Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
	In an effort to keep conversations together, I will likely respond on this page if you begin a conversation here. If I've begun a conversation on your talk page, I'll watchlist that page until you respond.

Note: I usually hide from Wikipedia on weekends, so if you leave a message on the weekend you will likely not get a response until Mondays.

2009-12-21

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

About·Archives·Single-page·Newsroom·Suggestions

[edit] Note to self:images

Note to me. Per User:TenPoundHammer/Country, country music artist articles need pictures. I need to go through my photo albums and see if I can find any useful ones. Karanacs (talk) 16:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Your extra credit bit on Catholic Church...

I suggest reading the following works to help with what you're trying .. (Le Goff's a bit outdated and the work you're citing is somewhat of a cross between a popular history and a low level textbook.) You have Eileen Power's Medieval Women which is a good start. Medieval women by Derek Baker World Cat; Queens, concubines, and dowagers : the king's wife in the early Middle Ages by P. Stafford World Cat; Women in medieval life : a small sound of the trumpet by Margaret Labarge World Cat; Women in medieval history & historiography by Susan Stuard World Cat. That should get you started, although I'll admit I don't pay much attention to "women's history" so I have little on my shelves about it. I do have Malcolm Barber's The Two Cities World Catwhich is a good recent comprehensive history of the High Middle Ages, which does have mentions of women's status and the church. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jean Lafitte

Well done on adding references, I've expanded intro to cover whole article but what i've added needs to be tightened a little. Looks close to GA, were you going to nominate soon or planning to take to FAC? Tom B (talk) 12:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tom, thanks for your help on the article. (Especially thanks with the alt text stuff - I hate writing those.) I'm actually hoping to bring this article to FA at some point, but not quite yet. I still have notes from the Davis biography to incorporate, and then the article will probably need a really good copyedit. I tend to be pretty verbose in my first pass at an article and have to trim a lot of unnecessary detail and convoluted wording. This is one of four articles that I'm currently prepping for FA; One of them only needs a good copyedit, so it will probably be next. Maybe I'll finish working on Lafitte after that. If you're interested in trying for GA before that, feel free to nominate the article as-is. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

righto, i think Lafitte's at GA level and that it's worth bringing articles as fast up the quality rating as possible, i'm an immediatist in that sense [1]. some fa editors don't value GA as much, maybe because they think it's a better use of everyone's time/resource to go straight to fa. what do you think? the convention article is short, but i'm assuming there's not much more one can reasonably say, will have a look. i noticed the coincidence of Reform Act of 1832. Tom B (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't go for GA reviews much because there's often a backlog and I'm usually pretty aware of what else needs to be done to get the rest of the way to FA. I respect the process, and I've gotten great feedback from GA reviews in the past, but it's usually easier for me to focus on the FA criteria. If you nominate Lafitte for GA I'll help with any of the feedback if I can. I need to go find all my notes; I think they are buried somewhere on my desk. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please take a look at User:Richardshusr/Catholic Church and women

I have started putting together an article on Catholic Church and women in my userspace. Since you expressed an interest in this topic at Talk:Catholic Church, I thought you might be kind enough to look at it and give me your thoughts. I know that this needs an overview to introduce the topic and provide the reader with a summary of the article. If you would care to write one, I would be very grateful.--Richard (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard, I'll be happy to look at that when I have a few free momets - may be several days. Thank you for taking the initiative to start that! Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Outline bump

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

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

No rush. Just a nudge. Slow and steady wins the race. (I watchlist everything too, so feel free to indulge in extended mumblings here, if you want to keep the RfC talkpage readably-short! I want to give more context&musings throughout (and keep writing-then-deleting paragraphs), but I'm trying hard not to overwhelm anywhere.) Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's on my list of things to do. I'm working my way down the talk page now. If I can't find time this weekend (I'm usually offline on the weekends), I'll look in Monday. Thank you very much for taking so much initiative. Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See also User talk:Dragons flight#NOTCONTENT regarding his idea at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Disambiguation_pages_are_not_articles. (I'm out for the day. Car repairs and moss-removal and such...) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Thoughts:

The main objection to just addressing the "Outlines" alone, is that any decision will have ramifications for the other "navigational pages". The decision will be used as precedent, or the thin edge of a wedge. E.g. Dbachmann believes that Lists of mathematics topics should also be moved out of mainspace.[2] He also thinks we "[got] rid of the "glossary" and "list of topics" articles"[3] which isn't accurate (though individual editors have argued for this to occur).

Rather than a "Support/Oppose" division, and rather than just covering Outlines, I was hoping/envisioning that an RfC would:

• cover the various available-solutions for all "navigational pages"

and ask for:

• other solutions, and for input on what unconsidered-ramifications each solution would have.

Briefly (uncontextualized), the solutions I've seen suggested so far include:

1. Move various pages to portalspace
2. Move various pages to a new namespace (Navigation:...)
3. Move various pages to projectnamespace (Wikipedia:...), as WikiProject subpages
4. Tag "navigational pages" as __NOTCONTENT__ and leave them in mainspace (Dragons flight's idea)
5. Tag "navigational pages" with a banner, like {{Outline header}}, to differentiate them from articles

I believe options 2, 4, and 5, have the least drawbacks, whilst still differentiating Navigation vs Article. Option 4 seems ideal to me, at the moment. (I won't elaborate for now).

Thoughts? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC) - tweaked at 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Murder of Imette St. Guillen

Hey, see that you're working on it. I'm tied up doing some milhist work in a sandbox at the moment, but let me know if I can help with prose or whatever. Skinny87 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Right now I'm reading through more recent sources to try to see what should stay and what should be yanked. There's a lot of info out there... Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nancy again

See my comments at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise#View_by_Septentrionalis; what's the next step? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just about caught up with my watchlist and now see the latest at Catholic Church. RfCs generally run for 30 days, so this one should not be closed until Nov 26. After this, the next step is either mediation over a particular content issue or requesting an ArbCom case. I think this will end up at ArbCom sooner rather than later, but I don't have the time right now to gather evidence, and may not until after the new year. Karanacs (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that Nancy was blocked by SarekofVulcan just as I was filing an edit-warring report. I don't follow the article as close lately as I had been, but I'm going to start reporting edit-warring on both sides as I see it. There have been enough general warnings on the talk page that we should all know what the accepted behavior is. Maybe this will help the editing environment. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cough

[4] 2 and a half supports, no actual opposes, and three people just put comments down today which were being addressed. I'm not sure why you closed it as I will just have to relist it immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been up a long time, and three different reviewers commented that the prose needed work. Please address that concern before renominating; I will remove the nomination if it goes back up in less than 2 weeks (per the nomination instructions). Karanacs (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Three different commentators -just- commented a few hours before you closed it that prose needed work. It went 14 days without any commentary and had two and a half supports. Karanacs, I really do not want to have to go to Raul for this. You do not close FACs with 2 and a half supports and no opposes. Comments do not mean anything and that has always been the tradition. If they wanted it closed, they would have opposed. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I know that it is frustrating to have an article on which you worked very hard be archived. I believe that you have a misinterpretation of the FAC process. Comments are absolutely not ignored and are always included in the determination of consensus (in this and most other processes). I would also note that there was an oppose on prose from Fowler, which you chose to ignore. While I may not have archived the FAC with just his comments as I know the history between you two, others agreed with his points. It would be to your advantage to attempt to work with reviewers you disagree with rather than pretend they are not there. You are welcome to fix the concerns that were raised and bring the article back to FAC in a few weeks.

Further, I think it quite unwise for you to make these types of comments (threats to forum-shop/get someone's access revoked because you disagree with the outcome) considering there is an open ArbCom case about this exact same behavior. Many people, including me, consider this tactic a form of bullying. If you truly feel I've abused my responsibility, you are more than welcome to approach Raul with your concerns. It is highly unnecessary and somewhat insulting for you to first come here and basically tell me to change my decision or else. Karanacs (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I misinterpreted? It was there for 20 days with 2 and a half supports and no other responses. You closed a FAC just hours after a few comments while holding the comments as opposes. Raul runs FAC. If you think turning to Raul is bullying, then you are the one who is bullying. You are in the position of power, and everyone knows that Raul is the one who all appeals about process go through. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I gave you the courtesy of allowing you to know I had a problem with your actions. I could have gone straight to Raul. I didn't. If you think that it is inappropriate to do so, then I will make sure to do everything behind your back in the future. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As I predicted, this incident has already shown up at your Arbcom case [5]. Your heated rhetoric is doing you no favors right now, Ottava. Stop and think about how what you say comes across, because many, many people appear to interpret your people quite differently from the way you intend.

Your brought a concern to me (good). I responded with my reasoning (good). You then told me to change my mind or you were going above my head (bad). If you have a problem, please do talk to Raul. For your own sake, stop blowing smoke everywhere else. Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

OR, I am going to give you advice in the strongest possible terms. You have taken this three places now (here, my talk, and FAC talk), and are also threatening to take it to Raul. That is forum shopping. You've taken it to WT:FAC for broader review; I strongly recommend that you refrain from posting further on this to either Karanacs or me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have taken it to one place - FAC. If you want to say the above is forum shopping, then I have no confidence in your statements and I would prefer no further contact with you. I find your statements completely inappropriate. Goodbye, Sandy. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[6]. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Engaging the reviewers who did leave comments is definitely the recommended next step. If you work to satisfy all of them in the next few weeks, the next FAC nomination for this will hopefully be a breeze.. Karanacs (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please reread it again. It is clear that the concerns were addressed before you closed the FAC and that he was not around to make it clear that they were. This is what happens when you close FACs without leaving adequate time for people to check and see if there was any outstanding issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As Johnbod's comments were not the only outstanding issues, this by no means changes my mind. Ottava, I'm not reopening this FAC, nor do I feel that I made an error. I accept that you disagree with my decision, and that is your right. I don't think additional discussion about this will be productive and request that we let the matter rest. Karanacs (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to accept that 1. you were wrong about the "comments" still being outstanding and 2. that you were wrong about it being appropriate to close a FAC just a few hours after comments come in, then I will not be nominating another FAC as I have no confidence in your ability as a coordinator. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is, of course, your choice as to whether to participate in the review processes. Are you intending to withdraw your open nomination or let it run its course? Please leave a note for Sandy or I if you choose to withdraw. Karanacs (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not be discussing things with Sandy anymore and I have no confidence in your judgment. As such, I have posted at Raul's talk page. If he wishes to remove it then he can and probably will. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, it is disappointing to see this childish display of petulance from you, and I use those words quite deliberately. What on earth do you hope to gain by this? Karanacs behaved perfectly properly, and I've yet to see anyone but you who thinks otherwise. You brought this on yourself by ignoring F&f's comments instead of dealing with them, so you only have yourself to blame. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think that it is proper to close something only a few hours after comments were posted and based closing the page on those comments being posted, then you live in a very different world than I do. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've realised that we inhabit very different worlds for some considerable time now, but variety is the spice of life. Had I been in Karanacs position I would have done exactly as she did. You've been through FAC enough times to know that reviewers' comments have to be dealt with, not ignored because of a personal feud. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If Fowler's concerns mattered in the closing, then the page would have been closed days ago. As Sandy and Karanacs said, the decision was based on Tony1's and SlimVirgin's commenting but not supporting. Thus, being given only a few hours to "turn" them towards supporting while they were not even around is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

I'm delighted! I'm just a bit too busy right now to get my mind around writing a major article so doing some FAC work is keeping me happy! Amandajm (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You picked exactly the right work - your comments have been very helpful to a lot of nominators (myself included). Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm also very pleased about not-so-little Nikita. I won't bring an article of that size back again and will participate in any discussion and not that it was not meant to be a precedent if necessary. I don't imagine for a second that Fifelfoo will accept this as a precedent, either. With (two) articles on Chamberlain coming down the pike ... the number of serious candidates who are now running for ArbCom means that I would be surprised to win, but well, I don't run away from a fight, either! But point is, the flow of articles from me will probably not diminish. Considering Helen Douglas after Chamberlains, possibly with a view towards a featured topic on Nixon's early political career. OK, I'll go way and ramble in my articles. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just grateful you're working on improving biographies of these extremely influential leaders. Whether your output decreases or not, any improvement is helpful! Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

With Ironholds working on Andrew Bonar Law, I'm very hopeful we can start bringing the Prime Minister bios up to the standard that the US President ones are reaching. I've been thinking about Clement Attlee ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Image reviews at FAC

I won't be doing any more image reviews at FAC - WT:FAC#Image reminder. Awadewit (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm extremely sorry to hear that, but not at all surprised. FAC tends to burn out image reviewers quite quickly. I think it is the most difficult part of the review to do, and often the part that makes nominators most antagonistic. I hope you'll continue to review other parts of the criteria -- your other reviews have been missed!! Karanacs (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And I hope Awadewit will reconsider. The work is valued.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but more rational requirements would make things easier all round. When we rely on Bridgeman-Corel asserting that there is no copyrightable skill involved in creating a photo of a 2D PD object, it is perverse to insist on source details, which can have no copyright. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And I often rely on Bundesarchiv photos, which were given to Commons by an agency of a sovereign government. Their description page is in German. I think we can rely on them without the need for translation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of endlessly complaining about the deficiencies in our current image reviewers, review images yourselves. Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope you're not talking about me. When have I complained?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom talk page

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions/Proposed decision. I have provided evidence contradicting multiple claims provided in your statement. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, the first community ban was proposed by Durova. I'll try to find the diff, but I'm certain it was her, not Bish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that one. I don't want to go into the entire history of calling for Ottava's block/ban, though; the Bishonen one was the catalyst for the mentorship, so I think that's all that's pertinent to my statement. Karanacs (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A correction in the Rfc

In one section of your Rfc, you mentioned about Nancy using an 1840 tract to support her view, a claim to which Nancy denies. The misunderstanding might be due to the fact that your diff is incorrect which led her to think you were referring to Richard P. McBrien's book. Here is the correct diff: [8] and the entry in googlebooks she mentioned is [9] which is a 1840 book by Giovanni Battista Pagani. --RelHistBuff (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Which was never suggested by me to be used as a source. I provided a diff to an 1840's book to prove a point on the talk page that there were historians in previous centuries that agreed with the Church's POV. I was responding to Harmakheru's request, not offering a source to be used in the article. NancyHeise ^talk 05:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] M.W.D.

I am about 70% compelete right now with the Bio draft, I've been bouncing around working on other things all at the same time. I am really enjoying this so much and I have learned alot in just a couple of weeks and everyday is a new experience to say the least. Kinda trying to learn how to upload a book cover photo right now. I figure it will be another two weeks or more at this rate before I come ask for an edit review. I've written M.W.D. herself and asked for a review before I post, I want to make sure I don't have any incorrect information in the article or timeline, besides I'm kinda nervous about posting information about someone else it seems, maybe as time goes on I will have more confidence. These types of projects take alot more research and work than I ever expected I'm amazed, course bouncing around doing other things doesn't help, but thats just how it is for me. I'm going to Sacramento for Thanksgiving next week so that will delay my progress, I hope you have a great Thanksgiving KarenTinkermen (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you are enjoying it. We have to be really careful about uploading pictures of things like book covers. Those are not in the public domain, which means we can only use them if we can justify fair use. Book covers should only be used in articles on the books, or in articles where the cover itself is discussed. (Images are really tricky!!). Have a Happy Thanksgiving yourself! Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Glad I mentioned that to you learned something new I hadn't seen that before thanks, but I had seen other book covers loaded in many articles so I figured it was standard practice for how a book topic was supposed to be presented. But from what I just read it's not really free content even if I get permission to use it, so I won't be doing that it looks like. Had kinda wanted the experience to, but I'll wait till I learn more first about uploading to commons. I had read lot's of stuff over there but didn't see this info, maybe it should be noted at Commons:First steps, it explains alot about copyright and lisences but I don't believe I read anything about the free content wiki guidlines. Tinkermen (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We can only put images on Commons that are truly free. Those that we can justify under fair use have to be uploaded at Wikipedia. Images are tough, and a lot of people don't understand them (I can figure out whether a fair use justification is okay but I get stumped on the intricacies of when certain images are free or not). If you have other images that you are interested in using, I'll be happy to help, or at least point you to someone who might know more than I do. Karanacs (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer but for now I'll just let that cover photo stuff go, I've got enough on my plate anyway, need to finish stuff I'm working on anyway. But glad you caught that for me, that's why I like checking with you on things. My rookie status is still going strong. LOL John Francis Tinkermen (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Karen, this is so cool I think, I finally came accross a book yesterday that was written in 2003 about the 20 most famous therapist and the past mistakes they've made, very interesting book I might add, but it adds credence of notability to the article finally. I have always desired to find something that would really support her notability and finally after a months worth of research I found a good reference source to support it I believe. Raining today here we need it, hope all is well. John Francis [10] Tinkermen (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good find! It's a great rush to run a book you never thought you'd find :) It's raining cats and dogs here today :( Karanacs (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The first ruff draft is ready as I can get it by dates and events that transpired and the reference sources that support those events. I will be inviting ChildofMidnight to come over to the discussion page to help me with clean up to since he wrote her Bio page. Maybe you could take a look and let me know where I need to make adjustments. I had desired for Michele to review and comment but she has not responded back since I first wrote her, so I guess I'm on my own here. Can any notes to me be made on the discussion page user talk:Tinkermen/Sandbox over there? that way ChildofMidnight will see them as well.Tinkermen (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to break up the storyline I had yesterday and format it like a normal wikipedia Bio article, Sad but I knew it was coming, now I have to re-write some things to make stuff sound more encyclopedic and determine what other changes to make. It looks/reads totally different now so I'll need a few days to figure things out. I need to read/study more Bio's to gain a better understanding of that part I think, writing a story is alot easier than writing an encyclopedia article, maybe it's just different to me. But I've made progress today in making the requested changes and I am really happy to be far enough along now that I can even ask for feedback finally. I am still pushing forward towards a good article I hope. Your input and direction has helped me get this far thanks, John Francis talk) Dec 12

I'm working on it a little everyday and I can see it still taking me a couple more weeks, amazing how much time it takes to do something like this. Maybe I'll get faster as time goes on but wow I never would have known had I not experienced this for real. Lot's of edit's to make ect. still until I get it more perfected and encyclopedic. But every edit I make is enjoyable I have to say.Tinkermen (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I left a message on the articles talk page concerning reference sources, can you check to see if I'm correct in using them based on what I found in the guidlines.TinkermenDec 19th

[edit] Quick advice

If you have a minute, can I ask some quick advice (since you are a better writer than me)?

One thing that I have tripped over more than once and gotten negative feed back on is expressing "irony" in the article text. That is, there are certain cases where I will use the expression "Ironically ..." and be accused of using "weasel word." There are some situations, though, where I need to use some sort of phrasing to express that something is a surprising contrast. In other words, if I don't acknowledge this then it sounds as though the text contains a mistake. A simple example is the following in an article I was working on. The following is a simple example.

The mistrust of Standard Oil was partially the result of a mistrust of "carpetbaggers," which ironically was also the source of mistrust of labor unions.

In this case the word "ironically" is not attempting to introduce information but rather just say to the reader "No, you're not misreading this and, yes, I recognize that there is a seeming contradiction" (somewhat like adding [sic] to a badly phrased quotation).

Any suggestions on better writing here are appreciated.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Occasionally, words like "ironically" are quite appropriate. If the sentence can be reworded to allow the user to draw that conclusion without us pointing it out, that is better. I don't know the context here, which makes it difficult to rewrite. Which article is it? Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This particular example came from Texas Oil Boom. But I have been dinged for similar things in other articles (sometimes not with the word "ironically" but with similar words intended to clarify that the contrast was not accidental but intentional). --Mcorazao (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAC Convention of 1832

Hi, I've commented on FAC Convention of 1832 in relation to 2c. I'm bumping your talk because its a rather late comment. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

...for your edits here. I'd been over the article at Ceranthor's request but I think I'm approaching copyedit burnout at the moment, because parts of what I'd written didn't read properly and I just couldn't see why :( Bless you for fixing my crappy prose; I'd hate to think an FAC foundered because of me. EyeSerene^talk 17:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I was pleased when I read through the article to realize that it is in much better shape than many similar noms - you did good work :) Time permitting after I finish archiving/promoting today, I'm going to do another brief copyedit of the aricle, just to clean up a few loose ends. I think the article is close and with a bit of teamwork Fowler's opposition should be able to be satisfied. Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That's very good of you, thank you! EyeSerene^talk 17:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bakshi proposal

Karen, I'd like your thoughts on User:SandyGeorgia/Bakshi proposal before I put it forward to the community. If you disagree, please db-g6 it for me. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

We are thinking along exactly the same lines. I just posted this [11] on Ibaranoff's talk page but can strike in favor of the proposal. Karanacs (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I will ask for feedback from Steve and DocKino before moving forward (and TPS commentary welcome for now, too). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the concept. Something needs to be done.. yikes. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. I think it's really quite close--if the nominator will only address Steve's source suggestions seriously, I feel it will be ready to move forward. But yes, that must happen before it's returned to FAC yet again. DocKino (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If anyone has any proposed wording changes or missing diffs, please add them to the talk page there, before I bring it forward (waiting on Steve). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late! OK, let's see if I can get this comment through the door before I run into another edit conflict. Sandy, on the face of it your proposal looks a good idea; as evidenced by the last couple of hours alone, Ibaranoff24 has not took the implied criticism (of the FAC being archived) well, and has throughout each of the previous FACs refused to take major points on board beyond making the most cursory amendments he feels necessary. But to play devil's advocate for a moment, there is a concern that this would set an uncomfortable precedent: allowing editors who have a history with the article to determine when the nominator (with whom there is also now a history of minor antagonism) can bring the article back. It's entirely possible that both DocKino and I have lost our perspective. Still, I can't see the harm in at least proposing it to the community, so I've no objections on that score, even if I might need some convincing to support the move. On a technical note, does example [2] go where you intended? Steve ^T • C 22:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That very concern (precedent) is why I thought to propose it to the community for feedback. I, too, am concerned about the precedent, but also concerned about reviewer fatigue. If you say it's a no-go, I won't propose it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I say, I don't see the harm at least proposing it, and I'm sure someone else will bring the precedent issue to the table. Sorry this is taking up so much of your time, btw; I feel somewhat responsible. Steve ^T • C 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

My thought was to give the community more of a say in this; it may well be that reviewers don't mind how often it comes back, but we also need to do something to lower the heat surrounding this FAC. I wonder if posting the proposal now would just inflame. The weight is really more on you and DocKino, since you have to keep entering the same opposes, but it might be worthwhile to see how the entire FAC community feels. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I ADDRESSED ALL CONCERNS. Put the FAC back up. Now. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC))
  • They were not addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewers. It is unproductive to continue the stalemate between you and they. This has persisted across numerous FACs, and it has to stop. Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • They were addressed. It is a complete lie to state that I didn't address the concerns. The FAC is not done yet. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC))
      • Ibranoff, FAC has long operated under the premise that reviewers decide when their comments have been addressed, not anyone else—assuming that they are actionable. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
        • All concerns that I could act on were addressed. The reviewers were not given enough time to strike their opposition. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC))
          • I know this is extremely frustrating for you, but it is also frustrating to the reviewers. They do not agree with your position (and have said so across multiple FACs); you do not agree with theirs (and have said so across multiple FACs). That is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is to continue bringing the article back to FAC when we know the same stalemate will likely occur. Please read the advice I left on your talk page. Karanacs (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
            • There wouldn't be any problem here if it weren't for Antisemitism. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC))
              • Ibranoff, I guarantee you that comments like those will not get you anywhere. Nobody is being anti-Semitic, regardless of whether you meant that figuratively or literally. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Ibaranoff, that type of commentary is unacceptable. I give nominators quite a bit of slack when their nomination has been archived, but this goes beyond that. If you make another remark like that I will block you for disruption. Karanacs (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) (cross-posted to [12])

[edit] York Park

That's fine. Have a good day :) Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 19:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Note for Sandy, I told Aaroncrick to bring York Park back whenever the copyedit is done, even if that is shorter than a few weeks [13]. Karanacs (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll recomment Aaroncrick on talk to post a diff when doing so, lest someone else remove the nom as premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It will be a while before it's nominated again. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Davenport, Iowa FAC

My current FAC for Davenport, seems to be going slow. It's been a week with one partial support and no opposes, just a few users who have commented. What happens if it continues at this pace, with no more specific supports or opposes? CTJF83 chat 21:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Big 12 WikiProject

Hi, I've noticed you've been involved in editing Big 12 related articles. I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondered if you'd like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify our efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12 if you are interested, and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA: Free State of Galveston

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for the essential contributions and detailed feedback which helped bring Free State of Galveston to GA. Mcorazao (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alert

Bad dog day; going to the vet in a few hours. I've tried to reduce the FAC page (and have gotten beaten up as a result :) and I've left some notes at WT:FAC. I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your dog :( I noticed that you've gone through FAC several times in the last few days. I'm almost caught up with my watchlist and plan to try to review some this afternoon. The holiday was nice, but I'm sooo glad the kids are back in their daily routines today - maybe they'll start sleeping again!! Karanacs (talk) 15:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{cite book}} on Mary Bly

The {{cite book}} template has been carefully crafted so that it is just as useful in bibliographic lists on an author's article as in references elsewhere. Please do not casually undo extensive work without asking first: it took me some considerable time to look up the details for those books, the idea being to make it easier for readers to locate copies should they desire. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the cite book documentation states that it should be used in list of works. It should be used in bibliographies that are used to store citations - not those that are lists of works. Furthermore, this is not an accepted format for Featured articles (see Honoré_de_Balzac#Works, Edgar_Allan_Poe#Selected_list_of_works, Georgette_Heyer#List_of_works, Mary_Wollstonecraft#List_of_works, Mario_Vargas_Llosa#List_of_selected_works, and any other author article marked as an FA. It is also not an accepted format for GAs (see [Julia_Alvarez#List_of_works]], J._D._Salinger#List_of_works and others). This article is on my list to improve towards FA-status, and I would prefer not to have to undo all of this when I get it ready to nominate for GA or FA. Furthermore, why we would want to increase the number of templates on the page? Those can lead to slower response time. Please follow existing standards and remove these templates and the excess detail. Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

PS, please be careful about edit-warring. Per WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, and you should have discussed before continuing the controversial changes. Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it really depressing that you are justifying removing useful information from an article on the grounds that you have it on your list. Please show me where it is not accepted that bibliographies contain publication data: this would seem to indicate otherwise. Please do not lecture me about server response times: if you care to investigate the history of these citation templates you will discover that I was involved in their creation from the beginning and that this issue has been well documented as dead. Please do not also lecture me about edit-warring: I was adding useful information per the MOS and you removed it without warning. —Phil | Talk 17:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The MOS does not require publication company or ISBN and it certainly does not require the use of a template. I applaud you for your work on the template as it is exceptionally useful for citing sources; I am disappointed, however, that you are insisting on going against established standards for FAs and GAs. Karanacs (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ignorant question on referencing

Hi,

If I'm not being too much of a pest ...

Poking around I was noticing some FA articles that don't seem (to me) to follow even GA-level referencing practices (specifically citing entire books without page numbers). E.g.

• History of Minnesota (e.g. citations for Gilman, Risjord, Lass, etc.)
• History of Puerto Rico (e.g. citations for Rouse, Abbad y Lasierra)

Am I missing something about how the standards are applied? Just wondering from the perspective of using other articles as models for my own.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question! Those articles passed FA in early 2007 and early 2006. Standards have increased at FA and GA significantly in that time period. When looking for examples, it is usually a good idea to check the article history to see when they were promoted. This is on the article talk page. There is a big box that say something like "This article has been identified as a featured article..." In that box is bolded text that says "Article milestones". Click show next to the article milestones and you'll see when it was promoted. Eventually, articles which don't meet standards anymore can be taken to Featured article review, where editors can discuss what work needs to be done to improve the article to the current standards. Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you for all of the opposes reviews you've been posting at FAC. :) Seriously, your thoughtful comments are very helpful to nominators. Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm delighted to see you reviewing again, too! I was really missing reviewing; it's a nice intellectual challenge. The backlog made a nice excuse for me to take some time off of delegate work. Sandy has done a great job picking up my slack. Karanacs (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Church

OMG the length! Groan! That article was seriously discussed on FAC...? The length is the chief "area that I would like to see changed". Trouble is, merely checking the 39 archives and 4 FACs for previous discussion of the matter would take weeks... I do see something in the February FAC about the History section being too long, and Nancy H protesting that it's short in comparison with its subject; that's probably true; but then I wouldn't suggest removing any material, I would recommend a seriously summary style article. Do you know if that has been discussed? It doesn't appear on the Talk:Catholic Church/Unresolved issues page—and isn't really an "issue", I guess. More a question of how to organise information. Bishonen | talk 00:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

Yes, it has. Marskell put up excellent suggestions, that have so far been ignored. "But listen: adding "bad stuff" isn't necessarily the answer. Removing the gloss is the other option. This is broadly what they did at Islam and it worked. It's a concise, clinical article that avoids value judgements of the type I'm criticizing here." ... and ... "The editors at that article did two things right. First, they avoided extraneous detail. The two sentences above could easily be turned into two paragraphs. Deliberately, the editors avoided such expansion. This is the biggest difference with RCC; you have POV concerns in part because your article is so long. Second, they avoided apologetics and value judgements. Go to the family life section (also added for FAC): it doesn't imply that you should like or dislike polygamy. It states that a man may take four wives and moves along." and see User:Marskell/RCC. His point was that, if the article is structured like Islam, it can avoid the apologetics, and the arguments and counter-arguments to neutralize the POV. There have been suggestions to use summary style throughout the FACs, and yet the article continues to be mired in back-and-forth POV arguments, rather than just taking Marskell's suggestion to write a shorter, clinical article without judgments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, At the last peer review we trimmed the article extensively before sending it to FAC.[14] However, each time we have gone to FAC, the reviewers always ask for more, not less information. I would like to know if there is an acceptable response to a FAC reviewer who asks for more information and elaboration on a subject. If I say no to their request then the article does not pass because of their oppose. If I say yes and add information then the article's efforts to stay trim are compromised. I would appreciate advice in this area as I do not know how to respond to these comments and still keep article size down. At the last FAC there were 25 supports and 9 opposes[15] (Note: there are two pages to this archive, link for page 2 is located at top of page) Of the 25 supports, there were several who had opposed the previous FAC but switched their vote to support for this last FAC. These included Ealdgyth, Ling Nut and Mike. Some of the opposers wanted information that was unsupported by references (Vassyana, Taam, Geometry Guy). Other opposers, (Marskell and Savidan) wanted a complete rewrite in favor of their own unique vision of what the article should be even though their views did not come up for consideration in the long and well attended developement process leading up to FAC. I could not see how rewriting the whole article at FAC was going to satisfy the 25 supporters who liked the article the way it was. NancyHeise ^talk 10:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The acceptable response to reviewers who ask for more info was explained by Marskell and linked above; if an article presents POV from one side, it has to be countered by POV from the other side, and that is why the article keeps getting longer and longer, and is mired in POV arguments. Marskell proposed that the solution is not to add more "bad stuff" but to remove some of the gloss and keep it straightforward. Also, it would be helpful if you stopped referencing old FACs and PRs; that is not how consensus works on Wiki. When/if the article reappears at FAC, it's a whole new ball game, and continuing to rely on your notion that Wiki is a "vote" will not advance the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is that simple at all. Many FAC reviewers, and talk page contributors, regard omission of particular things as a Catholic POV conspiracy, and a number of Catholic or historically-minded one regard omission of other, different things as failing comprehensiveness. These judgements are indeed difficult - the article is pretty much summary style already, I would have thought. Accusations of POV are thrown around wildly by both sides, and though there is certainly a lot of it shown by editors in talk, it is actually often very hard for partisan editors on each broad side to agree what is and is not its own or the other POV when text is looked at in detail. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the history section is using summary style appropriately. As one previous commentor at an FAC for this article said, the history section often appears as a collection of overly detailed analyses of individual incident rather than a broad overview of the entire history. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It may not use summary style ideally, but until you get to the 20th century, when things do fall apart rather, it does use summary style, and I see no incidents. The current text remains largely that produced by you as a slimmed-down version, does it not? Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Within the last few weks, several editors have again started pushing the idea that we need to drastically cut down to the basics, as many of us feel the article has a definite Catholic-POV slant. There has been quite a bit of pushback.... Discussions are ongoing. Karanacs (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

To my memory, the slimmed-down version I had come up with wasn't approved. Although some elements of it were incorporated, much of it was not. Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out the my support for the last FAC should not be taken as support for the article as it stands nor as implying that I don't think Marskell's approach might have value. It was a support for the article as it stood at the time, not a support saying that the article was perfect. Personally, it might be good to see what happens if a sandboxed version of the article trimmed using the Islam article approach might not solve some of the difficulties. Certainly, as the article stands, it's very bloated and I'd be inclined to not support purely based on that. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is 89kB of readable prose? OMG. Awadewit (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

<Cough>No, it's 89kB of unreadable prose. The unreadability is a function of the length. Nancy, you ask for advice: I would appreciate advice in this area as I do not know how to respond to these comments and still keep article size down. My advice is to go in for a serious summary style. I believe it's the only way, and no, Johnbod, it's not already summary style. By "serious summary style", I mean that the "History" section shouldn't be longer than three paragraphs. That's a summary. It's long enough to a) get an overview—a very concise overview, yes—and to b)find the "main article" History of the Catholic Church, itself a summary style article. Such a change would admittedly involve a lot of work, not so much with Catholic Church, but with the articles to which most of its material would be exported. Actually I also agree with de-bloating the extant material, per Marskell and Islam; but from reading bits of Talk:Catholic Church, and from admiring the elaborate reaction to my own drive-by removal of one word—one evaluative, POV word—I strongly suspect it's psychologically impossible to get any consensus for a de-bloat. A pity, as it would IMO give a better result, and involve a more reasonable amount of work. Bishonen | talk 17:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

That would involve a totally different scale of compression from what is normally described as summary style. Apart from the 20th century, the history already consists of, what - a couple of hundred links, only connected by the barest minimum of prose. None of this would, if cut further, need to be "exported" as this article only contains the headlines that are covered in hundreds of other articles, obviously of wildly variable quality. The Islam article is not a suitable approach to adopt - imo it was only got away with given the particular issues around Islam, & I for one would oppose CC at FAC if it used a similar approach (as would dozens of others from all POVs, you may be sure), and probably oppose keeping Islam in an FAR. The fact of the maater is that people wanting specific stuff put in outnumber those wanting stuff taken out at FAC by a considerable margin, though of course many are perfectly happy for parts of the article they are not personally interested in (all that boring religious stuff, typically) to be cut wholesale. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, Johnbod, we won't know that a trimmed down article won't work because it has never been tried at FAC, or at all. What we do know is that a 15,000 word, back-and-forth gloss vs. "bad stuff" won't work, and has never been found by reviewers to be neutral (1d) and would probably currently fail on stability (1e). The old adage of "if what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it" comes to mind; in a trimmed down article, nominators can argue that the detail is covered in a daughter article, and this article is only a summary and a clinical overview. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm dubious about that. Look at the article as it was for the first FAC, and the reviews there. It was a lot more like Islam then than it was at the last FAC - Nancy pointed out Islam had been used as a model - yet sank like a stone, admittedly after rapidly degenerating into what has become the standard Southern belle dogfight. Many more reviewers, notably Karanacs & Ealdgyth, wanted stuff added (and changed) than taken out - there was a pretty long shopping list. Johnbod (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue at the first FAC was the POV slant of the history section (the Crusades section was one of the more amusing examples). Reviewers then requested text to offset the POV. Then other editors wanted to offset what they saw as POV, and the cycle repeated. If we can get down to a truly neutral section - with as little opinion on either side as possible - then I really do think the article could be very successful with a short history section. I don't know that it will ever be as short as 3 paragraphs, but it can definitely be shorter. Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That was one issue, but you, Ealdgyth and others had long lists of "no mention of ...", "only a passing reference to..." and so on. All valid points I'm sure, but this is where we end up. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

At that point, there was no subsidiary article (or it was so horrible that it was not worth reading). At this point, I hope, the History of .. article is better, and summary style can profitably be used. And, frankly, what has been tried in the past isn't working so let's see if something else works? I'll point out it's been about a year (at least) since the first FAC, right? We've had a number of others, and I certainly don't require that everything I mentioned in that FAC be considered at THIS point in time. As I said above, we have to take the article as it is now, not rehash old stuff (on everyone's part). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd never read it before & only looked to see how true Sandy's comment above was. The failed GA History of the World is not a great advertisement for extreme summary style. Johnbod (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ealdgyth-- almost two years: the first FAC was Feb 2008, and the article was about 7,000 words. The article has doubled in size, has remained mired in POV wars the entire time, and NancyHeise hasn't understood that, no matter how many editors she pings for "votes" on the talk page, neither FAC nor consensus is based on votes. It's unfortunate that so many experienced FA writers have offered to help, and been rebuffed, because the article should be featured by now and many would like to see it featured. Anyway, I hope Marskell's old idea will at least be considered, since the current approach hasn't proven to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Let me know when the next step in dispute resolution begins. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm still hoping for a Christmas miracle and that this won't be necessary. If worst comes to worst, I think you would likely be a named party. I'd also leave notification on the article talk page. Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I would, on the whole, prefer not to be. My ideal for the article would be for Richard, Harmakheru, and the other rational editors of various points of view to work it out between them; it's not my field, and I would prefer to trust them. I do have other things to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Denton

Thanks for the review on Denton. Even though it didn't pass, I'll be incorporating your suggestions sometime next year. Cheers, Mahanga^Talk 04:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is in good shape. Hopefully it won't be too much effort to bring it the rest of the way and get it featured. Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Chinese Restaurant

Hi, two copy-editors have worked on "The Chinese Restaurant", I believe it now meets FA standards.--Music26/11 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Still needs a bit of work I think. For instance: "... he is sitting by the door of the restaurant at when George, Jerry and Elaine enter the restaurant ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And quickly renominated. Nev1 (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And quickly removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Could you please give some more comments on what I should do, I believe the FAC was closed too early, as there were no more issues. SandyGeorgia told me I should go to you as you were the last editor with open issues and the only one to oppose.--Music26/11 11:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't reread the article since the copyedits so won't comment on the prose right now. I do believe that more research needs to be done for themes for this episode. There has been so much written about Seinfeld, and this is a fairly important episode, so there should be enough information available to write a small themes or styles section. You may need to do research in journal articles or other offline sources. Karanacs (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I couldn't find anything. It's very difficult to write a theme section for a comedy show (though I know it is possible), I would like to but all I could find was a handfull of sources that gave an indication in one, maybe two, sentences. If you could please reread the article I can re-nominate it again. As I see no big problems right now. Also, if you happen to come across some sources you can send me a message.--Music26/11 14:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to talk to Awadewit. She found a great deal of research for a South Park episode and may have tips on other places to look for Seinfield episodes. Karanacs (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Parker

I'm thinking of writing a new FAC, but before I invest time and effort, I'd welcome your views on whether there is any mileage in this proposal. I've asked Sandy too. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, I think you are right. If I do this at all, It will be as the wreck of the Essex with the Richard Parker bit as an interesting(?) later development Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Consulate-General of Switzerland in Houston

Hi! In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Consulate-General_of_Switzerland_in_Houston

You referred to Wikipedia:CSD#A7 - The problem is that other consulates have articles too, and several of them have passed AFD (See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Consulate-General_of_Indonesia_in_Houston) - And this should have been apparent considering you filed the AFD request for the Indonesian consulate. - So because saying "it is a consulate" satsifies A7, I would like for this to be undeleted. If you wish to send this to AFD, then I would be happy to see how that goes. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am also going to kindly ask for the restoration of Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Other consulate articles have been deleted at AfD, so there is no blanket precedent that consulates have notability. The difference in the AfD arguments was the extent of the references. I deleted those that made no claims of notability and had no references that mentioned the consulate in more than passing. You are welcome to request a review at WP:DRV. Karanacs (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case I decided to start Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 9 WhisperToMe (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Plaza Saltillo (Capital MetroRail station) and friends

These do not fit criterion for speedy deletion "A7", since they are not "about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization, or web content". Please undelete them; thank you. --NE2 09:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• What NE2 said. Furthermore, precedent at AfD says to keep railway and metro stations. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • My mistake. I'll restore them and nominate at AfD. Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You forgot the talk pages. --NE2 08:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing on the talk pages except WP notices. If they are kept at AfD I'll restore those. Karanacs (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Now the talk pages have the old AFD template but not the project tags. Can you restore the revisions and then reinstate the tags? --NE2 18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As well as the former history of Category:Capital MetroRail stations. Hello? --NE2 13:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Hi Karen. I'm gathering the information and sorting it into organized paragraphs. I have a snow day today so I should be able to finish by tonight. I am so grateful for the link and for you pointing out that source to me - it has tons of great info. FYI, I'm going to send you an email with another unrelated question I have. Thanks! ceranthor 15:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames

Nicknames - except malicious ones - are fine; several people have resolved on Sept, for example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the substance: I believe the way to deal with a revert warrior is to present a novel text. It may answer his objections (often because of a trivial tweak), and it will at least show him irreconcilably stubborn if he reverts everything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cleomenean War FAC

HI, I was wondering why the article's FAC was closed after only a week? Thanks. Kyriakos (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed this post yesterday. Reviewers had listed serious concerns with the quality of sourcing used (that the article relied primarily on primary rather than seconday sources). Generally, this type of sourcing issue takes more time to resolve than is generally allotted in an FAC nomination. I encourage you to work with the sources that were recommended and bring the article back to FAC when you've addressed that concern. Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Motion's regarding Mattisse

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here

• Mattisse (talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
• Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
• Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse (talk · contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose. Modified by next two motions.
• "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
• User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Original Annoucement

[edit] York Park

Thanks for your kind words. I think I'm done, If I miss one please forgive me. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 20:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the speed of your response! Karanacs (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Images

We're guessing that the image issue has been resolved now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

NW just entered an official declaration - good work! I'll probably leave this one until Sandy does her pass through FAC on Saturday. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Railpage Australia

Think it's a sock FAC YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DYK for Convention of 1833

On December 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Convention of 1833, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax 07:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmas, Karanacs!

Thanks for all you do at FAC. Have a wonderful holiday! Please have a sloppy drunken hug and some embarrassed shouting (also drunken) from Moni3. --Moni3 (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Seasons Greetings and all that ...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays

		Greetings of the Season
		A merry good morning I wish you, My friends both great and small. When the world, for his fare, shall press you, may you n'er go to the wall. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)