User talk:Karanacs/Archive 15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm going back to the way FAC promotions were done historically, on an unannounced schedule; you need not follow suit :) [1] If you plan to continue on a Tuesday schedule, that works for me! Your always calm, diplomatic and measured feedback might be useful here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delayed response to Sturmvogel 66

Four hypothetical scenarios:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand that a nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate: actionable objections have not been resolved; or consensus for promotion has not been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. You recently archived Evanna Lynch. [2] I am unsure why; I addressed many of the reviewers' comments and they had yet to respond. Could you please clarify specifically why you did archive it? Many thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 20 September 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coahuila y Tejas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FAC instructions: "None of its nominators may nominate or conominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it." I'm sorry, Sturm, but them's the instructions, and we're enforcing them for TonyTheTiger as well as you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On 13 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Velasco, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

On 15 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel May Williams House, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. It's been a week up on peer review and no-one has made any comments. Should I resubmit to FAC? All problems from previous FAC have been resolved. Dwab3 (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• FYI, I have re-nominated Roger Waters for FAC, and we could use your input at the FAC page. — GabeMc (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi

I have just given a warning to a renamer, Rkononenko.User_talk:Rkononenko#Myrhorod_or_Mirgorod, User_talk:Rkononenko#Kyiv_.2F_Kiev, [3] & [4]

He has been changing "i" to "y" again. I have given him a level four final warning for [5] and [6] :

"You have been asked many times to NOT change the "i" to "y" in names. Changing Kiev to Kyiv when it is NOT the "Official name", or "Kievsky" to "Kyivsky"'"

Was I correct or did I miss a debate on naming policy and these changes and page moves were OK (I do not want to give someone a bad warning !

thanks :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy recently so have not queried this before. You closed the FAC for Albert Stanley on 3 November after 30 days. I'm not clear for what reason. It had two supports and no opposes and the only open action at the time was regarding one of the image copyrights for which I was seeking answers from a possible copyright holder.

I'm aware that two supports are not enough to warrant promotion and realise that the candidacy wasn't attracting a great deal of comment after four weeks, but was it time to archive it? A couple of the older candidates amongst the current crop have now been open longer than Albert Stanley had been at the closure without gaining more nominations and the Somerset County Cricket Club one was nominated before Albert Stanley and is still open after 48 days.--DavidCane (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, thank you for including the link. I looked at my notes and re-reviewed the FAC. I did not see Iridescent's support, as it was after the comments. I had that noted as only one support after 30 days and so needed to be archived. You can bring the nomination back at your convenience, with my apologies for not reading that closely enough. Karanacs (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

That's OK. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't another reason for closure that I was missing. I will probably bring him back towards the end of next week when I'm less busy.--DavidCane (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.

Truthkeeper88, with help from Ruhrfisch, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet#Post-FAC cleanup review comments on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies has been nominated as possible Featured article. She was an Italian princess and the wife of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. If're interested on reviewing and voting in favor or not of it, please go to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies/archive1. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

		Happy Holidays
		Hope you have a lovely holiday season. I have one request: At least once this season, completely ruin someone's attempt to piss you off. If someone cuts you off in traffic or shits on you at work, just smile and wave and tell them Happy Holidays. Maybe they'll be less of an asshole, even if it's just for the rest of the day. Andy Walsh (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Karen, happy holidays. Come back soon :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! Hoping everything is going well for you. Gig em, and BTHO LSU!! Oldag07 (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Karanacs/Archive 15! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 

Thank you for uploading File:Thetawnygoldman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Geofth (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Stranger, would you do me a big favor? Sedra Bistodeau has been nominated for deletion [7] and relisted twice due to a lack of consensus. I wouldn't ask you to vote one way or the other, but I'd really appreciate if you would weigh in because the discussion seems to have stalled. Thanks. Brain Rodeo (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I finally set up a page for us to coordinate schedules: see the talk page at User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 23, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 23, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 05:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

 

To the People of Texas & All Americans in the World is an open letter written on February 24, 1836 by William B. Travis, commander of the Texian forces at the Battle of the Alamo, to settlers in Mexican Texas. According to Michael Green, former reference archivist for the Texas State Library Archives Division, the letter is "the most famous document in Texas history". On February 23, the Alamo Mission in San Antonio, Texas, had been besieged by Mexican forces led by General Antonio López de Santa Anna. Fearing that his small group of men could not withstand an assault, Travis wrote this letter seeking reinforcements and supplies from supporters. The letter was initially entrusted to courier Albert Martin, who carried it to Gonzales and then handed the letter to Launcelot Smithers. Partially in response to the letter, men from throughout Texas and the United States began to gather in Gonzales. Between 32 and 90 of them reached the Alamo before it fell; the remainder formed the nucleus of the army which eventually defeated Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto. Following the end of the Texas Revolution, the original letter was delivered to Travis's family in Alabama, and in 1893, one of his descendants sold it to the State of Texas. For many decades it was displayed at the Texas State Library; the original letter is now protected and a copy is on display under a portrait of Travis. (more...)

What a welcome back present!!! Thank goodnesss I logged in today. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Catch me up, please...what have I missed in the last three months? Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I've been blocked a few times since you were last here of course, but the biggest pile of ordure here right now surrounds this project's recent sparking into life after JW's exhortation that wikipedia needs more female editors. Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You were next on my list to check - glad you haven't been run off yet :) WP essentially friended my on facebook, so I had gotten an inkling that something was up with recruiting female editors. It's going to take ages to catch up....I fear for my poor articles. Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, by the way, although I'm not a member of that group, you should be aware that *anyone* logged in to Facebook can see the entire membership list, including pictures, and *all* posts there. Not very bright, if'n you ask me. Must we remind them that if they're so concerned about the issue, Facebook does have extensive privacy settings? Brains on board ? As your first order of business, you might want to ask them to consider privacy settings, or remove yourself from the group: YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You missed us missing you-- not much else :) I can't remember if you knew I set up User:SandyGeorgia/FAC chat for coordinating our schedules? Glad to see you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I missed you guys too! I am going to hide from FAC for a little while longer. Seems to be no end in sight to the personal drama, so not sure how much time I'll have available. Did you win the race we were having? Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nope, still in it-- would be most kind of my counsel to give me correct dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back! Ucucha 19:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see so many familiar faces already :) Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Texas has a TFA on Feb 23. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I just saw that...it's one of my articles :( That must have explained the strange sense of impending doom that led me back here today. Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yay, welcome back! --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy, that you are a rockstar! Sorry I threw you in the deep end, but THANK YOU for everything you've done. Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome home! Imzadi 1979 → 20:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, missed you guys! Karanacs (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Good to see you back! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad you're back. Everything else is ... you know... --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Karanacs - great to see this page light up again. I've missed you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, desperate times forced me to enlist... glad to have you back! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. Courcelles 02:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Any interest in Turtle soup? We are doing a push to get turtle articles to GA and since I just talk page stalked and saw you were the leader of the cooking project...;-) TCO (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not back in a writing mode yet....good luck! Karanacs (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how the article on the Roman Catholic Church ended up being demoted to C-class? Is it because Wikipedia has higher editorial standards (a good thing!) or is it because the article has gotten worse? (Even if it is bad, it is still better than any that I have ever written!) Bwrs (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't visited the article in a few months. The last time I saw it it needed a great deal of help - lack of balance, not representative of scholarly consensus, etc. It's tough to do justice to such a massive topic. Karanacs (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that I have addressed all of your comments and suggestions from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 131/archive1 that are possible to address. Please let me know what more I can do, but when it comes to some of the historical information, the sources don't exist. I'm eager to conclude the nomination because I have other articles (Brockway Mountain Drive specifically) that I'm lining up to nominate soon. Thank you again for the review. Imzadi 1979 → 20:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to all those I ignored when I dropped off the face of Wikipedia again. I'm working my way back in spurts. One step forward, two steps back kind of thing. Tomorrow on to my watchlist...then back to FAC. Thank you all for your patience. Karanacs (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back! signed, talk page stalker. Kuru (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm so very happy to see this page on my watchlist again. Welcome back! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful! I've missed you. I hope you've been well?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Boo !!! Glad to see you :) There are only 18 "older nominations", nothing ready in the top, so if you can get through the bottom today or tomorrow, I can go through on the weekend. I'm recused from Guy Fawkes, and my move is June 14 to June 24, then I'm settled! All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been in our thoughts and prayers, Karanacs.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Real life is slowly returning to normal :) Moving at the end of this month, so unsure when the computer will come down, but I'll be in and out until then. Sandy, I'll go through FAC this afternoon. Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like yours will come down about when mine goes up, so we're cool ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Karen its nice to see you back and working with FAC once more. :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I missed you guys :) Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh!! Wait!! I totally call no fair on this one. Allow me to explain, please. You just closed the FAC for the 12 Gauge (album) article... and normally I'd be "meh" and wait another 14 days. But:

1. I asked SandyGeorgia for an FAC review. Okay, I had no idea she was busy until yesterday, and I'll explain why in a moment. But I asked her to let me know if she was busy and I would ping Laser or anyone else.
2. Wizardman posts on SandyGeorgia's talk page and he says, "I'll try and get to this tonight though I'm not the biggest fan of reviewing music articles". Well, with Sandy's talk page on watch, I see this, so I get excited and hopeful for the first time in a week. I go back to the article and do a few more tweaks to prepare it for Wizardman, who I know is a very thorough reviewer. Just knowing I was going to get a review triggered some serious excitement here. Of course, I checked back later that night, then in the morning... nothing. So I mistakenly believed he would get to it later.
3. In the meantime, when I'm through doing that, I start "stalking" (is that the right word?) SandyGeorgia's page, and she hasn't replied to me, so I simply assumed (never "assume", lesson learned) that she was going to get to it later—like Wizardman—and I see your name pop up and discussions about Laser popping up, and everyone's out of town or busy suddenly! But you seemed to have just returned (welcome back, btw!). But why should I ping you when I already pinged Sandy, who hadn't gotten back to me?

So you see... now, I'm not saying my article is amazing, but if it's going to fail, then I really want someone to say, "Hey, only one set of eyes has looked at it—which is why Wizardman did not close it—so I'll give it a second opinion and fail you and we can all move on." But for the second time now, this article ... simply wasn't looked at. One person (NikkiMaria) goes through it, types oppose and suddenly the entirety of the FAC reviewers ignores and skips over the article. And I also understand that people probably simply aren't interested in reading a melodic death metal article, I get that.

So... there's no impasse here, the FAC has been closed. But I guess I"m just going to fall onto my knees and beg here. Is there any way the article can be given one more review, just so I know that my writing isn't brilliant and that I suck? Or... well, the other option I guess is to simply wait 14 days and just hope for the best, yet again. I'm sure you guys get people like me whining after every close (lol, sorry...) but please please please help me out any way you can here. I just like closure, not ... this kind of closure, though. My hopes were so high, you have no idea. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand how frustrating this process can be!! You did the right thing. It's not just the oppose that was the issue (and nikkimaria had struck that, yea!). The article had been up for about 2 weeks and didn't have any support. Even if wizardman had supported, that still wouldn't be enough for promotion, and the article would have had to sit around and wait still for more eyes. It is often better to start over with a clean nomination (no stricken opposes) so that next time potential reviewers might not be scared off. Karanacs (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh I expect the process to be frustrating. If this came easy for me, I would just get smug and start strutting around Wikipedia. Some people seem to know the magic formula with dozens of FAs listed on their talk page, and I can't figure out what that magic is. But I will get it one day, before I die, preferably. Otherwise I'll come back as a ghost and stay at it. Anyway, thank you for understanding, and do know that I realize the frustration isn't just on the nominators, but you guys as well, I'm sure, especially with what seems to be a diminishing amount of reviewing help. Well, I'll try again in the future, and this time I'll write a better "reason" than the cliché "I think it's well-written", which is never quite accurate. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The magic is to be paitent and persistent. It's taken me four years of pretty much non-stop work to get as many FAC noms as I've had. I will admit that it is slightly easier to get non-popular culture articles through FAC, there seems to be a slight bias by reviewers towards traditional encyclopedic subjects. (I share it, I'll admit), but even there, a well prepared nomination will get there. The trick for me is - GA, PR, finding a good copyeditor (not from the Guild of Copy editors, but one who is familiar with FAC) and only then nominate. Sometimes, I need two or three copyedits and peer reviews. Also, spend a LOT of time on research - not just on the internet, but go to local university libraries and dig up sources there - for music albums, that would be getting the print magazines and seeing what is in them as well as the online music mags. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Please contact me when you renominate, and I promise I'll do my best to find the time. I did intend to give the article a proper read through, but it slipped my memory. For what it's worth, I've written five pop culture FAs, and two of them were albums. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You guys are awesome, thank you for the nice comments. And Ealdgyth, I think I definitely need to take advantage of Peer review. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 20:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got the right attitude, K. I wish you the best of luck in further improving the article and hope to see you back at FAC soon :) Karanacs (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, K (also, lol)! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done all the damage I can do for now, and am surrounded by boxes-- free until load out tomorrow. Unless you speak up soon and say otherwise, I can start through FAC today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I just logged in for the first time this weekend. Do you want me to run through or have you already started? Karanacs (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you are already in the middle of things. I'll run through on Tue and try to find some time on Friday. Thanks - and good luck tomorrow! Karanacs (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

you, too ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Why? I was working on this page and I addressed all concerns either there on the user's talk page. Why was this closed? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand how frustrating it can be to see your nomination archived - I've been there! In this case, the oppose had been unstruck for 10 days. The other comment on source formatting has not really been addressed either. There were no other comments or declarations of support or pending support. Now you have a little bit more time to clean the article up some more and you can bring it back in a few weeks with a clean FAC page. Karanacs (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How did this article fail FAC? There seemed to be overwhelming consensus. 82.8.55.199 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. [9]. I have no idea why it wasn't. You might ask user:Karanacs, who didn't give a reason. SBHarris 16:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: There was indeed a consensus to promote, it seems to me. "Consensus" doesn't mean it's perfect and no objections are left". If you waited for that, no article would be promoted. SBHarris 16:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A question about the template Mexican Texas, since you are the original creator. The template does not list Sterling C. Robertson as an empresario, but the Handbook of Texas gives him that title.and dates Robertson's Colony as pre-Republic. Is there some technicality as to why Sterling Robertson would not be considered an empresario under Mexican Texas? I realize that neither the colony nor Robertson himself yet has a Wikipedia page, but I was curious. Maile66 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's only because neither he nor the colony had a WP page. The templates shouldn't have red links. Karanacs (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Thought it was something like that. Maile66 (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs, It's been a while... I miss interacting with you on the Catholic Church article. The general atmosphere among editors was stinky but I appreciated and admired the general objective attitude you had towards the POV issues. As a result of that interaction, your Talk Page is on my watchlist although I generally ignore stuff that happens there because it doesn't involve me.

For some reason, I decided to take a look at your Talk Page a couple of days ago and noticed that my year-and-a-half old request to look at the draft of Catholic Church and women was still on your todo list. There must have been an oversight on my part because you did actually respond to my request and I never saw your response. As a result, that draft was languishing in my userspace for the last year and a half waiting (or so I thought) for your input.

I decided to push the draft into article mainspace so that other editors could help improve it. I do agree that the article is unbalanced in that it focuses more on criticisms of the Church and doesn't present the positive impact that the Catholic Church has had on women's rights and their role in the family and in society. If you can help correct this imbalance, I would much appreciate it.

Keep up the good work and happy editing.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

As I try to work with this article, I find that I am hampered by the organization of the article. I am now wondering if there aren't a series of articles that should be written instead of just one. I am thinking that the current article focuses on contemporary issues and I'm not sure how to work in the history of women in the early Church, the medieval Church, etc. I also think there could be an article about feminism and the Catholic Church that would cover topics that might be hard to fit into the current article on Catholic Church and women. If you search in Google Books for "Catholic Church women" and "Catholic Church feminism", you will see some of the sources that lead me to this conclusion. I'd like to get your opinion on how best to organize and cover these topics. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a good example of an article that no sane editor would ever dream of touching. No offence intended, but life's too short. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Richard. I'm glad to see you're still working on all of that :) I am just reengaging with WP and am not quite ready to dip my feet into the religious articles again. Hopefully i'll be brave enough soon! Karanacs (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think milady does protest too much. There are far more controversial articles in Wikipedia. I think the story of women in the Catholic Church has been given short shrift. I'll keep you posted as I make more progress. The difficulty so far has been finding NPOV sources. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Karen, are you close to being able to re-engage at FAC soon? I've still got months of box unpacking to do, I've engaged on numerous deficient FACs because reviews are lacking and slacking, and some help would be a welcome break until I'm fully re-settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to be online this week but have now gotten almost all of my personal stuff taken care of (including an unwelcome bout of food poisoning this weekend). I'm back on duty and plan to run through tomorrow. I'll try to pick up the July weekends while you're busy. I go out of town with no computer access July 27-Aug 8, but will be available mostly until then. Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hah! Too much gumbo? (Or beer?) Malleus Fatuorum 03:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Will PR/AR tomorrow and Sunday :) Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I_Am_Thrilled !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Karen,

Sandy just restarted that article 6 days ago, because of revision during earlier period of review. Why are we pulling it, now?

I know the article very well and find it superior to our other big jet FAs.

There was one oppose, but his reason was that the article had changed (however, I don't think this is a valid reason given the restart is TO relook at the article). Also, don't find him very credible as before he said it was too long, but did not understand the "readable prose" aspect of the tool. (To me, seemed like a dug-in opinion, not supported.)

TCO (reviews needed) 20:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you've archived Airbus A330 without providing an explanatory note – there are three supports, and one oppose, so it's very contentious that you haven't given a verdict. At the same time, you do realised that the FAC had restarted, just last week right? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In case Sandy's restart was not clear, I have de-indented it to be more prominent. Have also added bold for the two other supports and de-indented (were not prominent before).TCO (reviews needed) 23:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw the restart, thanks. In general, that means that Sandy and I can't tell what's still valid in the reviews and what isn't due to massive changes in the article. Thank you for bolding/deindenting the supports - that's something that nominators need to stay on top of if reviewers are unaware of the format expectations. Fnlayson and Kyteto both hinted at COIs but didn't say what they were, leaving me unable to weigh those supports properly. In Nikkimaria's spotcheck, there was a 40% issue rate - that's not good. Sandy had id'd MOS issues. The oppose specifically referred to issues in previous reviews of the article, primarily around accessibility. The nominator also indicated being in a hurry. Given that opposition was still valid and other issues were being found, I determined the article needed more time. Karanacs (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Karen, thanks for the note; this has come up in a couple of other science fiction FACs, so I thought it would be worth giving you my reasons for the usage you noticed. I feel that using either "sf" or "science fiction" to the exclusion of the other would be monotonous; I try to establish the abbreviation in order to provide an alternative. It's a way of varying the prose. It's also the case that almost every reference work or secondary source will use either "sf" or "SF" frequently: I think it could be argued that the reader needs to be introduced to usage as well as to content.

If there should be a consensus to get rid of "sf" I'd stick to it, but I think a good case can be made, and so far I have not run into strong opposition at FAC. If you like, I'll let you know when I next nominate an article, and you can raise the topic there to try to get some further review. The article on science fiction itself went through a lengthy discussion to determine that it was acceptable to use "SF" in addition to "science fiction"; the editors there preferred "SF" to "sf", but agreed that it was good to have both the full form and an abbreviation available. I didn't read that consensus as applying to all science fiction articles so my own practice is to use "sf", which is the form used by the most important reference work in the field, John Clute & Peter Nicholls's The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If that was accepted as fine at science fiction, I think that's a good consensus to use. Thanks for taking the time to leave me a note! Karanacs (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Karan, appreciate your work. Could I send you an email?TCO (reviews needed) 01:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure you can, but if it's related to wikipedia matters, I'd prefer it stay on wikipedia. Transparency and stuff. Karanacs (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the communication:

OK, I'll twist Wehwalt's arm and get it re-prose editted. We'll have to suck it up and play ball and hang in there. I would ask that you all look at it with fresh eyes as well. Am concerned when you say you think there are issues from Sandy still or from the oppose, but it doesn't sound like you know yourself, the actual status of those issues.

I personally did a HUGE amount of edits on the thing after Sandy made her last comment and fixed a bunch of problems right along what Sandy was asking for. (Maybe it is still screwed up, but we don't KNOW that, given how much was copy-edited. Plus Braynor and Synergystar found some I missed afterwards.) I think we "did what she wanted". Maybe someone can still find some prose errors. It's a long article and heck look at what Tony could find with Wehwalt, one of our best writers! At the same time, I don't think we should lose sight of content and organization and the overall article and use MOS as an excuse. We say we don't do that, when I read back to previous FAC-T debates ('FA is not just an MOS nitpick" but I see some worrying signs"), but I'm concerned our actions and words don't always match, or that it becomes an easy excuse. And I'm concerned that you don't know if her concern was fixed or not.

No one has said it explicitly, but I know a concern is the readability of a plane article for the general public (and I am general public and stick up for general readability). I saw that concern on the 777 FA btw. And a lot of work was put A330 to make it tractable for a general reader (slimming the lead, cutting some details, adding a reference table for the alphabet soup related to model development).

I think you ought to look at the complaint yourself if that one oppo is being used to shoot the article down (and it irks me that we HAD a restart and the fellow said he didn't want to relook at the article. That is essentially saying he is opposing without knowing current state, what kind of credible oppose is that!?) I don't know his access issue (do you?), but I know he was wrong on the length requirements and truculent to admit it. And he wanted some "Project style of data table" at the end and was willing to oppose over it. BTW, he got his way on that, but the last thing FA gods should be giving into is techie Project groups dictating end matter data table styles...and what kind of person opposes on that?

On the supports, the first of those two has done about 20% (guessing) of the edits on the article (and some of the content). I'm getting up there myself (ha!), but it has all been copy-editing. They are both "project guys" and not FA old hands. I think there is at least the perception by them (maybe even a little reality) of some old grudge with the aerospace project and Sandy. Look at the comments she made and the angry responses from that project around when the Rvlese kerfuffle went down (or maybe it was an RFA, can't recall, but it was a bit throwdown). And the aeros tend to be the young kids. But so...let's not relax our standards (never!) but also let's not piss away a chance to get more FA writers in the stable. This FA thing is really in danger of getting inbred. I've seen the numbers crunched on our mushroom proclivity for instance.

TCO (reviews needed) 01:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The article can definitely come back in a few weeks - hopefully after a few more eyes on it. I know it improved greatly over the nomination (which is a GOOD thing for wikipedia). A little more TLC and it should be ready to go again. Karanacs (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You made me smile. It will be OK, I guess.  :-) TCO (reviews needed) 01:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kara, welcome back. I think you overlooked marking the FACs (samples: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Astonishing Stories/archive1) as promoted when you ran through the list.[10] Jappalang (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping gimmebot would run through. Thanks for reminding me - I'll slap the tag on them. Karanacs (talk) 03:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't discuss this matter, I didn't know where to, most of the time I comment on a discussion page nobody gets back to me anyway. So you are telling me that using the term "Battle off Brazos Santiago" is not appropriate for naming an article about a battle off Brazos Santiago. Better tell that to the others because there are alot of editors on wiki that use that method for naming their articles. I understand the "Battle of Brazos Santiago" term should not be used because it wasn't a named battle but in my defense that was one of my first articles, made before I knew much about wiki. If you are referring to the so called "standard" for titling unnamed naval battles, I am one of the guys who helped establish it the first place. I probably created more "Action of whatever" stubs than anybody else. However, it does not follow wiki standards which is why I dont use it anymore, and will not use it on any article I have written. The "Action of" way doesn't follow standards because the title is supposed to give the reader an idea of what the article is about. Obviously the words "Action of", combined with a date, does not follow that protocol but the term "battle off Brazos Santiago" does so there shouldn't be a dispute. (PS, Sorry if I may seem rude but I have had to explain this so many times now)

As for the Texas Revolution template, (and I am not sure if you are the one who reverted my edit) there is absolutely no reason why the naval battles can't be listed there. To see what I mean please look at several other war templates on wiki (the "Engaements of the Vietnam War" template would be a good example), they all have links for naval battles right in with the military links, why have a double standard here, why have two templates? Thats another point of mine, why have two little seperate templates instead of one larger one that has all of the relevant links in it? If the Brazos Santiago article has been renamed to "Action of....." again, I am afraid I must rename it to something that does follow standards and I will continue to edit the template until it includes all of the battles of the war and not just, what some people may think are, the important ones. Thank you and sorry for any inconvenience. --$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The following is to give you an idea of how many other articles are titled using the "Battle off ...." or "Action off....." standard. This, I am hoping, will become the new standard though I think the "Action of (Insert date)" thing will have to be reserved for engagements that took place in open ocean, away from any land or sea marks. Most of these were unnamed battles: (Please remove these links if you wish)

Battle off Cape Palos
Battle off Cape Gata
Battle off Mukah
Battle off Samar
Battle off Cape Engano
Battle off Ulsan
Battle off Texel
Battle off Horaniu
Battle off Endau
Battle off Cape St Vincent
Battle off the coast of Abkhazia
Battle off the coast of Jaffna
Battle off the Lizard
Battle off Barbados
Action off James Island
Action off Charles Island
Action off Galveston Light
Action off Cape Bougaroun
Action off Lofoten
Action off Lerwick

Thanks for engaging on talk! We might need to open an RFC on the article titles. I've seen lots of "Action of DATE" articles make it through FAC, so it appears to be a well-accepted naming convention here. I've also had one of my articles get renamed because the title wasn't used in scholarly sources. The naval skirmishes in the Texas Revolution were tiny. Scholarly sources do not spend a lot of time on them, and they don't refer to them as the "Battle of X". Action of DATE may not be right, but Battle of X isn't either. Is there another option?

The templates are likewise supposed to reflect scholarly sources, and ALL the scholarly sources that cover the Texas Revolution in full ignore the naval skirmishes. Even if they didn't, 2 of the 4 you put on there happened before the Revolution began (Oct 2, 1835). If the scholarly sources don't really consider those part of the Revolution, then it's WP:OR for us to lump them all together. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There's been some grumbling about supporting too quickly on prose at FAC recently ... to my knowledge, no one has pointed a finger at me, but prose is hard and I welcome feedback. I responded in the relevant thread over on Sandy's page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

If we had more prose reviewers, Dan, there wouldn't be an issue. You do more than your share, I think. Karanacs (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started some conversations at Milhist to try to get more reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this discussion over the past few days, and it seems to me that there's no one-size-fits-all solution here. My general approach to reviewing any article, whether it's at FAC or GAN is to read through the whole thing and make sure I understand it; where I find bits that don't make sense to me I flag them up at the review for the nominator to either fix or explain. Where I find claims I think may be dubious I check them for myself; where I find phrasing I think is incongruous or archaic I check the sources when possible; if I think there's information missing I ask if it's available. At GAN I would also check the image licensing, but I rarely bother to do that at at FAC as there are image experts around. In short, nobody who supports an article's promotion has checked everything, and this growing culture of blame (why did you support when there were two clear misuses of en-dashes?) is clearly unhelpful. The human condition is that we're fallible, we just do the best we can. I took a bit of a caning in the aftermath of the Grace Sherwood debacle despite not having voted there myself, because I didn't check the sources during my pre-FAC copyedit, something that I've never claimed I did or ever would do when copyediting. What I see happening now is that some editors are becoming reluctant to be the first to support, because they fear that someone else is just around the corner about to launch an oppose bombshell that'll make them look silly. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, those "bombshells" are reserved for truly irresponsible supports, where there are blatant deficiencies ... as in, not subjective, any one can pick them out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

One day, when I'm bored to the point of death, I might go back and look through the FACs I've expressed an opinion on and see what their ultimate fate was. I think you develop a nose for what might need to be checked and what probably doesn't, but it's an imperfect system, as all human systems are. You can take it as read that I will never have checked everything at FAC, only those things I think warrant some checking. Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For each experienced reviewer, we delegates have a pretty good idea of what that reviewer usually looks for and how often their opinions match consensus. This picture gets built up over time as we see how you phrase your declarations and what types of issues you generally put out there. I also have a pretty good idea of who is going to go back and revise their comments if something (say an image issue) gets brought up by a subsequent reviewer. It gets to be a bit of an issue when there aren't many, or any, experienced reviewers weighing in on a particular FAC - where there are inexperienced reviewers, or reviewers completely unfamiliar with the subject area (I should never ever review a math article), or reviewers who are so familiar with the subject area that they may overlook some stuff - then we run into more issues of premature supports, or supports that don't take into account key things. Karanacs (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw you archived this, just want to make sure at how long I'm going to have to wait before renom since this was the second round and was closed last for the same reason.--WillC 03:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Will, the general timeframe is 2 weeks after it's been archived. I was very sorry to archive it with little feedback, and I waited a week longer than I normally would have hoping another reviewer would come by. If I were in your shoes, I'd be begging reviewers everywhere to take a look in the meantime and see if there are prose issues or something else that is putting people off doing a proper review. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 03:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Karen for waiting as long as you could. Its mainly because it is pro wrestling. It rarely gets reviews. Next time I'll do the normal thing and review a few articles in return for a review. Best one I've written yet, hoping to make it an FA one day. No idea how long its going to take me to finish the topic I got planned at this rate.--WillC 04:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Will, if you bring it back in late August or later, ping me and I'll review. I used to review wrestling articles back in the day. I know nothing about the sport, so I was good at catching the jargon. Just have to wait until Sandy would be back so that someone can close it. That way you'll at least get some feedback :) Karanacs (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

To your above comment, I know its past August, but I've renominated the article. Its under Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turning Point (2008)/archive3. You don't have to review if you don't want too, but since you were kind, I thought I'd inform you,--WillC 08:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Any reason you didn't promote this? Has three supports, source spotchecks, image review... just wondering what more I need to do... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I took a look, E ... had I been running through FAC, my take would be that I'm not familiar (yet) with GermanJoe's work, so I'd hold out for more feedback, unless FAC was backlogged (it no longer is). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. That and I didn't go through all the nominations that were under 2 weeks old very closely because there were so many that were older than that (and I was tired). I'm going to pr/ar again on Thursday. Karanacs (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Of curiosity, who would be a good person to bother ask about granting a prose review for a sports bio? I know that Killebrew could use one more before promotion, but I've already asked my usual group of reviewers. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I can try to get to it, but not before the weekend ... have you been to Jeter? I was unconvinced last time I looked, and I like Jeter even if he is a Yankee. I'm off to the ballpark today !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll write up a review for Jeter tonight. I skimmed it a few days back and my opinion is about along the lines of Giants'. I've brought enough baseball guys to FAC at this point that I'll know what to look for at least. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I will have zero (repeat that, zero) internet access starting Friday morning CST until sometime Monday. If you have any FAC-related questions, better ask today :) Karanacs (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you just close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Derek Jeter/archive2? I just responded there a couple hours ago! I'm still working on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You responded after I'd already evaluated it - sorry! (It takes me a few hours to read through FAC and I don't tend to refresh in the middle.) Take the time you need to work on those issues and you can bring it back in a few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree that this closure was rather premature. The article wasn't that far away and work was on going. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

one oppose and one concurrence to that oppose after more than 10 days...usually means archive. Karanacs (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There's really no such thing as a "premature" close at FAC; you can always just try again. Spend the time resolving the rest of the issues outside of FAC, and re-nominate it; that way, it'll pass quickly. ceranthor 20:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

All due respect, the whole point of there being no time limit on FAC is so that there are no premature closings, right? I'd much rather not have to open a new nomination when it's really an extension of the ongoing one. I guess it doesn't matter, except that it will pass on the third nomination instead of the second. I would've appreciated a heads up that you were evaluating it for closure. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no time limit, but when there appears to be consensus one way or the other, the nomination ends. That nom had opposition. We evaluate all the nominations twice a week - usually Tue and on the weekend, but I was late this week. There's not a set time for a particular nomination. Karanacs (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

... without a kitchen. Seriously, four walls, and have to fire the cabinetmaker. I hope things are better for you, but I need help at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been slowly moving things along at the ANI thread about the Billy Hathorn concerns. Moonriddengirl posted there, and I replied to her here. I also posted again to Billy Hathorn's talk page here. What I'm hoping is that you will have time to document your concerns on the talk page of the articles you pointed out problems with (you tagged several articles at the CCI page), in the same way that MRG did at Talk:Bill Noël. Those four locations will then be where Billy Hathorn should respond, to see if he can show whether he understands the problems or not (he is contesting some of the claims made, and I posted his response in the ANI thread). If he doesn't understand what the problems are, then it will be back to the ANI thread to see what can be done at that point. If you don't have time for this, then Talk:Bill Noël will have to do, but I was hoping for examples of Billy Hathorn discussing concerns on more than one article. Anyway, have a read of what's been said and please comment where necessary if you have time. Carcharoth (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I just missed the ANI, but I've gone ahead and left more details at the two articles Talk:George Caldwell (Louisiana) and Talk:Walter L. Buenger. Karanacs (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. What is needed now is for someone to try and get the editor in question to respond to those concerns, or check whether that editor is still editing the same way. FWIW, that sort of turning a database-style listing (similar to Who's Who) into prose is relatively common on Wikipedia (though it shouldn't be). Each individual bit can often be sourced from elsewhere, but the lazy option is to source everything to that single source and to copy the same order and structure. With a bit more effort, bringing in more sources, adding extra information not from that original source, and changing things to Wikipedia's house style, something more creative and original (in the sense of writing creativity and originality, not factual creativity or OR originality) can be produced. It's not always easy, though. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

On July 22, 2011, Sharon Tate was mentioned over on Talk:Wikiproject Texas as an article being questioned over then-existing FA status. I'm not now, nor have I ever been, involved in the FA process. And, I've never edited on the Sharon Tate page. I never actually found any 2011 discussions on the FA issue for this article, only one on the Tate Talk page from 2010. In going to that page today, I notice it's now "Unassessed", and mentioned as a former FA. Gimmebot made the change. I understand how an article can be downgraded. But my question: Is it possible for a FA to have all rating stripped and become Unassessed? Shouldn't there have been some current talk over the re-assessment? Maile66 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A bot cannot assess, nor should it, and most articles that slip below FA standards are typically below A-class or GA. It's up to the relevant WikiProjects to re-assess when an FA is downgraded at WP:FAR. Since most WikiProjects don't have an A-class review, that usually involves deciding whether the article is B- or C-class now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. User:GimmeBot certainly did exactly that - removed the rating entirely. It does appear there was some kind of discussion on WP:FAR. Thanks for the enlightenment.Maile66 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sharon Tate/archive1. FAs undergo a review of at least a month duration before being delisted, and relevant parties are notified. It is up to others to reassess, by submitting to WP:GA or assigning B- or C-class. (I have never seen a case where an article stripped of its Featured status was still GA-class.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah....so in a perfect Wikipedia world, if a human, rather than a bot, had removed the FA status, that human might well have assigned it to another class. Well, it's not my article, so I think I'll defer to whoever it might be important to over at that article.Maile66 (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really. First, human beings did remove the FA status, and second, people involved at FAR in evaluating FA status are not the same as the WikiProject people who should determine if an article is B- or C-class. In fact, most of don't care if an article is B- or C-class, and many people think article assessments below the GA level are a waste of time. :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure they do, but they are badly mistaken. The combination of class and importance enables a project to see where its effort is most needed, for that apparently dwindling band who care about our overall coverage. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly explain why I run across so many Unassessed articles that have been out there like that for years and years.Maile66 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessments other than FA or GA are only really relevant to projects, but many don't have the resources to assess all the articles they tag, or to keep those assessments up to date. In addition, the way it works is that articles lose their GA status once promoted to FA, which is why you never see a demoted FA reassessed as a GA without a new GA nomination. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

All true, but there is a case for the bot automatically assigning a "B" class to an ex-FA. That is hardly likely to be over-grading. Johnbod (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It may well be; one of the most common reasons for delisting is a lack of referencing. Malleus Fatuorum 01:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of an article name off the top of my head, but I'm certain I've seen very old FAs delisted that I would not rate as B class. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I would hope we got rid of all those 2003-standard ones some time ago. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

... added to which there is no common standard for what "B class" means. Different projects have different ideas. Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Only a few projects have their own standards, which AFAIK have changed little in the last 5 years, and delisted FAs presumably held before, since when they have improved. Different assessors certainly have their own ideas. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience articles rather rarely improve significantly after FA, certainly not the newer ones anyway. The problem is with the older FAs. Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is. I said they will have improved since they were last B class. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In that case, should the References and Sources sections be renamed to Notes and References respectively in accordance with WP:CITESHORT? Erianna (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy, another case of guidelines that don't quite match. I usually follow WP:FNNR, and it gives more options in how to name those categories. References/Sources is one of the acceptable combinations per that (and not uncommon to see on FAs). That said, I don't have any objection to Notes/References if you want to rename the headings to that. Karanacs (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am OK with you deleting my Texas after I am able to move the pages back into my User Space, I can not do that right now at work, but when I get home tonight I can, just give me that long please, I want to keep them for personal references, and for my family of which I share everything with, thank you – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Phoenix, these aren't deleted, just redirected/merged. If you have reliable sources for this information, please let me know what they are. Karanacs (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that makes me feel better, thats fair, thank you. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Of curiosity, who in your mind would be a good user to get an NPOV check from? I have an article that's getting close to the FAC stage, but after a few rewrites I'd like to see which sections remain that need de-POVing, and would rather have that taken care of before trying to go through FAC with the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that depends a lot on what the overall topic is! It may be worth opening a Peer Review and then linking to that at WT:FAC so you might get some reviewer input without taking the step of nominating at FAC. Karanacs (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. The article in question is Jerry West, and I'm still wrapping up PR comments, so hopefully those should knock out some of the POV issues. I'll note at WT:FAC once I've finished the next rewrite (I got an FAC up anyway so I'm in no hurry on this one). Thanks, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sport bio...I'd have pointed you towards YellowMonkey, but I see he's inactive. I'll have to think about that some more. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why was Transformers: Dark of the Moon archived? According to an article, it says that an article would be archive for "unresolved objections by other users." As I was saying, the article was being resolved by me, and I have been working on it to satisfy the objections. Fanaction2031 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi FanAction. That article had a LOT of objections very quickly. That usually means that the article needs a lot more work. FAC is not peer review - articles are expected to meet the criteria when they are nominated. The archival just means that you'll have more time to work on the article. Take a few weeks to ponder what the reviewers wrote, fix their specific objections and the general ones behind them, and then you can renominate later in the year. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll try to be gentle here, but not sure I need be. I am truly sick and tired of the unilateral power trips some editors such as yourself take when, with no discussion at all, and with only the whimper of a snotty commentary in the edit summary, close a 1 day old FAC page when the purpose partly is so we can get the helpful advice of some people, a few of which may be experts, others who may assume to be, as to the best way to bring a complex and difficult article to FA level. I myself have been involved in 10 successful FA's, 4 of which were almost entirely my own work...I have also saved three articles at FAR...so, again, excuse me, but this is the first time I have seen such an arrogant display of action at FAC...I am not the least bit pleased, nor do I think FAC's are benefitted by this sort of behavior.--MONGO 02:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to gentle too, You're a complete plank, without any understanding whatsoever. I've lost count of the number of FAs I've written or helped to write, but that doesn't make me an arrogant shit who demands special rights. Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Back at you asshole...seriously...go fuck yourself..the goddamn FAC was open 1 lousy day! Its pompous "planks" like yourself and Karnacs that make FAC a total shithole anymore. Thats the reawson I withdrew from asking for the fucking approaval of a bunch of self appointed elitist snobs like yourself.--MONGO 02:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is pretty much crap MONGO, face it. Malleus Fatuorum 03:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You should have seen where it was 3 months ago. WTF happened to FAC being a place to get advice...how can a 1st time FAC nominator (but otherwise long term contributor of note) be expected to persist in getting a complex and difficult subject page to FA if the target page for advice and help is closed after a lousy 1 day??? Might as well just put the disclaimer up...if the article isn't already an FA, don't nominate it.--MONGO 03:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

FAC has never been a place to get advice. If you want advice then ask for it elsewhere. The philosophy is that articles nominated at FAC should already meet the FA criteria; there are other venues, like peer review, better suited to offering advice. Malleus Fatuorum 05:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Mongo, I can understand your disappointment but don't appreciate the personal attacks (and Malleus, you be nice too). As Mal said, FAC is not peer review. The article should be ready when it is nominated, and reviewers said this one was not. If numerous major issues are raised with the article very early, then it is obvious that it does not already meet FAC criteria. Closing it allows the editors to work on the objections at their own pace and to bring the article back when it is truly ready. When a nomination has that much opposition that early, it is very rare for it to be successful. Other reviewers get scared off. That said, if you have a problem with the way I do my job as a delegate, feel free to start a discussion at WT:FAC. If there's consensus that I'm not acting according to the wishes of the community I'll change my ways. Karanacs (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I, too, understand your frustration, but it seems misplaced: FAC is not the problem here. It is unfortunate that the article received no feedback at Peer Review, but all content review processes are short of reviewers, FAC is not and has never been the place for getting commentary on unprepared articles, and attacking a process (and the people involved in it) because an article is ill-prepared for FAC looks like an unnecessarily emotive reaction, which isn't a good way to gear up for the tenth anniversary, where cool heads must prevail on the article. Mongo, a review of the instructions at FAC should clear up your confusion, and in an environment where all content review processes are short of reviewers, consensus has long been that articles which have no chance of making FA during the course of a FAC should be closed, and FAC should not be used as peer review. My suggestion is to aim your frustration at processes which unnecessarily drain reviewers, like DYK, or to encourage those involved in the article to dig in and help out at places like FAC or Peer Review. Criticizing reviewers while not generating reviews to offset the backlog isn't helpful, that article appeared to have little chance of meeting FA standards in the course of a FAC, and FAC is not and has never been a substitute for Peer Review. What troubles me more is that you, as an FA writer, should know the article wasn't near standard, and should have enlisted resources to help improve it before bringing it to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Strike that: I was just now archiving my talk, and I see you did try. But FAC can't be blamed for the fact that Wikipedia in general is so backlogged, and productive editors are increasingly taxed. I'm sorry I wasn't able to help out, but I've been moving and under construction now for almost six months, and my time is unlikely to free up in time to help. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, go after DYK. There's a shortage of ill-informed attackers over there at the moment. Yomangani^talk 13:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry ... if I (ever again) find myself with the tiniest amount of free time, I'll weigh in over there again to see if anything has changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

No one would have been hurt by leaving the FAC open for at least a week! Some of you assume that people who may be most helpful are online everyday...nah, it has opposition, the article is "crap"...I'm ill informed...okie dokie. According to the experts....lol.MONGO 18:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a proposal for fixing the perceived problem, please present one. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY THE NAVAL BATTLES OF THE TEXAS REVOLUTION CANNOT BE LINKED TOGETHER BY THE TEXAS REVOLUTION TEMPLATE. NO REASON AT ALL. WHY ARE YOU REVERTING MY EDITS BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED REPEATEDLY TO GIVE ME A RATIONAL ANSWER. AGAIN THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE NAVAL BATTLES CANNOT BE LISTED THERE, NONE AT ALL, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS NOTHING TO DISCUSS. BY REMOVING THE LINKS I ADDED YOU ARE CREATING A DOUBLE STANDARD. EVERY OTHER WAR TEMPLATE INCLUDES BOTH NAVAL AND MILITARY ENGAGEMENTS, WHY SHOULD IT BE DIFFERENT HERE? EITHER YOU STOP REVERTING MY EDITS OR I WILL CREATE A NEW TEMPLATE FOR THE TEXAS REVOLUTION THAT INCLUDES THE NAVAL BATTLES. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.--$1LENCE D0600D (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't shout. I have provided reasons why those should not be inclued, backed by reliable sources, on both my talk page and the talk page of the template. I have also opened an RfC on this issue. So far, there have been several comments, and ALL say that the naval skirmishes should not be included in a Texas Revolution template. Unless the consensus changes over the next week or so (and I doubt that it will), then the naval skirmishes should no tbe included. Your continued insistence on adding them - or creating a fork - combined with your refusal to actually discuss the reasons I've provided (all I've heard from you is essentially "I think this is right" - no RS!!) is disruptive. Continued efforts on your part to ignore consensus will result in you being dragged to ANI. I'm tired of this nonsense. Karanacs (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to do some neatening up on a NRHP listing, and am soliciting advice from contributors here.

• National Register of Historic Places listings in Harrison County, Texas - Listing of Harrison County Courthouse, named as would be fitting a current functioning courthouse..

Harrison County has had four courthouses, and the NRHP one is referring to the third one, built in 1900, and now functioning as a museum:Texas Historical Commission listing of NRHP However, it would appear that neither the THC nor the NRHP liststhe courthouse as "old" or by year,

• Old Harrison County Courthouse (Texas) - Created in 2004 by an editor who hasn't been around for years. This is the actual one the NRHP refers to.
• Harrison County Historical Museum - Created in 2005 by the same user. This is actually the same structure as the old courthouse.

I'm not sure if the existing Old Harrison County Courthouse page should be moved. And if so, named as what? Not to be named as the current courthouse. I'm also wondering if the Museum page should be merged into the courthouse, or stand on its own. Advice is welcome. Maile66 (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. I just corrected the NRHP page link to go to the already existing page. If somebody else wants to handle re-naming, that's up to them. Maile66 (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll try again on that one in a couple of months. As there were no opposes, I take it no objection to me nomming another article, most likely Turban Head eagle? Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wehwalt, let's wait for now. The backlog has been pretty big, and I'd like to see if we can get it lower. If we can close more next week, then I won't have a problem with you nominating it. Karanacs (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to withholding it at your request, but as the article was not opposed and did attract support, I do not think I should be barred from renomination, though I will withhold it as I say. Given that the guidelines say that exemptions will be given for no or minimal feedback, I do not see why this should be an issue after an FAC that did not attract enough positive support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You're right. Go ahead and nominate a new one now. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As you say, there's a backlog. I will await greener fields for a while.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I took another look at the articles I think I'm going to promote today, and the backlog should be manageable. Go ahead :) Karanacs (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Karen, just to let you know that I have updated the status of my oppose at the Hugo Award FAC. I think the sourcing is a showstopper, but that's something PresN may be able to fix. I would continue to oppose if the sourcing were fixed as I think the article could be organizationally improved, and I am finding some copyediting problems, and minor accuracy errors, but those are areas where the prior reviewers had plenty of opportunity to weigh in, so I wouldn't expect my oppose to hold up promotion in that case. (Not trying to tell you how to do your job; just wanted to let you know my thoughts on the relative severity of the issues.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Mike. Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 

For all you do.

Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, Wehwalt. I've never been given a cat before! Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Beautiful edits on the Big 12 Conference article. Truly well done. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This realignment stuff is fascinating, but it changes by the hour and half of what's been reported is wrong. I have been having much fun following it :) Karanacs (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey there. I'd like to renom Sevastopol, which was archived due to low feedback. I'll be sending out a message to all the ACR and FAC reviewers of it to help "cough" drum up feedback. Could you please consider this over and reply? Buggie111 (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Buggie, you can't renominate the same article before the 2 weeks is out. Since there wasn't a lot of feedback you can nominate a different article now, if you have one ready. If we just let the same articles come back right away we might as well not archive them at all. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Umm, the FAc apge says None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.. Am I misreading it? Buggie111 (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That means you can nominate a different article, just not the same one that was just archived. There's still a moratorium on the article, just not on the nominator if it was archived due to lack of feedback. Karanacs (talk) 05:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I see there. Thanks anyway. Buggie111 (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know that while we may not agree on everything as to how best to improve a certain article, your detailed suggestions, especially those regarding having more books for referencing and expanding the legacy section, I completely concur with. Best wishes and thanks.--MONGO 15:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, MONGO, I really appreciate your comments. The article is currently okay - I think it could be really, really great given enough time and effort. Karanacs (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for misidentifying your gender and thank you for the helpful suggestion. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No problems, Cla, I was more teasing you. I get mistaken for a male a lot. Karanacs (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Karanacs - I note that as of 9/27, The Kingston Trio nomination as an FA - Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Kingston_Trio/archive1 - has been moved to the FAC archive, though it appears as though the nomination is not yet officially closed.

I would just like some clarification on why this has happened. My guess would be insufficient reviews and reactions, because literally every objection or suggestion has been addressed, and promptly, usually within hours of its posting on the review page. I posted in the evening of 9/25:

"I've gone through the whole article and done my best to regularize and edit references. If more work needs to be done with them - or with any other aspect of the article - please let me know. As far as I can see at the moment, the article meets all WP:FACR; certainly every issue brought up in this review thus far has been addressed."

I thought that would engender some response, but alas....

Further - no reviewer actually went through the article point by point and provided the kind of specific and comprehensive list of tasks necessary to bring the article up to FA status, such as I have seen in many other FARs. I have done what I could and worked extensively on the article - [[11]] - during the process, but the reviews so-called have been of the fly-by variety with little follow-up (Efe excluded).

I'm not sure what I can do next. The quality of the article is a separate issue from the interest that the topic engenders, and it seems the article is being shelved for the latter reason rather than the former. I asked on the FAR page if it was permissible to invite response from other editors and was told that it was ok as long as it did not violate WP:CANVASS - so I invited two editors (one of whom responded) and posted an assessment request on the WP:ROOTS page. I did not expect any response there for several reasons, the most relevant of which may be (as the article points out) the Kingston Trio was never folky enough to be considered folk by the folk music community.

My overall point is that I think the article is at or close to FA status - but I cannot determine that without more and better feedback. If the nomination is indeed closed and I have to wait two weeks or more to bring it back, I am not sure how to generate more reaction at that time without canvassing aggressively - and without a really adequate review, I don't see what further improvements could be made within two or any other number of weeks.

I would appreciate any direction you could give me. I love dogs (King Charles spaniel) and find fungi endlessly interesting - but it does seem odd to me that one of the most important groups in American popular music history gets less attention than either of the aforementioned. That's the primary reason that makes FA status for this piece imprtant to me. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered peer review? Often there, experienced editors will be able to tell you if your articles qualify in their view for FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt, and I will certainly consider that if that's the best next step. Seems to me, though, that the interest problem might be a factor there as well. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly sympathize with you - I've had articles archived for similar reasons before. Sometimes it comes down to a matter of who is reviewing at the time - those interested in the article might not be patrolling FAC for some reason or another right now. Sometimes reviewers are turned off by seeing lists of things that need to be fixed already posted. Sometimes it helps to review other nominations - some reviewers look at articles of other reviewers as a pay-it-forward kind of thing. Hopefully you'll get more feedback next time. Karanacs (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd think Transport rather than history... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I had no clue where to put him. President of a transportation company who also wrote history books. Feel free to move him wherever you think is best. Karanacs (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs - I should have stopped by sooner to tell you that it's good to see you active again - unfortunately as I'm going into a busy period and will be around less! I realize we'll never get to the Catholic Church - some pages here are impossible and I have to commend you on trying, both at Catholic Church and now on 9/11. Anyway, when you have time, can you delete my Catholic Church sandbox? Thanks and take care. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Karanacs. Just wanted to say hi. Life is going pretty well. Hoping you and your family are doing great. Best of luck Oldag07 (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the whole image issue should now be resolved. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

--Mcorazao 16:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs, how come your closing of the McDonnell XF-85 Goblin FAC [12] didn't see further actions from the bot? Is the bot down coz of the roll out of the new software or something? Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 22:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The bot apparently hasn't run yet since Karanacs promoted that article; it will within a few days. Ucucha (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

On WP:VPT you reported some strange behavior from IE8. We're also getting reports of IE8 crashing. Could you leave a comment on the bug describing your problem? — ☠MarkAHershberger☣ 20:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark, for entering the bug. I don't have a bugzilla account, but it looks like you've copied my comments over. Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I see that you have archived Korkoro's FAC page. It had received a comment from a reviewer just a day before that and I was working on it. So, there is this 2 weeks waiting period now. I found that articles that received less feedback are exempted from this waiting period. Could you be more elaborate on this exemption clause? Because Nikkimaria has recommended a procedural close for the renomination.... _morelMW^illiam 11:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll let Karanacs decide whether to leave the nomination up, but can I give you one tip? Tell what the article is about in the FAC nom. The first time I saw the article title I thought it was probably a village in French Polynesia; I got the French part right, but people in general are more likely to review the article if they can get some idea of what it is about just from browsing WP:FAC. Ucucha (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Morel, the exception is that if an article is closed for lack of feedback, a DIFFERENT article by the same nominator can be brought to FAC. Not the same article - if we were to just continue renominating right after it was closed there would be no point in closing anything. I am running out the door so can't deal with the renom - Ucucha (or a TPS), could you handle it? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that I responded to your points; leaving a note here since it took me a few days to get to it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm planning to take a look today. Karanacs (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be grateful if you could explain why the Michael Sheen nomination was archived? The source and Copyscape reviews found no issues. This was my first time to nominate an article for FA status so I'm not entirely sure of the procedure. Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Popeye. Unfortunately, the Michael Sheen article didn't get enough feedback to determine whether it met FA criteria. When a nomination has been open for several weeks and doesn't get any supports, we usually archive it. Often when the nomination comes back again, it will get more eyes. You haven't done anything wrong, it's just one of those things that happens sometimes. In the meantime, you may want to get a peer review, if you haven't already. The article can be renominated any time after 2 weeks from now. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 13:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll nominate it for GA status and will hopefully have better luck! Popeye191 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent way to get more feedback, and if it sails through GA you know you'll be in decent shape for another FA run. Karanacs (talk) 14:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's encouraging to see an FA delegate recognising that GA isn't a pile of pooh. I've pretty much always thought of it as what it says on the tin: a pretty good article better than most of the rest, but by no means perfect. And for those who habitually rubbish GAN because it's only one person's opinion I'd draw your attention to this, a GAN undoubtedly headed your way at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the GA standards have come up. It's still hit and miss depending on which person's opinion you get, but at the very least it offers a peer review against specific criteria. Not all GAs make it through FA the first time, but they're often better prepared than some of the other articles. Karanacs (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

And some of us worked very hard for that. GAN has one advantage over PR, which is that you're guaranteed a review by a real person, even though it may take some time. I've thought for some time now articles presented at FAC ought to have been through at least one other review process, be that GAN, PR, or A-class review, but I'd have to admit that sometimes my patience wears thin and I just lob it straight at FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 02:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My first 5 or 6 FACs had all been to GA or PR, but I think that when one is on his/her 20th FAC or so, it's okay to skip straight to FAC. I tend to go to GA or PR when I'm working on an article that is in a category new to me (like Gumbo was) or is so big (Battle of the Alamo) that I really need the extra eyes. I've been lucky - for the most part my GA reviewers were you or Ealdgyth, and the two of you give top-of-the-line reviews. Karanacs (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Ealdgyth does. All I do is move commas around, as she'd tell you. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

So modest! You went above and beyond for Lady of Quality. Karanacs (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Blimey, I must be getting old! I remember the GAN very well but the FAC was a complete blank to me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you should give commentary/feedback to the nominator when a submission is rejected. This would be normal at an academic journal for instance. And just "makes sense" in terms of driving better content. I realize Wiki has never done it that way...but Wiki sort of fell into doing a lot of things poorly and doesn't look enough to the outside world for guidance. I see this as an important task of the FA directors. It doesn't have to be laborious. But a couple sentences that say how far away the piece is (close or far) and what the major issues are and maybe a quick suggestion. Ideally, you should WANT to be getting more/better submissions. Obviously if T-sock submits, than just be brusque. But when it has potential, you should care a little more and give a little more.71.246.147.40 (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

TCO, that's actually the antithesis of my job as a delegate. My job is to judge the consensus of what the reviewers post. If there is consensus among reviewers that the article meets the criteria, it gets promoted. If there's no consensus (lack of feedback) or consensus that the article doesn't meet the criteria, it gets archived. My opinion isn't the be-all and end-all - articles have been promoted by other delegates when I, as a reviewer, opposed, because consensus was against me. I have promoted articles I thought were problematic (particularly for size) because reviewers engaged on those issues and consensus was against my personal opinion. In my mind, if I do a thorough review of an article, I'm COId from closing it, because my personal opinion isn't supposed to be in play.

In 2008, before I became a delegate, I was the most prolific FAC reviewer, and I reviewed 30-35 articles a month. That's 1/3 to 1/2 of the number of articles that go through FAC in a particular month. It takes me between 20 and 90 minutes to do a thorough review, and I could not/will not offer an opinion on how "close" an article is to FAC status without being that thorough. The time I used to spend reviewing I now spend reviewing FAC nominations to judge consensus - that takes me 3-5 hours a week.

If you want to reclassify the delegate's job, that should be a proposal at WT:FAC...and if it requires me to review every article, I'll have to step down because a) I don't have enough time to do a good job at that and b) I don't know if I'll be able to separate the two hats well enough all the time. Karanacs (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, TCO, if you have issues with any of my closings, please take those up individually with me. I'm always happy to receive feedback - either to identify/learn from my mistakes or provide explanation/education where there might be misunderstandings. Karanacs (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's at a global level, Karan. I think you (and Wiki) misdefine the job. I think Sandy at least comes closer in that there are times when she will cavitate about an article that is crap, but not getting slammed. It's not an either/or, but an "and". Yes, you should rely on the reviewers, but you should also look at the pieces yourself. (this is not bizarre, it is how academic journals work.) More like a real magazine and less like "RFA close by a crat".

I'll say what I want, where I want, Kare. The one time you didn't like me calling you a "mean girl" it was hypothetical anyhow. I think you are sweet. If I see an important need to interact directly, of course I will. Or if it is an isolate issue, sure...of course. But if I'm making a GENERAL point...sorry...don't get into the specific.

Besides, all that even if you were 100% relying on the reviewers and not reading the articles even (and I get scared sometimes, this is really the mode of operations, especially given the not dividing up the queueu and the "swing through this weekend"), you could STILL thoughtfully summarize and give feedback to the submitter. Especially if he is a first time submitter, this would be important and HELPFUL to building the enclopedia. Heck the crats closing failed RFAs usually stop by the person's page and give mature feedback. (but putting it on the close itself would be OK too.)

71.246.147.40 (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

TLDR version: yes, the job role of a director is wrongly characterized. That's exactly what I called out. Surprised that you did not see that. I look at things from an off Wiki perspective...;-) 71.246.147.40 (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I read all of the articles that I am considering promoting and most where there are well-argued opposes and well-argued supports. I don't read most of the articles that are archived. (I can't speak for Ucucha and SandyGeorgia as to what they read). "Swing through" translates to "spend 3-6 hours reading/judging consensus/doing the tasks to make sure the articles are categorized correctly".

If you would like to change the delegate definition, WT:FAC is the appropriate place to make a proposal. Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Peace. 96.238.184.111 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It will take 2 weeks for me to resolve the issues. I have had to deal with a RfC the last week and have been traveling. I shall have poor internet access until next Tuesday. Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, as a newbie I'm naturally adverse to reverting established editors' work, particularly administrators. That said, perhaps you might care to review the following:

• "came out in support of Robert" changed to "pledged support for Robert". A pledge is a formal, legal process. Did Northumberland, Shrewsbury and Coutances formally pledge allegiance to Robert, or merely indicate that they would support him?
• "Instead it was agreed" changed to "They agreed". The former indicates that the agreement was in place of the compromise rather than a consequence of it.
• "suitable": I would suggest that the suitability ought to be qualified by "for the King" as in the original. A royal castle is significantly different to a minor baronial outpost. Quite apart from the security issues; if the King were to visit there would be a requirement to house a significant part of the Court.
• "royal castles in south-east England were invested in" changed to "investments were made in royal castles". The former implies to me that an investment consisting of a number of castles was made, the latter merely that some cash was spent on existing castles. The emphasis on SE England is relevant to the invasion threat; castles in the Welsh Marches would be of no use against the French.
• "broke out" or "commenced". The latter implies a precise date, applicable to a single battle or campaign.
• "Although Langton held out against the king's demands, the...". It is significant that Langton resisted. Without the phrase the rebel concern is more easily justified.
• "Royal forces had arrived ahead of John...", the vanguard being in advance of the Royal Party is significant. The King travelled slowly and everyone knew where he was, but in this case forces went in advance and hence were able to surprise the defenders.
• "force of 700 horse" - I think there may be a British/US difference here. To me "700 horse" implies a large contingent of cavalry; "700 horses" is a herd.
• "however", personally this reads better with the word in the sentence, again possibly a UK/US difference?

Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia - I hope you are having fun! My philosophy on copyediting is that whatever I change can be reverted at will. Don't forget that administrators are just regular editors with a few extra buttons - any content work we do should be weighed just the same as a non-administrator. Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've gone ahead and done them. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

All set.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It passed its image check. You are the delegate but I saw no particular barrier to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. That was all I was waiting for, but by the time I saw this yesterday I decided it would probably be best to wait and let Ucucha handle this on his run this weekend. Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, by the time they got back to me. I have a new colleague on the coins, since RHM22 doesn't seem to be around too much, User:BrandonBigheart. Right now, he is concentrating on coin images, much to my delight, but I am hopeful he will write as well as he shoots coins (whereas my photography is notorious).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

It's always nice to see new faces at FAC - good job recruiting :) Karanacs (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The more the merrier, especially given editor trends. I'll get him to join me in a conom down the line.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get leave before renominating, as I assumed that it'd be fine anyway as the previous one received minimal feedback (only Nikkimaria's source check and a Copyspace check). Would I have leave to renominate it or should I G7 it and renom in a few days (when two weeks will have passed anyway)? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:43, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Does the "archived" status mean that the FAR has been closed unsucessfully? I feel a little terrible as my PC crashed and I was unable to complete the copyedit yesterday. I have amended quite a few of the points raised and feel bad that it might not have been such a negative result had I not spent the last 24 hours reinstalling windows and doing silly updates. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's been closed unsuccessfully. The rules are that once a nomination has been closed it cannot be brought back for at least two weeks; in the meantime the nominator should work on the issues from the first FAC. This one was opened just days after the last one had been closed, and the issues still hadn't be fixed. Karanacs (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm writing to tell you that the editors of the Signpost are making an effort to revive the long dormant Dispatches section. Your name is listed in the "Members" section, indicating that you have or had a willingness to help write or critique Dispatches.

Since the project was inactive for over a year, I have moved all of the names previously in the Members section to the "Inactive" subsection. If you no longer wish to participate in the capacity described above, you do not need to do anything, this will be the last time you hear from me on the matter of dispatches.

If you are, however, still interested in Dispatches, please go put your name back into the main members section. I will take that as an indication that it is okay to continue to send your way both Dispatch related messages and individuals seeking assistance with Dispatches in the areas you specified as being your specialties.

I personally am hoping to get at least one Dispatch out before 15 November, so that the section can avoid being officially inactive for a full year (the last dispatch was 15 November 2010). Cheers! Sven Manguard Wha? 08:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Sven, for taking this on! Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank goodness for watchlists, or I'd never even know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember how I said that "this will be the last time you hear from me on the matter of dispatches" (it's right above this)? I lied. I'm deliviering another message, this time it really will be my final message related to Dispatches.

Yesterday, I was enthusiastic about getting Dispatches back up and running. However while I was asleep (note I'm in UTC +8), ResMar and SandyGeorgia decided to use my talk page to stage a massive, ugly brawl. I was unaware of the history behind Dispatches when I first signed up, but I certainly have an indication of it now. It's not a pretty history either. From what I gather, it was working fine and then just erupted into a fireball of ill feelings and unkind words, and my efforts to reactivate the section have caused another fireball. In short, I want out, and since nothing, save the brawl, has actually happened yet, rapidly pulling stakes and leaving the whole thing behind me poses no ethical dilemma in my mind.

You are, of course, free to do whatever you want in regards to Dispatches, however you should be aware of the fact that you are going to be wading headfirst into an explosive situation, and will be stuck between several well known editors who are more than willing to fight for their agendas. Whatever you do, however, I'd much prefer to be kept out of the loop on the matter.

Sorry for the abrupt turn of events. I would have tried my very hardest to make Dispatches work if I were not convinced that the atmosphere is too poisoned to function. However, since it is, I'm gone. Good luck, Sven Manguard Wha? 05:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Check the Wikipedia:Resource requests page for the download link Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Good work! I always forget about that page. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I just input a bot request to resolve this. But here's the info, just in case that bot doesn't get approved.

For anyone who has linked references to search results obtained at Texas Historic Sites Atlas, please note that they changed their URL somewhat. If you linked to a reference obtained by right-clicking and then "Open Link in a new window", the result of opening in a new window is where they changed the address. In essence, they removed the "common/" part of the address. Rather than the Texas Historical Commission just redirecting links going to the old address, it seems it will be up to the individual editor to go back and manually correct such links the editor may have inserted in any Wikipedia article. Maile66 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I haven't used that site before - I'm going to have to check it out. Karanacs (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, why did you close the FAC of the AV-8B after only 19 days, instead of the usual 21-day (three-week) span? If you have read over the FAC, some of the opposes were vague, and with 5 supports, I'm expecting that the delegate would wait for a clear concensus. So, why did you close it when it was short of the 21-day normal span? Sp33dyphil © • © 02:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where these notions take hold, but there is no such thing as a "21-day normal span". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

FACs typically get to wait 21 days if there is zero feedback. You got lots - including three concurring opposes on prose. The standard is that there must be consensus to promote. There was no such consensus to promote, so the article was archived. Take some time and get some non-milhist editors involved with copyediting and I think you'll be fine when you bring it back. Karanacs (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You do realise that one of the opposes is due to the reviewer's time constraint, and it was vague about the specific issue with the article? Sp33dyphil © • © 04:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You must be referring to Dank? If he didn't have time to copyedit it, who was going to? It's best to get articles copyedited before they appear at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I hate to butt in like this, but I too was surprised at the closure. My understanding for FAC's are that if the comments are still actively being addressed (which was the case), then it shouldn't have been promoted. I would've thought with five supports, it would be close to promoting, even if there were opposes (that were in the process of being fixed). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The prose issues were being ignored, and no one seemed able to fix them. Had I done a complete review, my list would have overwhelmed the page (there are many more issues in the article than those covered on the FAC). Speedy, since I'm recused, should you decide to bring the article to FAC again, please feel free to ping me in advance-- I'll have a look to see if an independent copyeditor has addressed the issues I saw but didn't get to detail. I might have carved out time to detail the additional issues had there not been so much reluctance to fix the issues raised there, but reviewers are naturally discouraged from engaging when nominators are reluctant to fix issues and involved WikiProject members pile on rather than addressing clear issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a note to let the main editors of Battle of Lipantitlán know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 4, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 4, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The Battle of Lipantitlán was fought along the Nueces River on November 4, 1835, between the Mexican Army and Texian insurgents, as part of the Texas Revolution. After the Texian victory at the Battle of Goliad, only two Mexican garrisons remained in Texas, Fort Lipantitlán near San Patricio and the Alamo Mission at San Antonio de Béxar. The commander of Fort Lipantitlán, Nicolás Rodríguez, had been ordered to harass the Texian troops at Goliad. Rodríguez took the bulk of his men on an expedition; while they were gone, Texian Captain Ira Westover's force arrived in San Patricio. On November 3, a local man persuaded the Mexican garrison to surrender, and the following day the Texians dismantled the fort. Rodríguez returned as the Texians were crossing the swollen Nueces River to return to Goliad. The Mexican soldiers attacked, but the longer range of the Texians rifles soon forced them to retreat. The Texians now had full control of the Texas Gulf Coast, which meant that the troops stationed at San Antonio de Béxar could receive reinforcements and supplies only overland. Historian Bill Groneman believes that this contributed to the eventual Mexican defeat at the siege of Béxar, which expelled all Mexican troops from Texas. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I dunno? [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

K, it's with great trepidation that I tell that I think that I'm ready for that RfK. My family stuff have calmed down, and I think I have the time to devote to it. So go ahead and submit! And thanks for your confidence in me. Christine (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Haven't seen you around for a while, but I'd like to withdraw my intention for RfA--for now. I know that it's recommended that one not be submitted the week of a holiday, and since we're coming up to a major one here in the U.S., perhaps it'd be better to wait for the first week of Dec. Or maybe until the new year? Christine (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

... that your contributions to the project, despite your low average epp, have not gone unnoticed [14]. Thanks for the insightful comments you posted on Sandy's page. 86.178.144.68 (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Heya. I'm writing to you because I've just cleaned up that article after it was featured on the main page. I know that arguably it's better to leave the original author to do that sort of thing - since it is your work and you know it best - but I thought that after you bringing it through to FAC and maintaining it beyond it'd be nice for someone to volunteer to do the cleanup instead. Might be worth you checking over it again, but hope I've done it all alright. Wasn't much to do: mostly the usual Texan/Texian stuff. Redverton (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There's two highway FACs currently where your remarks on geocoordinates have been quoted, or perhaps misquoted. Would you be willing to take a look and clarify? Thanks. --Rschen7754 21:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know (as a courtesy) that Tom Harrison has replied to a question you asked 2 months ago here. I am nevertheless optimistic that there is a genuine opportunity now for improving the article. Geometry guy 04:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs, I was sorry when Raul told us you had submitted your resignation. You will be missed ... Life is far more than Wikipedia and I hope it is being good to you. I hope you will drop in from time to time and someday ... well, who knows? All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Wehwalt. I've greatly enjoyed my time here, and I hope to be back writing articles, though likely never at the pace I did before. Too much has changed in my life - and on WP - in the last few years, and that meant my role needed to change as well. Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI. [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you be able to read "S&M (song)" and tell me if there is anything outstanding that would prevent the article from passing FAC pleased? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 15:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

My sincere apologies for my recent absence. I know I left some loose ends hanging, and that was not nice of me. I had hoped that my situation would allow me to once again return to my editing-having schedule, but I've realized that is unlikely. I resigned as FAC delegate in early December and didn't realize that it hadn't been publicly announced. (My extreme thanks to Sandy and Ucucha, who have done a phenomenal job of picking up the slack.)

My absence is due primarily to changing circumstances in real-life (being a single mom of two small kids is harder than it looks!). However, I've also become disillusioned with a lot of the drama here. I have had so much drama in real life I haven't wanted to deal with the equivalent here, and my previous "safe" zone, FAC, started to be full of drama. I didn't get paid enough to deal with that ;) and that situation made it easier for me to avoid everything WP-related, because I just did not want to get sucked in. It is difficult to see attacks on my effort and the areas I have worked hard to build or maintain. Constructive criticism is good. Disruption and attacks are not.

I will likely be around, at some times more than others, as I have rediscovered (unpacking is like a series of Christmases) a giant stack of books still to be read for various articles. Thank you to everyone for the support, encouragement, and patience over the last year. It's been much appreciated. I value the time I've spent here and the friends I've made. Karanacs (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have always found your decisions as a delegate fair, and your comments as a reviewer well made and to the point. I am sorry we couldn't have more of you, but I understand the situation. Thank you for all you have done. I hope in time you will find it possible to read those books, write those articles, and give us more of your wit and wisdom. Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. Take care of you and yours first and foremost. If, as things settle, you feel enthusiasm for participating in wikipedia later, we'll be very happy to see you 'round. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the namecheck. Flattered by your confidence in me. Frankly, flattered you remember me! --Dweller (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course I remember you, Dweller :) Karanacs (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Karanacs, with as much as you've got going on, that you are taking the time to help out on the Malleus evidence page speaks volumes. Thank you for doing that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd use my limited time in the manner that would help the most articles get improved ;) A lot of Malleus's blocks were bollocks, to use his words, and I'm amusing myself greatly reading the context behind some of them. Karanacs (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why I'm glad you're doing it-- I did it with one only, and it just made me mad :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's like a walk down (bad) memory lane for me, but I really do want to thank you for taking the trouble Karanacs. It's way more work than anyone could reasonably expect of another editor, and I hope that ArbCom take the trouble to read what you've produced. Can't say I'm optimistic though. Malleus Fatuorum 03:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

PS. Given that one of the charges against me is misogynism I find the number of female editors who are supporting me to be very reassuring, whatever happens. Malleus Fatuorum 04:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping to have the time this weekend to spell it all out on the evidence talk page. It seems pretty obvious to me that after a series of questionable early blocks you were pigeonholed as the curmudgeon and the resulting "attention" helped ensure you'd live up to it. There are some valuable lessons for how not to treat contributors early on....as well as lessons on how often baiting is overlooked.

I don't believe in civility blocks. I believe in quicker blocks for disruption, because to me that is the most dangerous activity to WP's stated goals. (When I'm here) I will fight for content writers. I argued to ban Mattisse and Ottava because they were increasingly disruptive to other article writers. I've never found you to be that way, and I'll do my part to keep you around. In my opinion, you provide much more value to WP than I. Karanacs (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I was highly amused that they've accused you of hostility towards women. We seem to think you are funny. You have a nice habit of saying stuff I wish I could. Karanacs (talk) 04:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Montanabw said a rather similar thing: "Put differently, if Malleus called me a f---ing c---, I'd sort of laugh and say, 'oh that's just Malleus, and I hate to admit that he's right again' while if another editor called me the same, I'd probably file an ANI and demand an immediate civility block". I put it down to my cute English accent. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 04:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Those pages disgust me ... query ... is there anywhere in evidence the frequency with which blocking admins cite Malleus's block log, without acknowledging that a bunch of it is bogus? Malleus, if it's not there, I doubt that any of us knows where to find diffs that speak to that. Is the issue that you are frequently blocked because you've been blocked in the past entered into evidence? If not, can Karanacs put it in (if you have diffs), since that STUPID 500-word limit keeps anyone else from entering it? And if so, is it entered into evidence that on the talk page, Swatjester stands by his first block, doesn't acknowledge involved, so INVOLVED needs to be clarified by the arbs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Two individual administrators have put in evidence that they were originally "detractors" and have subsequently unblocked Malleus. I can probably find some diffs of reference to the block log, but don't know if that will "prove" that those who mentioned it didn't know the story. We also need to analyze the block log on the talk page to connect the dots that many of those blocks were inappropriate or at least controversial. Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I started the analysis User talk:Karanacs/test. Can y'all (TPS included) take a look? i'd like to make sure it's fairly representative before I post it to a broader audience on the evidence pages. Karanacs (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite simply astonished at the work you've done here Karanacs. Part of the problem is that even I'm not clear what some of the blocks were for, and I wasn't even at the time; generalised comments in the log such as "personal attack" without specific links are not really helpful. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Analagously to my comment above about misogynism, I think it's also rather telling that so many administrators have chipped in "on my side". Kind of puts the lie to my alleged "anti-administrator" stand. I'm not and never have been anti-administrator, but I've always been pro-justice, and that's all it's ever been about for me. One law for all, applied equally to the highest and the lowest. And I do mean the highest; I'd undoubtedly have been blocked for some of the comments that Jimbo makes, such as calling Bishonen a "toxic personality". Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I was testing my hypothesis of the case - and of you. I believe I proved myself mostly right :) NOT that I think you are blameless, Malleus - you use language in a way I wouldn't dream of doing here - but I think the fears that you are driving off newbies are completely unfounded, and if you're driving off certain admins I'll send you brownies as a thanks. There are many admins and editors, who, like me, appreciate that you adhere very strongly to your definition of appropriate behavior and integrity. You are no hypocrite, and much of what I found was the result of you defending someone, or someone's hard work. The reason I separated out admin vs non-admin, btw, was because admins SHOULD have a thicker skin. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Karanacs, I would be the very last to claim that I'm blameless, but I just find myself unable to stand by and watch editors or their work being treated disrespectfully or unfairly. And sometimes that bubbles up into a naughty word or two. ArbCom has to make some tough decisions, and I wouldn't care to be in their shoes. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing I do vehemently deny though is that I have chased off newbies. About the only place I come into contact with newbies is at places like the AP Biology project. How many of those students did I chase off over the years? Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This is my way of standing up for content. Quite honestly there have been content situations where I've been grateful for those with a looser definition of personal civility than I. Sometimes there is deadlock unless someone comes in and blows things up a bit. PMAnderson did it at the Catholic Church article; you've done it at the 911 article. All my nice and civil manner gets sometimes is ignored, attacked, or, worse, patronised. Karanacs (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The 9/11 article was at an impasse, but has now slowly started to move in the right direction. I think of it a little like planting a stick of dynamite to clear a rock slide. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Karen, I have completely stayed away from that arbcom case...I respectfully request you might reconsider mentioning MONGO there...I think you can make a valid point without mentioning me.--MONGO 02:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

MONGO, that was not meant in any way to get you in trouble - they asked for incidents where perceived incivility did not garner a warning or block. I don't believe in civility blocks in general, and enforcement is widely uneven. I did not find your comments that extreme, but others have been blocked for less and Arbcom needs to see that. Karanacs (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I just realized you might have just been asking me to redact your name and leave the links. I've done that. Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't worried about trouble coming my way...I'd probably deserve some sanction anyway...sorry my comments left any remembrance that were notable enough to you that they might have been potential examples of how not to act.MONGO 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been in very few discussions this year, MONGO - I just looked through those to see what had been posted. I am not concerned with telling anyone what to say or not to say; my evidence is that some people are sanctioned and some aren't. The community isn't being consistent, and for me that means err on the not sanctioning part. Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

Could you clarify "perceived misrepresentation of MF's thoughts" a bit more? I'm not sure what this means. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas, specifically about the Redesign of the project's main page, and about it joining WikiProject United States. For all intents and purposes, this project has reached a comatose state of involvement. Editors are creating and contributing to Texas articles. But the project site itself has been pretty dead for a long time. Anything you can add to the current discussions on that page would be appreciated. Maile66 (talk) 20:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It was pretty dead when I first started writing. I'll take a look, but I'm editing at barely minimal rates right now :( Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate your current situation, and your taking time to offer insight over on the Texas project. I've been feeling so lonely over there, that I am the one who encouraged Kumioko to help out. I mention that, because some might see it otherwise. So much is needed, but there's no real structure. What I see over on WPUS is more exposure, a bigger audience to requests, and perhaps some actual involvement with the Texas project. And maybe some power plays when more get involved, but stuff happens. I am just so grateful that Jj98 stepped in and revamped the main page, because I wasn't sure I had the know-how to do it justice. Maile66 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs, Ag Andras left the following message on my talk page. Looking at the edit history, it seems the message relates to an edit you reverted and was intended for you.

Wish to know on what proof did you find forgery Jean Lafitte's note about his origin. This was published by the chief rabbi of Philadelphia Bertram Wallace Korn and presented in the book of the well known historian Edward Kritzler. (Unfortunately they are both dead) Ag Andras (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs, I was wondering whether you'd be interested in doing a peer review, or if you had any comments on this article?

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 09:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look, but I can't guarantee when. I don't edit that often anymore. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi K, I think that I've fallen through the cracks, but no big deal because no one was hurt. We talked before the holidays and before your break about me going for RfA. Now, I'm either stupid or crazy, because it could've just been swept under the rug and I wouldn't have to deal with it, but I still think it's important. WP still needs admins who are also content editors who are also female, and I'm too much of a wuss to do it alone, so could you please help me? Thanks, I appreciate it. Christine (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you meant a week from Monday! ;) Seriously, I'm not in a huge hurry about this, but I'd like to get it over with. Plus, we're going away this weekend, so if it's gonna happen this week, I'd like it to be timed so that the nomination period is almost over by Friday. I know you're busy, so whenever you can do it, it's fine. Thanks. Christine (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The Kentucky University study on forgery speaks about John Laflin, who changed his name to John Lafitte. He forged letters by Jean Lafitte whom he claimed as his great-grandfather. This has nothing to do with the note found in the family bible that remembers Jean Lafitte’s Jewish-Spanish grandmother and in no way put into doubt the historian Kritzler’s book.

I didn’t yet read the Ramsay book and I don’t know how it would clarify his origin. There are many different theories about it and not well proven.

Would it be a disgrace for an American hero to be quarter Jewish? -- Ag Andras (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently watching The Alamo; is it anything like the historical truth? The hats in particular seem ridiculous to me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ""Texan" versus "Texian"". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crews Giles (talk • contribs) 04:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)