User talk:Karanacs/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

RE:Sourcing

Thanks for telling me that about sourcing. I probably had heard that before, but I probably didn't take it seriously enough. I know that Encyclopaedia Metallum isn't a reliable source, though. I'll try to work on finding sources aside from myspace sites and official websites. Thanks. BT^C 20:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hullo ???

The most exciting Wiki news since ... well ... anything !!

What? [1] You trying to sneak one in ? Spill the beans !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

God, you're fast. Yup, last week we officially announced (to people we know in person) that baby 2 is on the way! Unfortunately, baby 2 hates turkey (and just about all other food except pizza and grapes...and they don't go well together). :( Baby 1 (who is no longer a baby) is verrrry excited that she will have her own life-size doll to play with this summer. Karanacs (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for pizza and grapes (beats yogurt and V-8 juice, which I never want to see again in my life :-)) This is SO exciting! Congratulations (and to an easy belly, fast delivery and healthy baby). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how exciting! Congratulations! I'm sorry to hear about the morning sickness, but the alternative isn't pretty either—I ate everything in sight and gained half my body weight (really). I'll echo Sandy's wishes for you, and add an important one: lots of sleep! Maralia (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I was living in a country where doctors held the belief you were supposed to gain no more than one kilo per month (9 kg = 20 lbs); one was supposed to consider one's appearance before the baby's health apparently. I pasted the diet the Dr. gave me into the baby albums; coffee and a boiled egg was supposed to be breakfast. Right. I ignored them; that's what gyms are for. I am sorry you're having to deal with morning sickness, though; I never had to go through that. I imagine it's not fun. I hope you're feeling better soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What have you been doing? Clearly not reviewing enough FACs if you have this kind of free time... Congratulations, anyway. Many wishes for little morning sickness and health for you and all who depend on you. --Moni3 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

CONGRATULATIONS!!! Hope the new one already has a research grant/scholarship to A&M. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! :) Last time my doctor yelled at me for gaining too much weight (I took the eating for two thing seriously); this time I'm just about out of the first trimester and have almost regained the weight the morning sickness took away. (And BQ, I've already trained the pre-schooler to think her Aggie t-shirt is the only clothing worth wearing. She'll be able to help train the new one.) Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

First thing I did when my nephew's conception was announced was purchase Gator clothing, sippy cups, pillows and blankets. He has a gator mobile that hangs over his bed that plays the Florida Fight Song. Saturday night we were looking at pictures of animals on Wikipedia asking him (he's 18 months now) to make the sounds. Duck, cow, cat, dog, sheep, bird (used the common treecreeper page), sea turtle... When alligator was brought up, we did the hand pump and GO GATORS! for the sound an alligator makes. --Moni3 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You people are weird. (grins). And I did NOT rush out and buy horse stuff for MY child while I was pregnant, no I did not. Seriously, Karan, take care. Hopefully the morning sickness shall pass soon... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Texas revolution on main page

Howdy Karanacs!

I have a draft of and expanded Texas Revolution section for the Texas page in my sandbox. Since i am using your sources, and you are more of the expert on the the topic than I was wondering if you could take a look at it before i modify the Texas page. Thanks and Gig Em!

(PS: please respond in my sandbox)Oldag07 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Land of Destiny

Oh wow - "Island of The Blue Dolphins" is a great book. I had it as a child, and re-read it again just last month. What does "prod/afd" mean? 70.54.2.151 (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Prod means proposed deletion - it lets someone nominate an article for deletion and gives others 5 days to fix it up before it is deleted. If anyone removes the prod tag from the article, then it cannot be deleted that way. AFD is a more official method of nominating an article for deletion. The community can debate whether or not the article meets Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and consensus determines whether the article is kept or deleted. Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Go Man Go

Just a heads up, Go Man Go's going to be on the main page 7 December. All hands on deck to help keep it clean. I've already had to fix someone's "help" of uncapitaizing Quarter Horse and Thoroughbred.. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll watchlist it now. Karanacs (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not insane, am I? Quarter Horse, when you are referring to the breed, is capitliazed? I know Thoroughbred is... (beats head on wall). I hate having articles on the main page, I really really do. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always seen it capitalized. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And there went the third revert... (gaze up). I left a note on his talk page, as well as the one I left on the article's talk page earlier. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, hi, just got your message about the reverts. I somehow failed to realize that the 3-revert rule applied to the whole article and not the individual edits. Sorry about that. The fact remains, though that I'm right about the Capital Letters. Stay tuned. --Milkbreath (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured you didn't realize, which is why I dropped a note to you instead of reporting you or anything. Didn't figure you meant badly, or anything. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Marskell had to explain this often (I could dig through his talk page archives to see what I can find if needed); Yomangani may be able to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnote at MOS (Date linking)

Please insert a Wikilink to the first of the two RfCs to the footnote, thanks.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done this, but please note that these requests are better left on the talk page of the MOS page. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

April Fools Day as FAC, question?

Good advice, Thank you. Any suggestions where to recruit people to work on a FAC drive? (I don't have much experience at FAC, I usually do cleanup.) RJFJR (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You might check the list of FAs and see if there is something similar - in that case you might be able to convince the people who worked on that one to help out. If there are any regular editors of the article, you can ask them to help out. You can specifically ask at FAC, but I don't think there will be many takers unless you have a good plan on what needs to be done and which sources will likely need to be consulted. If you have a great plan on what the article ought to look like, it's often easier to attract people to pick up different pieces of it (last year several of us read the sources, a few others helped take the notes and put them into paragraphs in the article, more did copyediting, MOS fixing, and looked for images). I'll be happy to offer advice as you get moving, but am too busy with my own projects to take a large role. Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page/Featured Article and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-03/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can always resurrect Biscuits and human sexuality if you'd like… – iridescent 18:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I am afraid to see that one.... Karanacs (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It only half-exists as a Defender Of The Purity Of Wikipedia thoughtfully AFDd it within four hours of my initial upload on highly dubious "this is clearly OR as nobody believes there's a link between the two" grounds; as it was deleted before I had the chance to expand it with material on Graham crackers, the theories of John Harvey Kellogg etc, which clearly do show that turn-of-the-century authorities saw a link between the two – and the closer ignored the long line of people at the AFD pointing out the this was a spurious nomination – it got deleted, and while I think this was a clearly incorrect AFD I'm not going to waste my time fighting over such a trivial topic. The accompanying image (yes, those are Oreos) was a true loss to the project, though. – iridescent 19:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Here it's biscuits; at Bish's page, it's fruit. What is Wiki coming to? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Head on over to this site, and marvel at the uses people find for food. The "Carnes" section on the pull-down menu is a particular eye-opener – yes, those are all made of meat. – iridescent 19:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No pull down menu with "Carnes" here? (Sounds like something that could come in handy for spoofing His Fatness.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It should open to a picture of a dollar bill with "merca" in the top corner – the pull-down is immediately next to the "merca" caption. It's all in flash or shockwave or some such, so may not open on some browsers. In the meantime, have a picture made entirely of play-doh from the same site. – iridescent 20:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

ah, now I've got it ... you have to scroll down to the "Carnes" section. (Didn't find any appropriate pork.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, Cas and I were discussing spontaneous human combustion. Not kidding! Ceran^→//forge 12:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Juan Davis Bradburn

On January 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Juan Davis Bradburn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, Karan! I didn't know you could get so many DYK things so fast! Your fingers must be worn to the bone from typing so much! (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just that good ;) Karanacs (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin help

For Karanacs and her TPS, can someone deal with CartonsOfCum (talk · contribs) (not sure how username thingies work). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually deal with username issues and am not quite sure what to do. Karanacs (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone already blocked it indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it just needs to be watched now for protection (Kablammo has been battling edits there). I guess namevios are just indeffed ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hum. Part of the posse, are you. Good to know that. So it wasn't esp that led you to want to file an RFC on me all on your own. I will uncover the maze of control over FAC. The secret forces. Follow orders, please. But do not expect me to trust you. Your colors have been revealed. Cheers, —Mattisse (Talk) 09:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very proud of my colors - I bleed maroon and white ;) Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Go Man Go

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you so much for all your help in reverting vandalism on Go Man Go while it was on the main page. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Boyce recap

I've gone through your listed concerns with William D. Boyce. Awadewit did a ce too. Would you like to give it a final look before FAC? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Juan Seguin (in popular culture)

From the article Juan Seguin have removed section "In popular culture", explaining that this section was a trivia. However, many biography articles contain section "in popular culture", usually mentioning the movies and actors playing such characters, e.g.: Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna where film descriptions are similar. Should all such sections be removed or you have special reasons for Juan Seguin article (the influence on popular culture is to small or the section is written badly and should be re-written)? I would like to restore the section, possibly changing it a little, but I do not want to start an edit war. Regards Jasra (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally, it is more accepted to have a "legacy" section; "in popular culture" sections, by themselves, are discouraged as essentially trivia. The Legacy section might briefly touch on movies where the subject played a key role (and was not a minor character), but that would need to be put in context. As an example, see the Featured article Jim Bowie. This has a legacy section, but only briefly mentions that he has appeared as character in many movies. It then discusses only the television show that was directly based on his life. The 1982 movie that centered on Seguin should be mentioned in any Legacy section, but who played him (as a more minor/supporting character) in other Alamo movies should not. Ideally, this should be included alongside other information about his legacy so that we don't encourage people to expand the trivia ("he appeared in X video game for 4 seconds..." ) at the expense of useful article information. Karanacs (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I will create "Legacy" section. I think places named "Seguin" can be mentioned. I also think that it should be mentioned that the attitude to Juan Seguin was mixed (he was often labeled as traitor both by Texans and Mexicans (I think this article can be as reference [2] - Seguin a Paradox In The Annals Of Texas History) and for a long time he was not mentioned to often, but with the growing interest in the Tejanos' role in Texan revolution the interest in Juan Seguin grew. Then I will mention the 1982 movie as an example. I however do not agree with you that his appearence in "The Alamo (2004)" can by compared to appearing in "X video game for 4 seconds". Although, he is only a supporting character, his role in the movie is important. As indicated in this link [3], the movie director considers Seguin a "moral bellwether of the story", so in this case it seems important. So what do you think about it? BTW. Maybe we should move this discussion to the article discussion page. Regards, Jasra (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing texas

I feel bad asking you again and again for stuff. The stuff you added for the revolution was fantastic. So was the peer review. I have divided the Texas page into 6 parts. Hopefully with more manageable chunks, people will be more willing to copyedit the page. would you be willing to copy edit one section of the Texas page?

Talk:Texas#Copyedit_planOldag07 (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure...ask anytime! I'll try to get to it later this week. Karanacs (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

OldAg, I'm sick right now, so won't be doing any CE this week. Poor brain would likely create nonsense. Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your mission...

Should you feel up to it, of course, could I beg a CE off of you, of Nigel (Bishop of Ely)? I think he's just about ready for FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure....maybe today. I'm home with a sick kid, so it depends on whether I get a moment of peace or not. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No hurries. I'll trade you sick kid for the sick horses (yes, plural, the snot nose stuff is spreading through the barn.. whee.) Oh, and kid home because of the cold. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got a great big nasty cold too, and I'm probably not going to be in the right frame of mind to be CEing anytime soon. God only knows what nonsense my poor brain would come up with right now. I should be better next week, but don't feel like you have to wait for me. Sorry!! Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries, we're in the midst of packing, so I'm not planning on nomming Nigel until after we get into the new house at this point. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw this and had a free hour so I've given it a copyedit. Comments at the talk page. Hope everyone (human and animal!) is feeling better soon. Maralia (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Maralia, you are awesome! Thanks :) Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Melissa Anelli

On January 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melissa Anelli, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Historical romance/Heyer bit

Hi, I just wanted to mention that the info on the historical romance page regarding An Infamous Army that you deleted is important to note, as it clarifies what is meant by "Where Heyer referred to historical events, it was as background detail to set the period, and did not usually play a key role in the narrative." Just wanted to clarify that it's OK as it stands now - I think/hope it's qualified better now than it was first time round. Many thanks. Mabalu (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(Just saw subsequent revision, that's OK, I can see now that it's fine as it stands and the AII ref wasn't necessary. Thanks!) Sorry, I have an allergy to cover-all statements such as "All X's books were like this...". Mabalu (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the "all" statements, and I'm glad you fixed those. The poor historical romance page has languished for the last months because I jumped into another project and no one else has been that interested in it. If you have ideas for further improvement (and further great sources), maybe we can work together to improve it some more. Karanacs (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much help I can be with this, as I only really know about Heyer in the historical romance field. I just revised the section that I knew about and could contribute to with confidence in my knowledge/familarity of the subject. (I am more familiar with fashion history/dress!) Mabalu (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

And, unfortunately, that is a subject I know nothing about (but I'm sure we have a gap on Wikipedia). Anyway, welcome to wikipedia, and good luck. If you ever have a question, feel free to ask me and I'll try to find an answer for you. Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Frank Vandiver

On January 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frank Vandiver, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Marquette University Law School

Thanks for your help with the MULS article. I felt I was losing my objectivity and didn't want to get into an edit war with a very eager alum. I just needed someone else to look at it. Thanks! --Sift&Winnow 20:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem - seems like a very eager, and very new, editor who might just need a bit of guidance. Thanks for bringing it to someone else's attention :) Karanacs (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidio La Bahia

I want to thank you for your excellent work on expanding Presidio La Bahia. I left it a poor little two-line stub, and you've made it into a real article! I was considering adding a section on the architecture and restoration, but resources are scant, and least where I am. In restorations of this kind, there's usually an element of Disneyland, or at least of conjecture: Colonial Williamsburg and Fort Vancouver National Historic Site are notable examples of this approach. Do you know of any references concerning the actual restoration? Acroterion _(talk) 15:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Acroterion, thanks for your comments! I never would have started this article on my own, though, so I am very glad that you created it :) I haven't done a lot of looking into the architecture and restoration. I've been primarily researching the battles of the Texas Revolution and pulling pieces from my huge volume of notes to fill in other articles. There is one book, by Katheryn Stoner O'Conner (who paid for the restoration), which is specifically about the Presidio, and which has at least one chapter on the restoration [4]. I know there are several books on the Spanish missions, and it is possible that one might also discuss the presidio. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly might also be a good resource. Their newsletter (through 1997) is currently freely available online. It looks like the Victoria Advocate wrote several articles on the restoration, but most require a fee to view [5]. Karanacs (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that gives me a few leads. There's always an element of conjecture in a restoration, and it would be interesting to see how much influence Mrs. O'Conner had on the results - the Rockefellers certainly left their imprint on Williamsburg, and Williamsburg was hugely influential. However, short of finding some sourcing on that subject, I'll see if I can put together a sourced paragraph noting the partly ruinous state, the dates of restoration, and Mrs. O'Conner's role. Acroterion _(talk) 17:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fred Moosally

I believe I've addressed your concerns. I appreciate the feedback. Cla68 (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Frozen Charlotte

Hi, Thanks for your help earlier with Georgette Heyer. I've been working on a page for Living Dead Dolls and noticed there wasn't a Wiki entry for Frozen Charlotte, a story I've always liked and been fascinated by ever since I first learned about the Victorian Frozen Charlotte dolls. Anyway I was wondering if I ought to have split it up into several different Wiki pages (one for each version of Frozen Charlotte and have had a "frozen charlotte (disambiguation)" page? Could I ask your opinion, please?

Thanking you very much in advance for your time and valued advice, Mabalu (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better to split these into multiple pages, since the topics are only really connected by name. You can probably leave the "Frozen Charlotte" title as the disambiguation page (without putting in the word disambiguation), and then just create new articles for Frozen Charlotte (doll) and Frozen Charlotte (2006 doll), etc. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much! That's what I did, and I was able to expand anmd cross-reference the individual entries a littLe bit more as a result. Really appreciate the advice! Mabalu (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

FAC thanks

Catching up from a few days off, I see you've been taking care of business everywhere; thanks ! How is the belly treating you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Life is much better - I can eat again! And I've recovered from a nasty head cold (although I seem to have given it to Moni), so I feel productive again. I hope you enjoyed your days off :) It's Ealdgyth's turn to deal with house issues. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for your copy-editing work on Michael Tritter, I think you'll be glad to hear that the article has been promoted. You have been a great help. Thank you very, very much.--Music26/11 11:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! I hope we see you back at FAC again soon. Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

PR followup

Hi Karanacs. I now have Calvin on FAC and I need your help again. It seems there may be some prose problems, so could you take a look at the article again. It has changed a lot since your PR (hopefully for the better thanks to the reviewers and copyeditors). --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and congratulations! I just saw the top of talk page. --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do my best to get to Calvin today or tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz

Could you give some feedback at its FAC? I've hardly gotten any feedback, and I know that the prose needs review before it is archived or promoted. Ceran^→//forge 14:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll do my best to get there today or tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Travel

Karen, I'll be gone from Feb 5 to 14 inclusive, checking FAC on the 4th before I go, and possibly editing again on the 15th, but long Dr. app't scheduled on the 16th, so out again that day. It is possible that I will have no ability to edit Wiki while I'm gone, although I'm still unsure. Besides the usual, if you see a FAC that gathers a lot of opposes quickly (say five or six in a few days), pls feel free to go ahead and move it to archive to keep the page size down. Raul will run through FAC before he travels on the 10th, so hopefully someone will make sure all the bookkeeping is done (talk page templates in order for GimmeBot, etc.) See 'ya in a few weeks, and take care of the belly! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

PS, also, as long as the page size is above 40, and until reviews pick up again, I want to be pretty strict about one nom at a time. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy your trip! I'll try to keep an eye on FAC as well as your talk page. :) Karanacs (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

About that one nom at a time thing... Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AFD For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston Tower

I have found more sources for the Houston Tower at http://www.google.com/search?q=Krahl+Houston+Tower&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS278US278 and have included a few to the external links. I havn't incorperated them into the article yet as the AFD is preventing me to spend time on writing and expanding it (as the Deletion Votes hold majority right now so there wouldn't be any point of expanding an article that has a majority vote of deletion even thought i found a way to fix the problem and even recreating (due to the AFD red tape) it will cause problems if I used the sources.) I am contacting you to determine that I believe that you should change your vote based on the new source results I found. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 19:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz

I addressed majority of your concerns (I will address remaining later). May I ask you to review the article again (especially new abstract and restructured first section)? Ruslik (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was off yesterday. Ruslik got to most of your concerns. Ceran^→//forge 21:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you come back to the FAC please? Ceran^→//forge 20:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to come back tomorrow. Since promotions aren't being done right now, I wasn't in a huge hurry. Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the new round actually did just happen... anyway, could you note the jargon you mentioned, and post them at the FAC? And I can't explain the lake ejection in anyway. Sorry, ;) Ceran^→//forge 23:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

William Henry Harrison

Any help copyedting this for FAC prep would be greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Radcliffe, Greater Manchester

Hi there. I've made a few changes, let me know if I'm on the right track. I have a busy weekend so unfortunately won't be able to work quickly on this. No rush, I just thought it might be easier to mention it here first, before addressing the FAC talk page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again, the italics have now (hopefully) been resolved :) Thanks for the help. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Fredonian Rebellion

On February 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Fredonian Rebellion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Marissa Moore

Hello! Please reconsider as I have found a number of sources and have begun revising the article accordingly. Thanks! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Speyer - Thanks

Thanks for the comments for Edgar Speyer which has now been promoted. Phew, that was hard work! --DavidCane (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you cause a revolution if you did FA promotions since you said the FA director and deputy director are both away? If so, what if you did it very carefully and slowly, such as 1 promotion every 2-3 days and only to the very, very best? Chergles (talk) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sandy asked me to archive nominations that have received 4-5 opposes in a short time with little work. However, neither she nor Raul has delegated any authority for promoting articles, so it would be inappropriate for me to do that. The list is not that long, and one or both of them will be back on Tuesday. I suspect the list will be much smaller by Wednesday morning. Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I will promote for a nominal fee of $5,000 per article. Recession sucks. I'm here to make money. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Will you accept Monopoly money? Or the pink bills that come in a kid's play kitchen? I have lots of that. Karanacs (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Woman! This is a recession! Unless you can drop off the little shoe or default on a mortgage by handing over a little red plastic house, I shall not take Monopoly money! Cold hard cash...although I'm thinking of switching to Euros, since I heard drug dealers are using Euros instead of dollars. And Euros are kinda pretty like Monopoly money...so if you can fool me into making me believe the pretty paper you're giving me is a Euro, that might work... --Moni3 (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ping - WP:FAC/New York State Route 382

The FAC is waiting for you. :)Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, you don't need to ping someone if it's been less than 24 hours since they left comments. Many of us check the FACs once per day. Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Karanacs

I realized you were one, because you posted on Collectarian's page the same time I did. I got to go soon, but I figured, a Howdy never hurt anybody. Life for me, well it is going. What is going on in yours? Well than, thanks and gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC

Hi, as someone who previously commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Wilkes Booth, you may wish to revisit this page, as the FAC has been restarted and additional content to meet the concerns expressed has been added.  JGHowes  ^talk 23:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Karanacs. You have new messages at Mark Shaw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Battle of the Alamo vandals

I believe you put the protection on this article a month or so ago. The protection expired on February 6 and the next day, the onslaught of vandalism was revived. I'm counting nearly 25 wholesale acts since then. Is it possible to renew the protection? Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:12thManStatue.JPG

Thank you for uploading File:12thManStatue.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. —Angr 13:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be kept. There is hardly "critical commentary" on the articles the picture is on. It looks like mere illustrations of the statue are not allowed. BlueAg09 (Talk) 17:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That was my conclusion, too. Thanks for taking a look! Karanacs (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz

I think the remaining problems have been fixed. Ruslik (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, could you come check it out? ;) Ceran^→//forge 11:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments in Roman Catholic theology

I would very much appreciate any specific comments you have regarding how to make the article not POV. It did not strike me as POV so maybe I am not seeing things you are seeing. The article is specifically about the Roman Catholic POV of the Ten Commandments and all of the quotations and info comes from scholarly sources who are experts on the subject. Please let me know what you think I should do to improve it. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 19:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

PS I forgot to mention that general statements on the subject come from general sources such as history books on Western Civilization used by universities. Karanacs, I really need your help because I dont know what to do to address your concerns if you dont come give specifics and other advice. Thanks I appreciate your help very much. NancyHeise ^talk 20:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just made an attempt at rewriting the lead to make it a little more neutral and encyclopedic. I'll try to work on some of the other sections (probably tomorrow) to provide a little more guidance. Once again, you impress me with the amount of research you're willing to do! Karanacs (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. I would also appreciate if you could remove the tag when you think we have addressed all instances of POV, I would like to bring this to FAC. If it is easier for you, I invite you to consider giving me a list of comments to address on the peer review page. BrianBoulton just finished his review and I would like some more good reviewers to come have a look before closing. Here's a link to the peer review page :[6] NancyHeise ^talk 20:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even notice that it was at Peer Review. If I had, I would have posted my comments there instead. Karanacs (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi FAC

I responded to your questions. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

• I've responded to your new inquiries. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
  • I've responded to your new comments, and I've replaced some of the citations sourced to Bakshi's website with books. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

• Aren't you going to comment on the current revision? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not going to strike my oppose if the book hasn't at least been consulted. Your comments also reflected disbelief that the prose needed furhter work, so I don't see a lot of point in my returning. Karanacs (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've repeatedly stated that I can't get ahold of the book. How can I consult something that I do not have? Secondly, it's an art book, not a biography. Have you looked at the current revision? It's very comprehensive, even more so than when you last looked at the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Even though it is an art book and not a biography, I have put in a few requests to have someone check the book to make sure the article isn't incomplete or inaccurate. As I've stated before, I don't think we're missing anything. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

"Jargon"

Honestly, I don't see anymore jargon in the article, Karanacs. At the FAC there was a concern where Sasata, another editor, commented that he had to click the links for several sentences to know what the thing was. (In his specific concern) there is no way to replace dacite and andesite without just saying 'igneous rocks', and that would be way too simple for an FAC. This article is very detailed and that's how I'd like it to remain. Thank you. Ceranthor 12:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Kylfings

Looks good, thanks! I will add to it as I'm able. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

1f again

• people seem to be filibustering. I suggest we !vote in the new section. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Shaw

I went ahead and copy-pasted the shortened ROTJ section into the article. Please note, however, that right now it includes BOTH the Ian McDiarmid quote and a short bit about the fact that Shaw was contractually unable to discuss the secrets. I'm hoping it's still short enough that both can be included, but if you feel strongly that it needs to be that much shorter, please go ahead and cut the McDiarmid quote (or tell me to do it) and I'll accept that. Once again, thanks for your help in keeping me in tow; I know I was sort of ODing the article on ROTJ facts and think the article is probably better and more balanced now as a result of your input. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:WPTC

Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming cyclone season. Simply click here to accept!

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think this would be tempting fate a bit too much. All I need is for a hurricane to decide I'm a welcoming kind of soul and head straight to my house.... We still haven't quite finished cleaning up after Ike. Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe teething babies keep hurricanes away... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

York Park re

I've started fixing the referencing issues and thanks for noting this. It's very very hard to reference the article adequately as well, there's not many references around. I've had to delete the Mercury (Hobart Newspaper) references as they have now unfortunately been deleted. I still can't find another "reliable" reference suggesting that 15,000 attended the Elton John performance. The big problem with referencing the article with Examiner (Launceston Newspaper) articles is that the majority of them are pay per view entries, which makes it very hard, Cheers Aaroncrick^{(Tassie talk)} 05:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anstey Hill Recreation Park

Hi Karanacs, I've addressed many of the issues raised - text flow to be dealt with tonight. I would deem it a great favour if you could look and see if I have adequately fixed the items I've marked as Done to your satisfaction (noting that the ones not marked have not been fixed yet) - Peripitus (Talk) 02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Expansion - given you've been offline for a while I think all have been addressed. More critical commentary would be most welcome. Happy editing - Peripitus (Talk) 11:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

An Independence Day greeting

		Happy Texas Independence Day!
		I just wanted to wish you a happy Texas Independence Day! — Bellhalla (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Images for Texas A&M pages

I am making a trip to BCS in a few weeks, and I plan on wondering around the school with a camera for a little while. I have posted a image suggestion page up for images we may or may not want at the project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas A&M. I can't promise you I will get everything, but this is a good opportunity to boost some of our pages. Any suggestion is appreciated. Gig em!Oldag07 (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Vasil Levski FAC

Hello, I have addressed your points of objection at the Vasil Levski FA nomination. Would you be so kind to review the improvements I have made based on your suggestions? Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 12:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, the Vasil Levski article has been copyedit by a native speaker who is a teacher of English to boot. Please be so kind to review the article's prose quality again. You can find the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vasil Levski. Thank you. Todor→Bozhinov 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God, I've been so tactless asking you to review some stupid article once again :) Congratulations on the baby and all the best! Take your time, there's more important stuff than that article. Todor→Bozhinov 15:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Norman Birkett FAC

I've corrected your points and asked a Guild of Copyeditors guy to give it a looksee; mind reading the article again to see if your points have been addressed? Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA?

• wanna !vote on WT:WIAFA? Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarity

Aw, cut you down? All this pointless state posturing is... pointless. You know I think you're better than spice racks, right? --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Spice racks? Sheesh ... no food or drink jokes while I'm fasting! We must do something with Moni; she's killing me. Pass the remote control!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have some shards of plastic, a spring, and half a battery. That's all that's left of the remote. Now I can't watch Bobby and Cissy with Myron on the accordion in a song from the old country. --Moni3 (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Where'd the battery acid go? It could come in handy for the Youtube (get your five bucks ready ... I'll Be Back!!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No monument to justice am I, I'm billing you, Karanacs, for the therapy I will inevitably need. I will spend my days starting April 1 seeking contentment in a Zen state, making origami boulders. Just as it is not origami and not a boulder, neither is the article alpha and omega. We are pensive. --Moni3 (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I disavow all responsibility for this one. That hit FAC when I was sick, so I didn't even get to review it :( Have you asked The Fat Man for his help? He has wonderful blurb-writing skills. Karanacs (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I try

Arguably, I try too hard. But if you don't laugh, you cry, right? Right? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you archived an active FAC

...the hockey one. Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It had several opposes on comprehensiveness, and the nominator's last few comments implied it would take quite a bit of work. ("however it looks like it is back to the drawing board" and "I might take a brief step back from the article before digging back in though..."). Once he gets the comprehensiveness issues and any prose problems worked out, it can be renominated. Karanacs (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to your first day "on the job" :)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You may lose your spot on the top of the talk-page activity list if you have to share with me ;) Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

<Insert sound of rioting crowd> --Laser brain (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

FA number

Karanacs, User:Remember the dot changed up the code of WP:FA so that when you update the FA count, you edit Template:Number of featured articles, not the actual page. Just thought you'd want to know. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sandy just took care of it, but just a notice. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I've left him notes; we can't have a situation where we have to edit two different pages when adding and deleting FAs. As of now, everything is broken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC pr/ar

Karen, you're doing Tuesdays, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the process of doing so right now - busy, busy RL day today. Karanacs (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just checking :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine's FAC. I really am relieved to be out of the Ottava/Fowler maelstrom. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a really interesting article, Malleus - I enjoyed reading it :) Karanacs (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, looks like FAC is a lot more lively....I haven't had any comments at all about FAR, apart from when I messed up the FA counter! YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Lucky you! Karanacs (talk) 00:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It also means that there are a lot of abandoned archaic FAs that nobody cares about....YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1941 Florida hurricane/archive1

Sorry, but why was this archived? There were no outstanding concerns, aside from one "fundamental oppose" which, by nature, is unactionable. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hink's oppose was based on comprehensiveness grounds. As he seems to be one of the experts in the subject area, I gave that some weight. I encourage you to work with him and see if any additional sources can be found somewhere else and then bring it back. The article appears ready on all other grounds. If nothing can be found after more extensive (non-internet perhaps) searching, that will make a stronger rebuttal in the next nomination. Karanacs (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the clarification. I'll ask him about it. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 01:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Romance novels

Congrats on the above and the impending baby! I just thought I'd drop a note asking you (or any TPS) to look in on User:E-romance's recent contributions, namely the creation of articles on novels that either don't seem to be notable (no references, no mention of awards, etc) or seem to be mostly copyvioed (back summary of the book is just copy-pasted as content). Since we both have had issues with this user and you're now an admin I thought you'd probably have more weight than I would with warnings and whatnot, besides I have finals coming up and won't have time to follow through... --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a few of those last week and was debating how to approach her. I think the new articles were created because I warned her that the book covers she was uploading were not appropriate under fair use in the author articles; now she has a place for them. I'll try to make time this week to better explain the guidelines on books and do some cleaning. Karanacs (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Much thanks.. honestly the few times I've left a notice on her talk page I haven't gotten a response or seen a change in her editing pattern so I'm not sure I'm even getting through to her. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 16:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Davenport, Iowa

Can you look over the sources and see if they are fine for another FA attempt. I'm slowly getting back into Wikipedia, and thought I'd look into nominating Davenport, Iowa for a FA again. CTJF83Talk 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes/No?? CTJF83Talk 21:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How did you know I was planning to look at this today? I'm so far behind with on-wiki things right now.... Karanacs (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

HAHA, no problem, I'll message you back when I fix your suggestions. CTJF83Talk 00:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you not think the Quad Cities Convention & Visitors Bureau is a reliable source? CTJF83Talk 01:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Response please? CTJF83Talk 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's self-published source. It is also more likely to have a non-neutral point of view, as its purpose is to sell the area. Karanacs (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. CTJF83Talk 20:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

FAC/FAR

First, let me wish you belated congrats on the baby. :)

Second, I've been asked by several people if I could look into recruiting a new delegate for FAC and/or FAR (e.g, someone to promote/fail FACs and demote/close FARs). Is this something you'd be willing to do? Raul654 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Karanacs. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Congrats from me too! :-) Ling.Nut.Public (talk) 08:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh...God...condolences. And I'm sending Valium. --Moni3 (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It's one way of getting out of helping copyedit my articles... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the congratulations (and condolences, but Moni, babysitters are more valuable than Valium - can you send a handful of them instead?). next part also posted to Raul's talk page I'm sorry I haven't responded more quickly, but I've had computer problems and a nasty cold and am just now feeling semi-human again. I would be happy to help with FAC promotions/archives (I don't visit FAR at all), but I cannot commit to even half of the time that Sandy currently spends on the process. Some months I'm online a lot, and some months I barely seem to reach FAC. (I also have no way of estimating how much time I'll spend on-wiki this summer when baby arrives - I'll either be so desperate to have any conversation with a human who doesn't cry that I'll be online all the time or I'll be sleeping all the time.) If you think it will be enough for me to share a small portion of the responsibility with Sandy (and possibly YellowMonkey?), then I'll be happy to help; if you need someone who is sure they can handle a larger percentage of the workload, then I'll be content with my current activities. Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think Karanacs will be a good choice. She has shown that she is capable of working closely with Sandy along with filling in for Sandy in an almost creepily exact manner as Sandy (twins?) when Sandy isn't around (have you ever seen both in the same place at the same time?). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I've created a centralized discussion here. Raul654 (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the addition to your family. Hope everything goes well! And good luck with sleeping -- both before and after the happy event. Mike Christie (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Karanacs, on both counts! Tony (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What Tony said! (Nice to see an Aggie in a position of power...) — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I swear I posted congratulations here already. I just know I did. Couldn't possibly be having a senior moment in thinking that I had posted here. Nope, not possible. But just in case I didn't: I know you'll do a great job. Best of luck! Maralia (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone :) I suspect my complaints department will soon be quite busy! All talk page stalkers encouraged to help out ;) Karanacs (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, i know this is late, but congrats too. Oldag07 (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Eilley Bowers

If you get the chance, would you (or one of your stalkers) mind having a quick skim through the article I've just written on Eilley Bowers? Most specifically, keep an eye out for any British-English-isms that may have slipped in, as my last few "big" articles have all been in B.E. so my autopilot is still thinking in terms of it. I'm asking you rather than the people I usually pester, as I specifically want someone from the Southwest to check for inappropriate language and terminology. (Yes, I know TX isn't NV, but deserts-full-of-cactuses blur together.) This one's a bit of a departure for me (although I still manage to get my trademark "citation to a deeply obscure book on a defunct railroad" into it); if you or any of the TPSs have any suggestions, they'd be very gratefully received. – iridescent 00:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks fascinating. I'll give it a go. Maralia (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll also take a look, tomorrow if I can't get to it today. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz

The FAC had an extensive review session. I'd appreciate it if you could look over it today? :) Thanks, Ceranthor 10:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As an FAC delegate, I won't be looking at this one, as I had previously left declarations. (To me, that is too much of a conflict of interest.) I probably won't have time to take a look with my reviewer hat on today either. Sorry! Karanacs (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hah!

No, I was not aware of that, because I had never done such a thing before. Sure, I have some featured articles under my belt, but I never nominated six at once. I'd rather have History of the Han Dynasty there, as it is the most peer-reviewed at this point.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for Article Review: Chrysomya bezziana

Howdy! I found your post on the talk page for the Texas A&M Wikipedia School Project ENTO 431 and your expertise on achieving FA status. I was writing to ask if you would review our article Chrysomya bezziana and give us any feedback on what we could do to improve our article for Wikipedia's standards. Thank you very much for your time! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Will try to get to this later this week... Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this, just haven't quite had time to look at it. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your advice! You gave us quite a few things to work on, and we really appreciate it. Thank you again! Dachshundcrazy (talk) 20:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

PD review

See commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#PD_review. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Help getting Entomology article to FA status

Hello! I notice you left a message last year on my teacher's site for our ENTO 431 project. You indicated that while you did not know a lot about the subject, that you would be more than happy to help anyone to get as close or to FA status. Aside from the fact that it is a grade in our class, I have been pretty obsessed with the Wikipedian lifestyle and am researching every day. I'd love to improve. Can you please help me/us ? Or if you could connect us to some other people too! Our article is Aglossa cuprina. I'd be more than happy to hear from you! Thanks for the post; very sweet of you to offer aid. I hope the offer is still standing a year later! :) Nanayaagh (talk) 05:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at the article this week and give some guidance on what needs to be done next. Gig 'em. Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this, just haven't quite had time to look at it. Karanacs (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that :)

... last edit summary. I am deeply grateful for how fast you hit the ground running, and hope you find time to catch up on other things soon (fingers crossed that you'll get good breaks IRL). If there's a day when it's too much work for you (I don't think many people realize just how much work it is :), please do ping me, let me know, and I'll jump in. For now, I'm mostly watching and hanging back, trying to let others take on more of the routine ... editors like Moni3, DaBomb87, Steve have really filled in the gaps. And thanks so much for catching this; we don't want the page divided that way! All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of my busyness right now is fallout from being sick, which left me behind in RL and wiki. Now that flu season is fading away, I should be able to get caught up soon. I'm having fun with the FAC stuff - I usually never read through FACs that I wasn't directly involved in, and I'm finding it interesting. Just in case you hadn't noticed - I've recused myself from closing the 5 FACs at the bottom of the list because I had made declarations on those articles either currently or in a previous incarnation). If I can find a bit of time, I may review one or two more at the bottom, unless you beat me to it. Karanacs (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that if we could entice more nominators and reviewers to read through multiple entire FACs, they'd understand more of the bigger issues facing FAC and we'd get less questions :))) Yes, when I read through, I watch for those you have recused on or participated in (you will probably want to take the Samuel Johnson FAC because of my involvement). I'm relieved that I am now able to do some reviewing, too ... I was really missing it. Let's hope the flu season is really behind us! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd already figured that I should take Samuel Johnson. I'm hoping I can put Fowler's comments in perspective a little better next week. Karanacs (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reading through all of Dinesh's old FACs and FARs will lend additional perspective on Fowler's commentary (you can search on "Dinesh" at WP:WBFAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

"FAC...fun." First time I've ever seen those two in the same sentence :) Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I readily admit that I'm a nerd :) Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, since you live in Texas, did you just experience a bizarre downpour of golf-ball sized hail? In my life, I've never seen such a sight. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no hail down here. We haven't even gotten the rain they've been promising for three days. Karanacs (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, Dinesh has left...YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I see he hasn't edited in a few weeks. Hopefully he's just taking a wikibreak and will be back! Karanacs (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

He's intending to leave. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Understandable, considering how much he endured. Somehow the FA community needs to be more involved in helping sort these ongoing disputes between a few editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank Brennan

Thanks for sorting it out. Digestible (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quail Valley (Missouri City, Texas) page

Thanks for taking care of the housekeeping by removing some still-empty headings. This is a fairly new page and I had put them in the outline in hopes some other Quail Valley residents would notice and fill in the blanks. Hasn't happened yet, so when I get the opportunity I'll add some meaningful content, and will further fill out this page.Irv (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Houston neighborhoods

Hi! Some neighborhoods have entries about them in the Handbook of Texas, a reliable source. Those neighborhoods should be presumed notable. Same goes for unincorporated, non-CDP communities with Handbook entries. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:N requires significant coverage in multiple sources, not just one. While these may very well be notable, that doesn't necessarily mean they deserve an entire article to themselves. It is quite common on Wikipedia to merge very short articles into lists, where the information relevant to the topics is preserved, just presented in a slightly different format. When/if more sources are found about those topics and a broader article can be written, it can always be broken out of the list and into a separate article again. I also don't have any issues if people want to add more columns to the table in the list - for example, for voting district, list of schools, etc. I think the key point though, is being notable doesn't mean that a topic needs a stand-alone article; it means the topic can be covered in some way in the encyclopedia, and having that information in the list allows the topic to be covered adequately. Karanacs (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

1. As I have demonstrated, there are multiple reliable sources that exist for some of these topics. I just added another to Denver Harbor, and another to Jeanetta. Those changes specifically addressed what you posted. Since my edits address what you said, why should I not make them?

2. Why not start a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston? If you want consolidations, why not discuss it with project members? Since you want the consolidations, why not take the initiative and start the discussions? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. I will start a discussion on WikiProject Houston, but request that neither you nor I make any changes until after the discussion has concluded. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW Your edit summary regarding Denver Harbor was "undo revision - does not have "significant" coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources - trivial coverage, yes, non-independent sources, yes, GNG = no)" - The two sources are not at all trivial coverage: There is a St. Luke's community health assessment report specifically about the area, and then there is the Houston Chronicle article about the neighborhood's history. Both are reliable sources, and both are not trivial at all. (Wikipedia:RS says '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive') Both would be multiple, correct? Therefore your edit summary is misleading. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Also when people say I have more reliable sources - If you feel there isn't enough why not say "I'll give you a chance to find more about YYY" - Don't revert the restoration of the page and added sources; it rubs people the wrong way. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash

Hello. I see you've removed this article from the FAC page - is there any reason, as the remaining concerns had been dealt with, and were waiting comments from another editor. Thank you Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There were still unstruck and potentially unaddressed concerns about comprehensiveness. I recommend that you take a few weeks to see if you can find any other sources (possibly working with Steve, as he appeared to have some ideas for you) and then bring the article back in May. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer Cup

I have asked Moni for clarification on her assessment that WikiCup is working? I would also like your commentary given your response. I also don't understand your edit summary about Wikicup working and being speculative about a Reviewer Cup since the hope is to have them both structured the same way. See the bolded stuff.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Karanacs. You have new messages at Jandrews23jandrews23's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Questions about the Sabrina Jeffries page

Hello, Karanacs! I hope I'm putting this in the right place. Yes, I am the author, and I appreciate your doing the page. I was delighted to find it at Wikipedia. I read the conflict of interest section, but I'm confused about a couple of things. Since I use Wikipedia often, I am certainly happy to accept their terms for making all pages unbiased. But if the material on a page is not updated or is incorrect, am I still not allowed, as the author, to update them? For example, my birthdate is given as 1958, but the category is 1959 births. I have hit the New York Times bestseller print list twice (once at #2). And I have two books coming out--one in June and one in July. Why is it a conflict of interest for the author to update or correct data? I also have a new author photo, which I would prefer to have used on Wikipedia. How would I go about doing that?

Thanks for any help in this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SabrinaJef (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1964 Brinks Hotel bombing

Hi Karanacs. I've responded. Thanks, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So glad to see you are back!! Karanacs (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 07:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC size

Gosh, FAC is still at 48 nominations after your pr/ar today, which means it could hit 60 by Saturday. Maybe one of us can have a look on Thursday, to see if we can archive anything with a FACClosed template? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are two or three others that are almost ready to be promoted - the nominators were planning to fix the last issues this morning. I was planning to check again a little later today and see if image concerns had been struck. If you want to take a quick look today, there are 2 that I reviewed last week that look to have all supports right now (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stamata Revithi and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Brinks Hotel bombing); the last supports came in since you promoted this weekend. If you want to let those run until later, that's fine with me too. Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'll have time today ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured article rules

I'm confused by your reversion. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests states "Currently accepting requests from April 11 to May 11" and I'm not seeing a rule against having more than 5 articles on that page at a time. Should I remove the May 1 nomination then, so that there will be only 5 in the list? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This page can be really confusing. There are big bold letters at the top of the instructions that say There may be no more than five total requests on this page at any time. Raul set that rule, so we have to abide by it. There are generally three choices: a) wait and see if an empty slot opens up (not likely to happen as the date you want is near the front), b) follow the rules for replacing a nomination (see below), or c) since you want a date that is already taken, see if you can convince that nominator to choose another date in the following month and open a spot for you right now.

If you want to replace another nomination, there are rules on how to do so (rules, rules, rules!). Basically, you can only replace an article that has fewer points than the one you are nominating OR the other article has over 50% oppose votes. The little chart says that Emma Watson is the next article to be replaced, and it has 3 points. Your article would need 4 points to be able to replace it.

Hope that clears up the muddy mess. Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you consider that there have been no articles about tests on the main page in the past 6 months, that would make Acid2 a 5-pointer, higher even than White Deer Hole Creek, the article I'd like to move to a different date. So am I supposed to just remove the article with the lowest points and remake the request? I'd be glad to see White Deer Hole Creek featured on the main page this month, just not on the exact date that it's currently scheduled for. Everybody can be happy here. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember, if you raise your point proposal at WT:TFA/R, others can opine before other requests are removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#April 13. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Chotiner

I did go to the National Archives today. No photos, alas (see my comment here Came away with a couple of very interesting docs signed by Chotiner, so at least we'll have his signature (or a version of it, it just says "Murray". I'm going to call the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, though the College Park branch has much the same stuff, the people out there are more familiar with the material. Thanks for the promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Happyme22 (talk · contribs) would go by Yorba Linda for you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I emailed them, let us see if there is a need. I know Happyme22 is our Nixon go to guy. I'm shooting for Chotiner to be TFA on the centennial of his birth, October 4, and would like a better picture than his gravestone. I do have the contact sheet for the photos of his funeral, they are public domain, worst case scenario we have Nixon consoling his widow and stepkids--Wehwalt (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

History of the Han Dynasty FAC failed

Really? It had three supports and only two oppositions, and was only nominated about two weeks ago. Why exactly did you fail it when it had more supports thus far than it had oppositions? That doesn't make sense in regards to consensus.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The last comment I made was this:

Oh. I thought you meant simply shortening the article so that it would summarize two new articles: "History of the Western Han Dynasty" and "History of the Eastern Han Dynasty". Like I said, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea; however since I have three supports for the article in its current form and two oppositions, let's see how other editors feel about the 86 KB prose size of the article. I think at this point that is the only matter of contention that some editors might have. Keep in mind though that this is a preference issue, since the article prose size exceeds the recommended limit of 50 KB, but not exactly violating the maximum, upper bound limit of 100 KB (according to WP:SIZE).

The only major problem left with the article according to reviewers was its prose size. Even today, I was working hard to reduce the prose size (look at the revision history) in order to address this last standing issue. So why then did you feel the need to suddenly fail the article? To me, that seems like a very rushed decision based on one problem.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, a nomination should be removed from the archives if:

• A) actionable objections have not been resolved;
• B) consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
• C) insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

Could you please explain to me which one of these was used to reach your decision? I think I was doing a pretty good job in trying to resolve objections, consensus had by far not been reached, and there was no lack of information presented by the reviewers. No offense, but I think what you did was entirely out of line.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Um...hello? You still around?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Karan's in Texas, and has a small child. Give her a bit of time, she's probably asleep. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. She failed the nomination about a couple hours before I left this message, though (i.e. sometime in between my Mandarin language class from 7:20 to 8:35 pm, EST).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, she archived it here at about 16:00 UTC yesterday. She quit editing about 21:00 UTC yesterday, and hasn't edited again. The bot takes a bit to get around to slapping the tags on things, that's why the archiving is later than her decision. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - thanks Ealdgyth for the explanations) The bot runs several hours after we promote/archive. The reviewers who were complaining about the prose size (including one who marked his as comments rather than an oppose) suggested that there was a large amount of work to do. In my opinion, that was more work than should be done during an FAC nomination, especially one that had already been open several weeks. Now you have a little more time to figure out the best way to meet those objections, and you can renominate in a few weeks (or bring on one of the other Han articles I know you have waiting in the wings). Karanacs (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Today, I painfully removed a total of 4 KB of prose text from History of the Han Dynasty. After that, I refuse to remove anything else from an article which is supposed to cover 400 years of history. For some reason this point was not absorbed or simply ignored by those who brought up the article's large size (by reviewers who had little grasp of the topic). If I remove anything else from the article, it would be like removing the entire mentioning of Progressivism, imperialism, and World War I (1890–1918) from the article History of the United States, since each sub-section has been stripped to the bone and cannot be stripped anymore without cutting out information which is essential to the understanding of the topic.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Content decisions aren't my realm here, I just have to do my best to interpret the consensus on the FAC nomination. If you can get the reviewers to see your point of view, you should have no problems. I suggest engaging those three before you renominate the article, or they may enter the same objections again. Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I contacted User:GrahamColm just now. User:Gun Powder Ma is not of much use, though, since he logs on sporadically and only for short periods of time (plus he has a strong bias against most of what I do here on Wikipedia for reasons I won't dive into here on your talk page; it's complicated). Although he didn't oppose it, by his own admission User:Brianboulton asserted that he did not have the time or patience to seriously review the article, so I would rather not bother him if he is truly that busy.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

State history woo!

Was wondering if I might entice you to read and give a peer review for an article I've been expanding: Rosewood massacre and its peer review here. I'm still getting sources and tidying. I may expand a section or two depending on the weight of sources. I don't write a lot of state history articles, but this one has been on one of my burners for a long time. Whatever you can do I appreciate. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I will try to get to that today, and if not, I'll make a special appearance this weekend to look at it (tomorrow is a day off, woohoo!!). Karanacs (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on the "people of texas" article!

Congrats again on another successful FA nomination. Great article again. Keep up the good work. How is life going for you anyways? Things seem to be on the upswing for me. Employed finally. Best of luck with everything. Oldag07 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Howdy! Thank you for an excellent review! I'm doing well, waiting for baby to finish growing. I'm glad you got a job!!! In this economy, that's a big deal. Karanacs (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

GRB FAC

Hooray for TLAs. Hi there. I recently submitted Gamma-ray burst to FAC [[7]]. Some editors have expressed their concerns that I should withdraw the nomination, as I am currently bringing another article (GRB 970508) through FAC. I have explained why I believe the nomination should continue at the FAC page. I feel as though reviewers may be hesitant to get involved until you or Sandy give it the green light. I can has? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I'm a tad confused. You recently promoted GRB 970508 to FA, but I don't think it was ready. There were still several comments from Wronkiew that he had not struck/responded to to. Did you mistakenly overlook these comments? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 06:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I didn't oppose, and many of my concerns were addressed. FAs don't have to be perfect, they just have to meet the criteria, some of which is subjective. I counted at least three editors who thought it met the criteria. Wronkiew (talk) 06:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time I've ever had a nominator question a promotion - it is quite refreshing!! We tend to give nominators the benefit of the doubt. When it's obvious that nominators are working to address issues, and there are no opposes and a lot of support, we assume that the nominator will continue to follow up on any outstanding issues. From my read, it looked like you had addressed the majority of Wronkiew's issues. Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, cool. I wouldn't have been able to sleep at night thinking that it had "slipped through the cracks," but if you're both happy, then I'm happy. Thanks, mates! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Note on FFAs

Karen, on FACs like this, if it is promoted, it has to be moved at WP:FFA (into the repromoted category, changing the repromoted tally number), and you have to remember to add the mainpage bolding when adding it to WP:FA because it's already been on the main page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This job is complicated! I guess I need to start checking article histories a bit more closely when promoting so that I don't miss any like this. Thanks for the heads up! Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I check them all when they're new ... make sure the talk page is in order, templates are ready for GimmeBot, watch for FFAs, etc. :) Are you OK with handling The Ten Commandments? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we ought to let Raul handle that one? I did a lot of prose work and reorganziation on the first half of the article (although I don't think most of my changes still exist) and provided a lot of peer review comments to Nancy. I think I can be fair in closing it anyway, but given my vocalness on other RCC-related pages, I don't know if others will consider me neutral enough. Karanacs (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say see how it goes (I haven't looked lately); if it's clearly one way or another, there should be no problem with you closing it, and we can ping Raul if consensus is unclear. What do you think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me! Karanacs (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-promoted note :)) [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I knew I was forgetting something. I even left this section up here so I wouldn't forget. Nuts. Karanacs (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

:)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Necrid FAC

There's been only one oppose in all this time and it just came up yesterday. On top of that I was still in the midst of working out what issues there would need to be fixed to remove the oppose. What's the point of closing the FAC as "not promoted" when it's still an active discussion with two supports?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been open a very long time, and generally prose issues take longer to resolve. Two supports aren't generally enough to promote. Take some time, make sure you get the prose issues worked out to the reviewer's satisfaction, and bring the article back in a few weeks. Sometimes that will help it get new eyes and it can be closed a lot more quickly. The longer a nomination sits at the bottom, the harder it is to attract new reviewers sometimes. Karanacs (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Karen, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Necrid needs to be moved to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Necrid/archive2 to fix the numbering system. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgot about those. I guess I need to fix the others I archived yesterday, too. Thanks for the reminder! Karanacs (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Bucer

There were two supports, one oppose (in which all items were addressed) and two comments that stated that they were close to support. I believe this was closed too early. I have renominated it again. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the second nomination. Per the FAC nomination criteria, there should be a delay between a subsequent nomination, usually recommended at several weeks. Please take the time to finish resolving any issues that were outstanding on the FAC and ensure that the opposer (and commenters) would have no problems with a subsequent nomination. The nomination had been up already for three weeks - give reviewers a break and bring it back in two weeks, and it should pass just fine. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There was one oppose and the items were addressed. --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not uncommon for nominators to disagree with the timing of an archive; I made a judgement call based on the fact that the nomination had been up for weeks, there was an unstruck oppose and outstanding comments and the article was actively being edited. I understand that you are frustrated and think I'm wrong, but I ask that you respect the FAC rules and delay a renomination for several weeks. In the meantime, make sure that Xandar and the commenters agree that their comments were addressed. Karanacs (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. But I would ask you to carefully look at the FAC. There was one oppose and I just addressed the final issue today (see Talk page). There were three comments: Louie's comment on copy-editing was addressed, Nancy's comment on Bucer's personal life was addressed, Johnbod was following the talk page and was ready to support and he gave his comment on a possible addition only one day ago (which would be impossible to address in one day). --RelHistBuff (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I also think it was too early, I understand you archived it. If you feel that if we wait, "two weeks, and it should pass just fine" given reasonable work is pursued on it, then I look forward to your support along with the others in that time.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably going to be COI'd from supporting or opposing. I just read the comments. Karanacs (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Changeling (film) FAC

Hi. Looking at it objectively, I think it's safe to archive this if it hasn't attracted further support—or even a juicy oppose I can work on and turn into a support—by close of play today (i.e. in time for Gimmebot to do its thing). Given the FAC's length, it'll struggle to attract new reviewers, and will have a better chance if I come back with a clean page in a couple of weeks. Many thanks, Steve ^{T • C} 22:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this yesterday. I've avoided reading much of that FAC so far because I haven't seen the movie yet and I really don't want to be spoiled. If Sandy doesn't take a look this weekend I'll read through next week. Karanacs (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! As it happens, there's been some movement on the FAC page since I left you this message, so maybe it isn't as stalled as I'd thought! Steve ^{T • C} 15:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Watching :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Now it looks as if I posted the above message to canvass for extra reviewer—or delegate—eyes on the page, especially given the additions to the FAC page that followed. That wasn't the intention; I was literally seconds away from performing the withdrawal myself before considering it would be more appropriate for someone else to do it. I'll keep my mouth shut next time. :) Steve ^{T • C} 22:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all !! I meant I was watching the FAC all along :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Damien (South Park)

Hunter Khan has gone around soliciting the involvement of editors specifically in regards to the image issue, so I don't think you're going to get a unanimous consensus out of this :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread on Gimmebot

Here; not sure what the latest GA kerfuffle is, but it affects FAC when the bot is blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol and thank you. :-) Geometry guy 21:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't know me, but please read what I write below! :-)

Dear Karanacs, this is the first time I'm writing something here, so I picked the headline "You don't know me, but please read what I write below! :-)".I counldn't think of any better headline.

I read you comment on Nancy's talkpage. I clicked "Karanacs" and visited your userpage. "cs" in your name means C. S. Lewis. You know, I'm thinking about working on the bio of C. S. Lewis. I want to meliorate his bio. Are you interested in meliorating his bio? Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got a pretty full plate right now (I've got several articles I'm trying to bring to FA or GA status at the moment), so I can't commit any time to research. If you are willing to do the research and much of the writing, I would be happy to copyedit/provide MOS help and offer suggestions for improvement. Sorry I can't commit to more! Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your willingness to help. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Co-nom?

Karanacs, I've set up Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laser brain but I haven't yet added my statement; I'll work on that tomorrow, but if you'd like to co-nom, you can add that under mine. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work on my statement. Karanacs (talk) 14:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing this! --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Transclusion discussion

Hey mate. I don't know if you've noticed, but just above the massive mess I've made of LingNut's suggestion, there's an ongoing discussion regarding the tranclusion of FACs onto the main FAC page. The question of whether or not such transclusion is useful for the delegates has come up. Would you (and Sandy, who I presume is watching this page) mind taking a look? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've responded in that thread. Thanks for the heads-up. Karanacs (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes

Sometimes you are wrong, Karanacs. I have responded to your post here [9]. As a friend, I am asking you to please have a little patience before you close a FAC and make sure it is the nominator, not the reviewer who is wrong. I am very upset that you closed my FAC. I am sorry that I am so upset, I wish I was not but it is a fact that I feel as if you have abused your power at my expense. I am afraid to offer any more articles at FAC because of this situation. NancyHeise ^talk 22:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nancy, please assume good faith. You are not the first nominator to think that the FAC delegates made a mistake, and I'm sure you won't be the last (I promise, it's not an easy jobm, and we do the best we can). I assure you that I actually did a little research on my own to see if there could be an validity to the objection and comments. I understand that you are confused as to what exactly they were asking for, and I thought I would help out by doing a little of my own research to identify potential sources for you. I've listed over two dozen scholarly sources on the talk page of that article that appear to have information about the history or historical interpretation of the 10 commandments in the Roman Catholic Church. I have no idea if they will be helpful or not, but they do exist and have not been consulted. Only after I found such a long list did I close the nomination. Please stop repeating the false meme that the reviewers (and I) wanted you to do original research (2 dozen scholarly sources presented!!) or that any of us are just out to get you. I don't go to such extensive lengths to help most nominators or most archived FACs; I sympathize with you and want you to succeed with articles on this important topic. If you are so upset that you can't see that, it may be wise to take a few days break from Wikipedia and come back when you've calmed down. (It's Friday - spend a few days having fun with your kids and forget about Wikipedia - that usually works for me.) Karanacs (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15