User talk:Karanacs/Archive 9

Texas just got promoted to GA, is now on a FA run, and it would be nice to have all the input we can get in our peer review. Thanks for the help.

Thanks! That was some real good stuff! Gig em!Oldag07 (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have created a FA Prep page much like the FA Push page we used when going for FA status for our beloved university with your review pretty much the backbone of the whole page. figured you might want to check it out. Oldag07 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here: [1]. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all. NancyHeise ^talk 15:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the ec ! Thanks for the work: I'll leave it to you now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to step on your toes. You did a great job collecting all the links and I was trying to help. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Go for it !! (Give me a second to add the Dispatch banner, though, so we can see how it lays out.) Jbmurray is going to ce later, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's all yours now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, I hope our edit conflicts didn't put you off or offend you, and if they did, I apologize. Wikipedia:FCDW/November 10, 2008 is unfinished, so I may have to withdraw it until I can come back to work on it. GimmeBot processes on Tuesday and Saturday nights, to Tuesday is a good day to move withdrawals to archives. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not so easily offended, Sandy! I got distracted (a common occurrence for me here). I meant to get back to the dispatch yesterday but forgot. Thank you for reminding me! Karanacs (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing that up, with excellence as usual. I created {{FACClosed}} to add to the bottom of the early (relative to GimmeBot's schedule) closings: the variables are "archived" or "promoted". So, you just enter {{subst:FACClosed|archived}} ~~~~ at the bottom of the FAC when you archive it. David Fuchs has withdrawn nominations without doing the rest of the "paperwork", next to deal with those. I'd like to have only those editors I've asked to help doing that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add the FACClosed step to my personal notes. Karanacs (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You deleted the article Kctalk.com.

I had posted a hold off template so I could have more time to edit the page, and on top of that, I have been in discussions with other admin / moderators as to ways to improve the article.

I would appreciate it if you would undelete kctalk.com as to allow more time. I requested the "hold off" as the wikipedia manual suggests so that moderators won't delete it like you did.

If you would like I can link to that portion of Wikipedia.

Thanks for your assistance

P.S. I had 5 references to its importance, and was adding more.

-Alannerd (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words! It is nice to hear things like that from other users, to know I'm appreciated. Thanks again! CTJF83Talk 03:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

HAHA, I wrote that before I saw your oppose! :) I started User:Ctjf83/fac to have my personal page to strike what I fix of your concerns. I also posted a question about your issue. If you could watch page, and answer any questions I have, that would be great! We can work together to get this up to FA status. CTJF83Talk 19:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You might not have saw this, when responding to my other inquiry:

• I'm confused about the Mass mound stuff...could that be explained a bit better?
  • As suggested by User:Juliancolton on the review, one or two sentences are good for the mass mound part. Here is what it use to look like. Which of the two do you think it should be, the former long version, or the current short version?

CTJF83Talk 18:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • Sorry, I didn't see that one. I don't think you need a lot more information, I think it just needs to be worded differently. Karanacs (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Is your sources issue alone going to cause you to still oppose even if I fixed the other issues? CTJF83Talk 20:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, the sources are by far the most important issue. Sorry! Karanacs (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
          • They are all sourced...just not secondary. I'll see what I can find.... CTJF83Talk 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
          • What specifically do you want secondary sourced, instead of primary? CTJF83Talk 22:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
          • ?? :) So I can get this passed. CTJF83Talk 22:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
            • Ok, I'll see what I can come up with. Not sure how much longer they will leave the FAC open. But it'll be ready for the next one! CTJF83Talk 16:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why, the "American Nurses Credentialing Center, the nation’s leading credentialing organization" should NOT be sourced to the ANCC itself? I could see not sourcing it to Genesis (hospital), because that is who got the award. What is wrong with sourcing it to the awarding foundation? CTJF83Talk 18:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"the nation's leading credentialing organization" is a claim that needs to be sourced because it is saying that this organization is really important. That type of claim (opinion) should always be sourced to an independent source. You could say "ANCC, a credentialing organization", and source that to the ANCC with no problem because you would be stating a fact. When adding in the more superlative praise, you need to source it to someone independent (because organization X can say pretty much whatever they want on their website, true or not). The ideal scenario here is to find a newspaper article that talks about the award they gave - then you aren't making a judgement call on whether the award or the organization is important based on their websites. Karanacs (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

So you only have a problem with the "the nation’s leading credentialing organization" being sourced by the ANCC, right? I can use their website to reference the award given to Genesis. If I can't find any other source, I'll remove "The nation's leading..." CTJF83Talk 18:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I wanna make sure I address all of your concerns, so I can get this up to an FA, so I'm gonna bug ya a lot! Does the Von Maur info, here need a secondary source? I found the same information from the Quad City Times here at the bottom, under Von Maur Profile. Do I need to change the reference to the Times source? CTJF83Talk 20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

General rule - if it is at all possible to source something to a secondary source, then DO NOT use the primary source. Primary sources should be used as sparingly as possible. Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For all the good advice and guidance you have offered through all your comments at peer review and beyond for Roman Catholic Church. We failed FAC but will be again at peer review in a few weeks. I hope you will continue to be part of this effort. I appreciate your help very much. Thanks. NancyHeise talk 00:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, you mentioned Texas missions, I was wondering if you had a source to suggest we use for our rewording attempts. I was wondering if you could tell me where you saw the info about missionaries requesting troops. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 18:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I read this while researching Spanish Texas. It came from Weber, David J. (1992), The Spanish Frontier in North America, Yale Western Americana Series, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, ISBN 0300051980 , p 185 or 186. If that's not easily accessible for you, I can transcribe the appropriate paragraph, but it might be this afternoon or tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll just copy and paste what you wrote here onto my talk page where I am accumulating ref ideas for the next go-round. Much appreciated! NancyHeise ^talk 19:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Texas - nice article - well done! NancyHeise ^talk 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, I hope all's well. I'm dropping by to see if you might have the time to mentor a student group on the NRG project in these final stages of their assignment... I was thinking that María Ruiz de Burton might be down your street. OK, so she's Californian, not Texan, but at least she's nineteenth-century. What say you? They and I would be eternally grateful... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like fun. I'll pop on over there. Karanacs (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Karanacs. I am trying to help Banime out and have tried to address some of your concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frederick III, German Emperor. Could you take a look through the article and see if my changes were of any good? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I was just about to post this. I replied on the FAC and all of your concerns have been addressed so far I believe. Thanks Karanacs for your time. --Banime (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello Karanacs. I noticed that you deleted the page for Americna Majority. As it is a legitimate, albiet new, non-profit orgainization, I do not understand your reasoning. It is completely relevant to "real people" including its president, Ned Ryun. If you felt that it read more like an advertisement than an article, it seems that editing would be a better solution than deletion. As I understand the Wikipedia deletion guidelines, the American Majority article merely needed editing and development, not deletion. Please retore the American Majority page. Firecracker22 (talk) 16:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That page made no effort to establish notability, per wikipedia's definition. You may want to reference the guidelines for organizations at WP:CORP. Karanacs (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, you are the most knowlegeable person about Wikipedia I have encountered so I am asking you this question: I would like to play around with the RCC article mainly doing some trims and rewordings but I dont want to mess up the main article before peer review begins in a couple of weeks. I don't know how to open a sandbox page for myself - can you offer me some pointers on this? Thanks.NancyHeise ^talk 16:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, it's pretty easy once you know how. There are directions [[2]]. On your userpage, create a link to whatever name you want to use (like User:NancyHeise/RCC sandbox) and save the page. Click on the link, and it should bring you to an empty page to start editing. Once you save, your sandbox will be created. Just make sure that you only create these off of your Userspace, or from the talk page of an article (for example, Talk:Roman Catholic Church/sandbox is okay but not Roman Catholic Church/sandbox). If you have any problems, let me know. Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! NancyHeise ^talk 17:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Karanacs.... I just noticed that my article on Prof. K.L. Narasimham was removed. The delegation log says that it "Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person". I am regular editor in Wiki Gujarati and I do respect Wikipedia policy. Please advice me what am I doing wrong and how can I see my work back to Wikipedia? Thanks in advance... Enjoy the weekends :-) Maharshi675 (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the page was deleted because it did not appear to establish notability. The appropriate guidelines for this person are Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and the biography inclusion guideline. The article should also cite independent, reliable sources. Karanacs (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have sent you this earlier, but the article was far from ready... It's still got some ways to go, but perhaps you might have time to take a brief look at Tomás Rivera. Obviously, if you don't, then no problems at all. I've just outlined on the talk page and in broad strokes some obvious things that need to be done. Perhaps no more than a bit of encouragement is needed at this stage? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look today. Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have not logged in to Wikipedia for a long time. I saw that you had a message about deleting page Vibha on my talk page. I see that the original article was deleted. This is about a year ago. Can I see the reasons for deletion somewhere? Is there a way to get back the text? --Mssnlayam (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted because it did not meet the inclusion criteria. No third-party, reliable sources could be found that offered significant coverage of the organization. You might be interested in the inclusion criteria for corporations if you would like to recreate the article. Karanacs (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support for the above recent FAC and useful comments. This is my co-nom User:Zatoichi26's first FA; he did most of the hard work. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs, I've responded to your comments. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you please read Awadewit's and my own comments at the end of this section? We are all ready to just move on with our lives here. Wrad (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Your undo restored a citation that does not support the statement for which it is being cited. Please look at Talk:Nora Roberts. Ther is currently no cited source for the settelment of the lawsuit. I don't doubt it was settled, but we do need a source.

A two-second google search found it. Thank you for your help. Karanacs (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to take a look. I'll try to get it done tonight. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

I did some minor copyediting, but I couldn't find much to change. :-) It's a great article, and I see nothing that might hold it back from passing FAC. You might want to look over my copyedits to make sure I didn't change the meaning of anything. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!!! Karanacs (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reread this version and make the following comments.

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

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

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

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

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

• "The three advisors had been elected to the Consultation"

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "men who have so handsomly acquitted"

Eh... is this typo Houston's?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Any luck in getting free photos of the stone marker?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karanacs, I do not understand Wikipedia categories and was wondering how does someone who is searching for Wikipedia pages use categories to find what they are searching for? NancyHeise ^talk 21:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded Gary King (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Karanacs. Sometime ago you helped out on a PR on Cranmer. Could I ask for your help again on a PR on Calvin? Thanks in advance. --RelHistBuff (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I promise I'm not ignoring you on purpose! I will try to get to this article this week. Karanacs (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your reply 9/12/08 -

You stated that the subject is an aspiring musician. The press snippets from Sky News to various RSS feeds do state otherwise. Aside from creating the worlds 1st interactive single, the album by the subjects band alone has been getting support from heavyweight music industry figures owing to songs featured on album. The Subject and his band had signed a 5 figure deal with Sony on the back of the songs and they are ploughing a lot or money and resources upon its release. Re: Peter Cook - The subject himself came up with the idea of honouring him and had got Westminster Council & The Heriate Foundation involved in errecting an interactive plaque to him in Soho, London , featuring the 1st satrical wording ever to be placed on a blue plaque-Much press and fanfare in Feb 09 when this is brought to the public attention! I do believe that this guys story and background would fit the critea Wikepedia seeks.. but I would like the chance to put this onto the site without fear of being deleted all the time.. It is pretty off putting in all fairness. I hope you understand and in the spirit of goodwill, will relent on this occasion.

Many thanks

Jonny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny-Oxo (talk • contribs) 13:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is frustrating having the subjects page under deletion as I have put this under construction so to write about the subject himself at great length and his history,along with present and future activities which will be recieving bigger media awareness. I kindly ask that you re-instate the page so I can begin writing about the subject as planned. I would be very grateful. I am new to Wikepedia and it seems a mine field as to simply writing about a subject with previous press interest and interest which is certain within the next few months owing to the activities (Peter Cook memorial plaque-single/album launch) ..All will be recieving much media interest and the music side of this guys story makes great reading. I hope this helps

Kind regards,

Jonny

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny-Oxo (talk • contribs) 15:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC) 

copied to user's talk pageMy advice would be to first read WP:BAND and make sure that Biddiss meets the inclusion criteria right now. Otherwise, the article will only be deleted again. Usually, aspiring musicians, even those with an album due to come out in the next few months, do not meet the inclusion criteria. The sources you had used did not establish that the subject met the inclusion criteria at this time. If you want to start a draft of an article, you can do so in your userspace. For example, create User:Jonny-Oxo\sandbox and begin writing there. When you have the article ready, then you can move it into the article mainspae. For now, though, since the article you had did not meet inclusion criteria, I am not going to restore it. 15:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't mean to trouble you too much, but since you suggested getting the article another copyedit... do you have any suggestions as to where I should ask? It seems that WP:LOCE is closed down, and, I'm not sure if WP:GOCE is the right place. It seems more focused on getting okay articles to GA (but maybe I'm totally wrong?). Plus, I have the usual twin worries of inviting too many cooks to make the broth (the high road reason) and author's vanity (how dare they mess with my precious words!). I've seen some good copyeditors on other FAC pages, but I'm not sure it's good etiquette to bug them directly on their talk pages. Any suggestions?

(If none, I believe I have one more English-majory contact I can hit up for ideas, though, so I won't be totally out of luck.) SnowFire (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to ask on people's talk pages if they'd mind copyediting (especially if you mention being impressed with their skills on other FACs!). User:Jappalang does a good job with military articles. User:Mattisse is an excellent copyeditor in general, and there are others. Karanacs (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Unfortunately non-admins have no way of comparing previous deleted content to current versions so it's usually down to admins to make a call. I'll take this to afd instead. Best of luck Valenciano (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Karanacs, I don't know if you've noticed, but I've replied to your query at this FAC. Would you mind taking a look/replying? :-) Maxim_(talk) 20:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs? Maxim_(talk) 02:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm working my way up the list of ones I had commented on. There is one more until I get to this one. Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I have just created Toa Payoh Ritual Murders (a project I have been researching and drafting for several months), and would like you to review it. Sex, drugs, rituals, and violence are involved as a man and two women killed two children for revenge on local law enforcement (hoped that perked your interest)! I am aiming to make this article an FA, and would like your opinions on its deficiencies. Any help in copyediting is greatly appreciated as well. Please take a look and comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Toa Payoh Ritual Murders/archive1. Thank you very much! Jappalang (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I will do my best to get to this article this week. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I greatly appreciate this. Jappalang (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! Brianboulton has performed a copyedit of the article, and I have acted to your (and others') suggestions. Could you give it a quick go-through to see if any mistakes or sensationalistic phrases still exist? Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I was told that you're a good FA contributor and that you like country music. Is this true? If so, PLEASE help me (see the help link in my sig). I could really, really use some help in getting more country music articles to GA or FA. I've already done two myself (Diamond Rio and McBride & the Ride), and could surely use another set of hands. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually did a lot of cleanup work last year on Garth Brooks, Tim McGraw, Faith Hill, and Gary Allan so that they would actually be cited and most of the POV pulled out. Most of that was from online sources, though, and I know there are books available on Brooks and McGraw (which would also likely cover some of Hill). I'm in the middle of my own obsession right now (Texas Revolution) and won't have time to do any of the heavy research work on any of these acts. I am, however, willing to do any copyediting or provide pre-FAC advice on how to finish polishing any article that you think is close to a nomination. I agree with you that it is a darned shame that there aren't any FAs on country music, but for me right now it's a matter of prioritizing scarce research time. Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No one gets to promote any country music articles until Loretta Lynn and Hank Williams are completed. I may save Patsy Cline for myself. --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hank Williams would be fun to work on! So would Dolly Parton; I'm singing along to "Jolene" right now. Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My OR is that "Jolene" is not about a rival but an object of desire, masked as a rival. Dolly can be complicated. --Moni3 (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it'd be nice to get a big star to GA. Garth, Faith, and Tim probably need sections on critical reception and musical stylings, but they're pretty close. Gary Allan may be pretty close to GA if we can tighten the prose some. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meet Kevin Johnson. –thedemonhog talk • edits 15:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bump. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review. But what a coincidence! Today, my books were due and I returned them to the library today! I figured I would be too busy during the holidays to do much wiki-ing. When I am back from vacation, I will check out the books again and respond to your review. I'll ping you once I am done. Talk to you in January! --RelHistBuff (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy your holidays! Karanacs (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I never did explain myself before, so I will now - During this summer, when I needed help, Ceoil and you stepped in to help build the community's trust about me. I thank you for that. However, I upsetted Ceoil and he declared that he no longer wanted anything to do with me. Originally, he was to mentor me, and you stepped in to help reinforce things via admin tools. I figured that the pseudo- mentorship was broken by that act. Not by choice, but by unfortunate circumstances. I respect you, and I respect Ceoil, and I am grateful for support and the rest over time. It was not meant as an insult to you, or a statement of dissatisfaction. I hope that clears things up. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this request is the most conventional ever with regards to FACs. Can you please take another look at the article, from a prose/clarity perspective. It's been through pretty big changes, and it's a different beast now IMO. Thank you very much for taking the time to review it, Maxim_(talk) 21:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, thank you so much for watching over FAC issues at my talk page when I'm not around; this was word-for-word perfect (as usual), and one less thing for me to respond to through my illness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

What's going on at the Piggly Wiggly over there? --Moni3 (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

One more thing for us Aggies to laugh at the University of Texas at Austin alums over. That "longhorn" probably terrified the kids.... Karanacs (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs, you opposed the FAC the last time around. This time, however, the article has expanded quite a lot, so if you have time, could you take another look at the article? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a good holiday and thank you for a lot that you have done for me. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You were asked for here. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Howdy Karanacs. The List of Texas Aggie terms is up at Featured list candidates. On the talk page, there is a discussion about what the correct name of the article should be. Your input on the matter would be much appreciated. Thanks and Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at Categoria:Template box. Could you also have a look at the creator's other contributions? S/he has created other articles in foreign language. I wasn't sure whether they directly fall under CSD so I didn't nominate them. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've delete the other templates that this user created - there were English-language versions available. Thanks for the heads-up. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Karen, I am planning to get this article to FA status, and have been advised that you are one of the top all-around FA review experts. Would you mind, when you have some free time, to review it? I would appreciate it greatly. Thanks in advance, Crum375 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to review it, but I am a bit swamped right now. If not tomorrow, then I'll try to work it in one day next week. Karanacs (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks — looking forward to it. Crum375 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Dabomb87 and Juliancolton have helped ce this after I did the research. I think it's almost ready for FAC. Could you look it over so it gets beat up less at FAC? Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Karanacs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.