance at FAC in reshaping the content that I have nominated. I would appreciate discussants interested in giving guidance such guidance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Covent Garden article has been scheduled to appear on the main page at the end of this month on the 30th. Shortly after it was scheduled, a FAR was opened by User:Scott: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Covent Garden/archive1. I am looking at addressing his concerns, though they are vague, and he appears unwilling to expand on his concerns. As you were involved in the FAC in 2011 (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Covent Garden/archive1) would you mind looking at the review, and providing some guidance as to how to proceed. There is some concern that we may need to reschedule because it would be inappropriate to have a featured article on the main page while there is a FAR in place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello - I hate to bother you about a single word in an article, but back in 2007 you made an edit on her article and I wondered if you made a simple mistake (See here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danielle_Steel&diff=next&oldid=123778886 ). You wrote, "she studied literature design and fashion design," and I wondered if you had used the word design twice by mistake. I've never heard of a major called "literature design" and I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist (if it does I'd like to know what it is!). I started to just delete it but I was afraid this was one more of those things-that-actually-exists-but-I've-never-heard-of-it, a list that is surprisingly long (and to think I thought I knew everything...).

Btw, the cited link for that into is now dead (that darn Internet has done it again). Thanks. __209.179.36.56 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

(See here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danielle_Steel&diff=next&oldid=123778886 )

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Karanacs.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

  Administrator changes

  NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

  Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

  Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

  Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

  Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I recently got contacted by a librarian in Arlington looking for someone to visit and provide some hands on support for contributing to Wikipedia about their special collections. Are you willing/interested in collaborating with them? If so, send me an sadads wikimedia.org and I will connect you. If not, are their any contributors you would recommend for doing outreach and/or a conversation with them? Astinson (WMF) (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

That sounds like an exciting opportunity! Unfortunately, I'm not that close to Arlington. Maile66, is this something up your alley? Karanacs (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:AKnightinShiningArmor.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Karanacs, how are you? Let me introduce myself. I am that editor over in the Wiki Project Agriculture (and Livestock taskforce) and Wiki Project Equine who works on a sub-section of rodeo articles, mainly bucking bulls and bull riders. I have just recently stepped into a couple of other articles too. I have been working in WP about 6 months now. I am being mentored by montanabw who is one of the editors who oversees the rodeo articles and also has a hand in helping to manage the equine wikiproject. We'd like to collaborate with you on a few things since you are apparently getting involved in rodeo. First of all, I noticed you put the category I created bull riders inside of the rodeo performers category. I thought that was a good idea, so I put my other category bucking bulls inside it too. However, it came to my notice today that neither one of us took the now redundant category rodeo performers out of the articles. So, I'll do bucking bulls and you can do bull riders? Sound fair? Then yesterday, of course, I could not miss the new category you created out of one of the many hall of fames that exist for rodeo. I'm not a big proponent of hall of fame categories, I usually use lists. The Bull Riding Hall of Fame lists all of its inductees in its article. Or, some do like the Country Music Hall of Fame, which has its article about the hall and then a separate list article of its inductees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Country_Music_Hall_of_Fame_inductees And obviously, we could not create categories for all the halls of fame, that would be overcategorization. If you looked at Jim Shoulders, for example, he's in around 10 hall of fames. I know, cause I added most of them, lol. But if you want to have one and maintain it, that's great, no worries. I also realize that the ProRodeo Hall of Fame article is seriously in need of work. It's on my list. At some point, we might want to discuss if we need a duplicate list in that article as well as a category. And, also I wanted to let you know of three inductees you missed, two bull riders Myrtis Dightman and Warren G. Brown. And a bull fighter/rodeo clown Rob Smets. They are all inductees. Oh, one more thing. The category should be named ProRodeo not Pro Rodeo. Is there anyway to fix that now? If you go to the web site, you will see that is the way they spell it throughout as well as in all of the articles here. Even the logo shows it as one word, so to speak.

The other thing I noticed is that you have written a couple articles. I thought I would let you know where you can look to see what I am currently working on so we don't step on each other. Because you just wrote a barrel horse racer article, and I am working on one right now. Charmayne James in my user space. I am also working on updating her horse Scamper's article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dawnleelynn#Articles_in_Progress And I wanted to say you are welcome to play in my sandbox project for Charmayne. I'm going to add all my sources for Charmayne (user and unused) to her talk page by tomorrow. The sandbox on the bull Bones is pretty much rough draft complete, but comments are welcome. And, btw, I haven't an idea yet what wikiproject to put her in. Even the bull riders are not consistent as to what wikiprojects they are in. Last thing, did you see the article announcing this year's inductees? http://www.prorodeo.com/news-display/2017/03/28/prorodeo-hall-of-fame-announces-2017-induction-class Ok, I know I'm long-winded. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I found where we could request a category name change. We'd just have to see the directions at WP:CMOVE where what they call "speedy renaming" can be done. Oh, and montanabw wanted me to make sure you were invited to join our wiki projects if you like. The more, the merrier! And I hope I didn't say anything that offended you. I can be a little bit too direct sometimes and the tone doesn't always come across as friendly as I mean online. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi dawnleelynn! Montanabw and I are old friends here on wp, and I'm happy to meet any friend of hers. I was once a prolific editor, took a long wikibreak, and then got inspired watching some of my favorites compete at the Houston rodeo a few weeks ago. I'm not sure how many articles I'm going to write, but for now I'm having fun! Sherry Cervi is probably the only barrel racer I'll work on; I'm much more interested in the men's events, but she's a legend and deserved at least a stub.

I didn't even know there was a rodeo wikiproject; I'll have to check that out. I'll fix the category name and add the other articles to it. I need to create categories for the other events, and then I'll do another pass through all of the articles in the rodeo performers category. Should we leave those who do multiple events in the main category too? Karanacs (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your most gracious reply. Montanabw always reminds me the important thing is to have fun. So Sherry is a legend,I guess I'll have to read up on her. Charmayne James which I'm writing at montanabw's suggestion is also a legend, one of two of the first barrel horse racers being inducted into the ProRodeo Hall of Fame this year. Scamper, her horse, was the first horse in 1996. Now another horse is being inducted this year too. They are inducting from the WPRA starting this year. It's a big step for the PRCA. Also, I thought go Mary Burger for winning the NFR at 68 years old last year!

I didn't mean to lead you astray, there isn't a rodeo wiki project per say. Although the higher ups have been discussing creating a rodeo task force. And because there isn't one, a lot of the articles have fallen under the purview of the agriculture (under its livestock taskforce) and the equine wikiproject. Some things covered by our projects are obviously bucking bulls, rodeo horses, and we watch bull riders which are under various biography projects with no one really seeming to watch them now but us, I just suggested to montanabw we add the ProRodeo Hall of Fame since we have been the only ones guarding it for quite awhile. Also, the Bull Riding Hall of Fame, the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, the Professional Bull Riders, Steer riding, Calf roping, Bucking bull, Bull, Lasso, Bronco, Animal treatment in rodeo, Professional Bull Riders: Heroes and Legends among others. The Rodeo article falls under many wikiprojects, one of which is ours. P.S. also bucking horses, barrel racing horses fall into wpeq. dawnleelynn^(talk) 03:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Those who are in multiple events should still be in the main category meaning the Rodeo category? Or the Rodeo performers category? I checked it out, the Rodeo performers category is a child of Rodeo. And the Rodeo category needs cleaned up. It has several sub-categories. And it also has individual pages that are redundant because they are in the sub-categories. Like Bushwacker and Steer riding. So any article that is in a category that is a child of Rodeo performers will be in Rodeo in the sense that it shows up as a sub-category of Rodeo. It would be redundant to have them show up as a page in Rodeo too. So the Bull riders and Bucking bulls sub-categories show up in Rodeo category already as a sub-category. I think that's how it should work. But please tell me if you a different perspective by all means. You've been doing this a lot longer than I have! :))

A good example of performers who are in multiple events are Jim Shoulders, Trevor Brazile, or Ty Murray. We could use them to test out how they appear in multiple categories if need be. Just a thought.

Karen, I'm looking at the category Rodeo performers. And to tell you the truth I'm just not sure if it's just supposed to list the sub-categories. Once we added the categories bucking bulls and bull riders, are we really supposed to take out the rodeo performers category out of the individual articles? Then Rodeo performers would sure be a short category page then. Maybe we might want to ask Montanabw too. I not ashamed to admit I'm no expert on using categories. I don't want to pull the Rodeo performer category out of the articles with the bucking bull category until I'm sure that is what you are supposed to do when you make the bucking bull category a child of rodeo performer...same with the bull riders category. dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Karen, to clarify I just meant montanabw knows the original structure set up of the rodeo categories and I don't so maybe she could shed some light.

I just set up the main article for the inductee category following the two examples set forth. Take a look and decide which method you prefer, and I can remove the one you don't. Well, go here first. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pro_Rodeo_Hall_of_Fame_inductees And you'll see this: 1. The main article for this category is ProRodeo Hall of Fame. or 2. ProRodeo Hall of Fame first link - would always be first link.

Ok, and here's where I read about it and set it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Categorization#Can_categories_be_renamed.2C_moved.2C_or_redirected.3F Maintaining Categories and The cat main template. Ok. and wanted to tell you that there are many orphaned rodeo topics (no wiki project. I am trying to find them all. And please no matter what all I tell you, just have fun and I have no expectation of you to do more than you want to do. Ciao! dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) We’ve tossed around the creation of a rodeo wikiproject, probably a “child” of one of the “parent” projects but the trick is figuring where the parent is… WPEQ would be the usual suspect, but as Dawnleelynn points out, we also have cows, agriculture, etc… and WP Sports may also decide to get involved (though I posted that that project once about this and don’t think anyone bit…). I recently created the Harness racing task force off of WikiProject Horse racing, but that was easy to figure out. Rodeo… not quite sure how to handle it, but I think we do need a wikiproject for it. Thoughts, all? Montanabw^(talk) 01:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Montanabw I would go for either creating a rodeo task force under WP:EQ or creating a new wikiproject for Rodeo. If we did that, we should probably delete the agriculture - livestock taskforce though. It would be nice to also tag all of the orphaned rodeo articles under the new project too.

Karen, I saw you updated the category with a move. I guess the speedy delete didn't do what I thought. I did think it would correct all the articles so we didn't have to do it manually. If it would not, then bummer. So anyway, I just did the bucking bull topics because I also wanted to add the category rodeo to all of them, as several were missing. montanabw was clear that the categories were not as organized as they could be. As to your question should we leave the articles in the main article, I think now that the answer is yes. I'm going to go ahead and update the bull rider articles too, you shouldn't have to to update all of the articles yourself. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC) p.s. I had some other things I wanted to check in them anyway.Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fred Whitfield (rodeo), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeff Chapman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stockyard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is good to see you back!!! I hope all is well. It was almost 10 years since we worked on that A&M FC nomination. I am glad to see that you are still helping out. Oldag07 (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rob Thomas (musician), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BMI and 3 A.M.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the Gumbo article has been scheduled to rerun as today's featured article for September 16, 2017. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 16, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Karanacs. Just letting you know that the Convention of 1833 article has been scheduled as today's featured article for December 10, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 10, 2017. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
• updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:WhereAreTheChildren.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that History of Texas A&M University has been scheduled as today's featured article for 14 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 14, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Hayden Nicholas, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:11, 4 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robin Rouse Wells is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Rouse Wells until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.Reply

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that Battle of San Patricio has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 27 February 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 27, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Karen, hope all is well. Ealdgyth wants to run this one at TFA on the 23rd. I'm having a hard time getting it done. Feel free to write the blurb, or if you prefer, let me know what you'd like to see in the blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that Donner Party has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 23 May 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 23, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've watchlisted the article also, to help on its main page date. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:Alamo1846.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alamo1846.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)Reply

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord teamReply

This is to let you know that the Vision in White article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 16, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 16, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello Karen. I was wondering if you would assist me with the article I'm trying to get approved? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kristen_Ashley Thanks in advance for any assistance you could provide.

This is to let you know that Juan Davis Bradburn has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 16 May 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 16, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cami Dalton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cami Dalton until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

G'day all, the nominations for the 2020 Military history WikiProject newcomer and Historian of the Year are open, all editors are encouraged to nominate candidates for the awards before until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2020, after which voting will occur for 14 days. There is not much time left to nominate worthy recipients, so get to it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

G'day all, voting for the WikiProject Military history "Military Historian of the Year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" is about to close, so if you haven't already, click on the links and have your say before 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC) for the coord teamReply

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are still open, but not for long. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! No further nominations will be accepted after that time. Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey y'all, voting for the 2021 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2021. Voting will be conducted at the 2021 tranche page itself. Appropriate questions for the candidates can also be asked. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next several days.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

User:HAL333 has nominated Texas A&M University for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Karanacs! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather (talk · contribs). You are being notified as you participated in the last unban discussion. You may give feedback here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I (Hog Farm) didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Harlequin Enterprises logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Lawrence Sullivan Ross for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dylanvt (talk) 13:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

hi Karanacs! This is my first ever time connecting with someone from Wikipedia. I hope this is the correct way to send you a message? If not, feel free to delete this. So, I was reading about US and Texas history this morning and about conflicts like the AlamoEmpresario#/media/File:Map of Coahuila and Texas in 1833.jpg. I saw that you uploaded a map of land grants from 1835? I wanted to follow up on it so I clicked on the link [below] but it didn’t work [I got the ‘error 404’ message. Just thought I’d let you know… I hope that’s OK. https://www.tsl.texas.gov/cgi-bin/aris/maps/maplookup.php?mapnum=1607b

Also, while I have you … I’d like to thank you and your co—contributors for helping out so much with Wikipedia. I have been using Wikipedia for a very long time and I really appreciate all the work editors and contributors do to keep it available to anyone who needs it. Before now I haven’t really looked ‘behind’ or .. underneath to see the work of the amazing people who donate their time, energy, expertise and support. Truth is, I’ve taken it for granted [sorry]. I’ve just looked at some of your contributions and a those of a few other users and can see that you are all part of a very large, broadly diverse group of people working together to create something so important to societies across the world. I believe Wikipedia is such a valuable part of the internet that needs help to remain in the public’s hands. It’s much more than a source of information, I see it as a project of co-operation and communication and community [alliteration not intended - but it still sounds cool ;):) ]. We live in such polarised times with so *much* misinformation and disinformation that having people working together like you do to present referenced and sourced information is so vital. Anywaaay. Forgive the waffle. I guess I just feel touched by all the work I can see you’ve done. As have your Wikipedia ‘colleagues’. I’m certain it can be frustrating at times because people can be … frustrating and petty and silly and proprietorial and egotistical. But they are also wonderful and helpful, clever and thoughtful and supportive. So.. Thanks for uploading the maps so people like me [Aussie] can learn a bit more about American history and … pretty much anything else I want. And of course to all of your fellow editors and contributors, I also extend my sincere gratitude for everything that you all do to make Wikipedia such a wonderful, and *reliable* source for the education of your readers. Natski Natellie4113 (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Howdy, Natski. I agree that Karanacs is one of the greatest Texan Wikipedians ever, but her editing has been limited over the last few years. In case she cannot respond, you can find that map in the TSL archive at https://www.tsl.texas.gov/apps/arc/maps/storage/texas_media/imgs/map01607b.jpg now; things often shift in governmental archives. Interesting to see San Antonio labeled as Bexar (now the county), and not even situated on the San Antonio River - and what appears to be San Felipe as the center of the Texian universe. Sam Kuru (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:French Texas has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rob DesLauriers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob DesLauriers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🍪 CookieMonster 01:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 3 June 2024. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/June 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply