This is an archive of past discussions with User:Karanacs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Karanacs! I haven't talked to you for a while. Hoping all is well for you. Currently I am attending UTD for grad school type stuff. I haven't been as active on WP as I would like. I have done some work cleaning up the University of Texas at Dallas, and I have nominated it for a peer review. Considering your considerable experience on the TAMU page, any suggestions would help. Thanks and gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi OldAg, I'm glad to hear you are doing well! I will try to get to the peer review, but I'm pretty swamped in real life and on-wiki right now so it may take me a little bit to get over there. Karanacs (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
A very intriguing idea... Have you had a chance to look at it much? Is it written at the right level of detail or is it very vague? I'm not familiar with this series of books, but it seems worth looking at. Karanacs (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll read it over the next week and get back to you - the bibliography, at least, looks helpful. At first glance, the level of detail looked right. But that was 10 minutes in the bookstore. Hence the purchase. Awadewit (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there something needed prior to promotion? It has six supports, no opposes, and I've done all the changes requested.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry-- means pls provide the link so we can quickly have a look (per that giant message we both have on our talk pages :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It's best just to let Karanacs and SandyG get on with it, without hassling them to close an FAC. I have one myself with eight supports and no outstanding issues, but I'm in no hurry. It'll get closed when it gets closed. Who knows, someone may turn up out of the blue with some perfectly plausible objections to the article's promotion, so it shouldn't be closed too quickly no matter how many supports. MalleusFatuorum21:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes the delegate may see something I don't, they have 50 articles to look after at a time, never hurts to ask when in doubt.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 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) 19:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Request for input on discussion regarding a FA recategorisation.
Sorry about the edit conflict. I just sat down to type up the notes about the Reformation (finally finished another book) and saw your post. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem - I think I merged the two versions without losing anything! I just got Owen Chadwick's A History of Christianity (I needed a break from MacCulloch), and I'm not too impressed so far. It definitely looks like a coffee table book, both in its dimensions and the sheer amount of art woven into it, and it is extremely general and includes a great deal of speculation. I'm going to read a few more chapters before I make up my mind, but right now I don't think I want to use it in Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's good to be doing this: we're finding that the quality of the sources isn't great, which to some extent may have caused such a problem on the page. I've finished Brian Moynahan's God's Bestseller about William Tyndale and the translation of the Bible to the vernacular. It's been a fascinating read, because it explains that in translating the Greek word that denotes church to the English word "congregation" Tyndale was guilty of heresy by denying the traditional narrative. Such a simple thing, and yet so many consequences. At least now I fully understand the undercurrents of the Reformation and if Moynahan's book isn't acceptable (am currently looking for reviews) I'll get one of the books noted in his bibliography. This is taking a long time, but I believe worthwhile. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to keep bothering you. I'll think I'll try to get this book written by (apparently) the best scholar in the field. Page 122 is interesting. If I disappear again, don't worry - I'll be reading. Ping me, if you need input. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not watching the RCC page, which is a great relief, but make sure you're not confusing Owen Chadwick's 1995 book with his brother Henry Chadwick's 3 volume Penguin History of the Church. This used to be a major source, and I am alarmed to see it is no longer listed in the references, which it should be. What happened there? Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Some of the citations were eliminated in the cutting. Truthkeeper and I are slowly reading books - those that had been listed, those that are currently listed, some that weren't used in the past. Owen Chadwick's book was heavily used in the article, and I don't have a high opinion on it. I haven't gotten to Henry's book yet - I may have to ILL it. The article talk page has slowed down, and is so far a much calmer environment. I hope you reconsider and start watching the page again, Johnbod - your perspective is valued. Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I tried to find Henry Chadwick's history in used bookstores this weekend without success (actually couldn't find any histories of the CC which is interesting). I can put in another ILL for this, but it will be a week or more before I get it, if it's fine to wait that long.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I did a closer look at the article here, and it had not actually used Henry Chadwick's book; instead, it referenced a chapter he had written in John McManners (ed)'s Oxford History of <now I forget if this was Christianity or the Catholic Church>. I requested that from another branch of my library and should have it tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh good, then I won't worry. I'm still working on the reading about the reformation and counter-reformation, but would like to find a single book for that section, so I'll continue to focus there instead. Also, unfortunately keep getting pulled away to work on other articles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have checked. In fact the Penguin History of the Church is 6 vols, only #I, "The Early Church" (to the rise of Islam, erratically), By Henry C. There are plenty at $1 + p&p on Abebooks etc. Vol II, Medieval, is by R. W. Southern, & vol III, Reformation, by Owen Chadwick (the general editor). Then 3 more - Cragg, Vidler & Stephen Neill (on missions). All are easily available in the same way & good solid sources, though originally from the 60s & slightly old. Obviously much more detail than single volume jobs, & these have no pictures. They cover the whole Christian Church; all authors are Protestant - or ? in Southern's case - but this gives good perspective. Not that I've ever read the last 3, or the whole of the first 3. Thanks, but I can't see myself back at the article for a long time. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Benet Academy FAC
Hello Karanacs. Thanks for providing feedback on the FAC for Benet Academy. I'm currently working on the edits you suggested; please feel free to provide additional comments in the meantime. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Karanacs, thanks for taking the time to manually promote this. I don't know why the bot is down, but I just wanted you to know that your hard work is appreciated. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)17:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed. Gimmetrow is going/gone on a wikibreak and won't be running his bot :( That means we're soliciting volunteers to help with the manual conversion - it's tedious. Congratulations on your promotion - it was a well-done article. Karanacs (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The close of an FAC/FAR has a few extra steps compared to an ACR. Also, I've already volunteered as soon as my finals are over next week. -MBK00401:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, well I'm sure that you can do it five times faster. It doesn't look too bad (I peeked into Sandy's sandbox); if anyone needs me before MBK is done with finals, I'll try to get to them, otherwise NBD :) —Ed(talk • majestic titan)05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Karanacs. Per WP:FAC "[i]f a nominated article is archived, and not promoted, none of the nominators may nominate or conominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate... Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemption." I am asking for dispensation to renominate immediately. Only one user provided substantive feedback, all of whose concerns were addressed promptly; that user had only struck out their comments a few days ago, with one open concern left we were discussing, which was just addressed yesterday. Other than that, the only comments were about FU images. I certainly see the point of the instruction "nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating" but I know of no open issues that a hiatus would help resolve.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that Archive links is a sockpuppet of someone, as is also clearl from this response [[1]]. But I do not think that it is User:Jacurek. User:Archive links edited in Poeticbents section, and Poeticbent has an habit of repeatedly altering his initial comments. So most likely just annother Poeticbent sock, but not Jacurek. Pantherskin (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
He's an undeclared sock of someone, either evading a ban or double-dipping at the AFD; either way, it's justification for a block. Karanacs (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Pedro Romero de Terreros
On May 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pedro Romero de Terreros, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Do you want me to loan you my Brown and some other stuff while I'm in Europe? I can ship them to you and you can ship them back when you're done or in mid-July, when I'll be home. Ealdgyth - Talk02:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a really nice offer, E! I have a list of other books I was planning to get from my library and/or ILL this summer that will probably keep me pretty busy. This is a massive project with a massive amount of reading, and I don't anticipate being done any time soon. If I miraculously manage to get through the rest, I can ILL Brown, and then neither of us have to pay shipping charges. If you have any other recommendations for good sources, let me know and I'll add them to my list. Karanacs (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Nominations
That's all I was asking! I left that Sandy person a message asking her/him/it? whether it will be a good idea to nominate an article again and I received no answer. I nominated ANOTHER article but I am being told that it does not meet the criteria so I will do peer review. Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
One last question and I will leave you alone: I am trying to start a Peer review to get this thing underway but it is giving me several options and none of them are compatible to it:
Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography, History, Engineering and technology, Natural sciences and mathematics, General topic or List
I aim to keep reviewing but I do feel a crisis of confidence quite often, so it's excellent to know that other reviewers are there to form a consensus so I don't feel that it's all down to me. I started reviewing because an issue of Signpost said it would be good if someone would lend a hand, so there I am. Take care, bodnotbod (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you are doing an excellent job at providing feedback to nominators. As a nominator, it's always nice to get a "support, great job", but you're often taking it a step beyond and letting them know exactly what you like about the article. I've also noticed that your critical comments are often pretty insightful. Keep up the great work! Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Copa Libertadores
I actually did took your advice and already done a PR receiving a good amount of feedback that helped me out. As for the GA nomination...I will be honest: I have used other FA as guidelines in order to improve the page. Give it a chance. See it yourself that this surpasses GA criteria (and after looking at other GA's, in actuality it surpasses it by a mile). Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I forgot about the "no nominations 2 weeks after an archived nomination" rule. The nom has been speedily closed for that reason, and because a reviewer has already said it didn't meet criteria. Please pursue a real Peer Review and/or GA to get feedback. Karanacs (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, the nominator closed the peer review after only three days. We can't be asking experienced FA writers to toe the line on the new rules, while someone else flaunts the rules requested by experienced reviewers. Not going there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You're a little too dedicated, Sandy! If you need me to take over at all, just drop me a line. I'll try to actually check my email this weekend. Karanacs (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for my comments on Sandy's talk page, though I thought that when little discussion has been generated, an FAC is restarted, not ended. The lead section aside, what other parts do you feel need improving to attain FA status? LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, we haven't had enough reviewers to go around, so we've generally been saving restarts for articles that had garnered supports but which had changed drastically during the FAC process (such as being split into subarticles). If there's simply a lack of supports, we ask that the nominator come back in a few weeks. I can't offer specific advice on your article, but it may help to have a Peer Review, or to contact the reviewers who did comment again and see if they can elaborate on what they think could be improved. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm usually urging nominators to give more detail on what an article is about, but in this case an excess of honesty on the obscurity of the album may have played against you, I'm afraid! Perhaps a little discreet boosterism next time. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Catholic Church again
It's time for me to bail out from the article and the talk-page. I'm half-way through MacCulloch's Reformation and intend to finish and post notes in my sandbox. I've learned a lot, and felt we could get this done, but now have my doubts (though G.W. seems to be the editor the article needs.) Feel free to access my sandbox if any of it is of value to you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that, Truthkeeper88. We've already made more progress in the last two months than was made on the history section in the 18 months before that. Good luck on your other projects, and I hope you stop in at Catholic Church every once in a while to keep your toes in. Karanacs (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll keep it watched, but realized last night that I don't have the patience. I understand that issues have to be resolved, but I tend to work by laying down a first draft, swinging through again and tweaking and so on until whatever I've worked on is finished. The tweaking/revision process usually takes much longer than the initial draft process. With the Catholic Church, however, each point has to be debated and debated, which, in my view, stalls progress and prevents the actual writing of the article. Plus, I don't think I'm thick-skinned enough for that talkpage. Best for me to work on my own, and feed you information if you need it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
So that all the reading doesn't go to waste I've been working a bit on the Middle Ages draft in my sandbox. I don't think it's much better than before, but I've taken a few points from your Duffy sandbox. I think we should brainstorm (whenever you want) to determine which points need to be addressed for that time period. I've finished one book on the Reformation, but think it will be some time before we get there, so am waiting to start others. I guess this is an admission that I'd like to see the article finished, but I needed a small break to work on something more fun for a week or so. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Last week I was mostly off-wiki due to crazy work schedules, and I may drop off here and there over the next few weeks if they start moving deadlines again (aaarrggghhh). I've also been working on something more fun with another in mind. I'm almost through with The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (working on 1800s-present and need to finish it so I can hand it back in), and I'm hoping by next week to have a proposal for the Late antiquity section (Constantine - 440s). I think it's probably best to go in chronological order, so that we can keep everyone a bit more focused. Once I get that proposal up, I need to read through my notes again and see which sources I need to go back to - in my first pass I think I stopped at about the 1200s in several of the books. We should have enough between us to develop a good outline of what should be included for the first 800 years of the Middle Ages. As much as it might not seem like it, we are actually making progress!! Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Madonna FAC
Hello Karanacs. Thanks for bringing to light some wonderful points in the FAC for Madonna. I am in teh process of revamping the article and almost done. I will let you know once I have addressed all the concerns. --Legolas(talk2me)04:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Karen. Its good to know that you are thinking of getting Brooks through FA, he's one of my favourite. I absolutely love "She's Every Woman" and the In Pieces album as a whole. Pitty I never went to any of his concerts. :( --Legolas(talk2me)03:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I went to one of Garth Brooks' last shows before he announced his retirement (waited in line pretty much all day to get those tickets) and it was wild. If he tours again, you should definitely go, although it will probably be a lot longer line ;) Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh you lucky lady. I wish I could go to more tours, but budget is restraining me. :( Anyways I asked User:IronGargoyle, who works with PD, about the Madonna image. He said that there's a 50/50 chance. I believe its best to remove it as the source doesnot provide a sureshot explanation whether it was released before 1978. What say you? --Legolas(talk2me)04:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
That is probably the best option; if we can't be sure about the publication details, then we ought to err on the side of caution. Karanacs (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Karanacs, I noticed that you removed No Line on the Horizon from the FAC list as a promote and added it to the list of FAs. As the nominator and principal contributor to the article I was naturally delighted. However the article history has yet to update and I notice that the discussion [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Line on the Horizon/archive3|still appears to be open]. Is the bot simply being slow tonight, or is there some procedure I need to follow so that everything checks out? Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It need not be printed in a book or periodical to be "published"; as long as the photographer (copyright holder) offered copies of it for sale or distributed them to the public (like free gifts), it has been "published".
However, this case looks more like a private family photo that is "unpublished" till now. The stated source gives no indication of the identity of the copyright holder or publication (where or when). If found, such an unpublished photo is copyrighted for 70 years pma or if his or identity cannot be ascertained, 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is earliest. Regardless the date of creation is such that none of these three durations would have elapsed by now. Jappalang (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The only other one I've reviewed that's open is Harris Theater, and I don't think it's ready for you to take a look yet. And mine that is open (Convention of 1833) isn't ready for delegate eyes either. Karanacs (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why this has failed? It received some support, all comments were addressed, as was the only complaint. How can I "take time to work on resolving issues" when all issues mentioned have already been solved? I don't see what was left that caused it to fail? -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 03:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Anma. The FAC had been open for 2 weeks and did not have any declarations of support (bodnotbod was leaning there but hadn't changed his declaration after two weeks). Usually when there aren't any full supports after two weeks we archive. A few others had commented without leaving declarations or much useful feedback. This FAC seemed to have gotten distracted a bit with naming issues and image issues, and it will probably do better if it comes back again in a few weeks (often the reviewer pool changes slightly over time and more may be interested in this article). I would recommend that you ask User:SlimVirgin if she has any further suggestions for improvement, since she appears to have read the article all the way through. I know that it's really frustrating to have nominations archived primarily due to a lack of feedback, but generally things work better the second time through. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes...but it gives you time to either work on your next article or solicit some independent feedback on this one. And when you bring the article back, the response ought to be better! Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay. I think that will probably be the last one I bother with for awhile. They all seem to go the same way these days, not enough feedback and no one actually says "support" anymore, so they just end up failing even with mostly positive response, and I'm just really frustrated with all these new "rules" that have nothing to do with the actual articles. Really hate that I butchered the article's images out just to have it fail anyway. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 15:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a nice piece of work Anma, whether it's got that little gold star or not. But you've got some breathing space now to properly resolve that image issue before taking it back to FAC. Let me know when you do, as I'd very likely have supported its promotion this time round if I'd looked at it. MalleusFatuorum15:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Right now, though, I'm probably not going to do anything else with FACs for awhile. Just too stressful. And not really any good way to resolve the infobox image without spending a small fortune on a true first edition that actually has the cover (not that I wouldn't want one, but I'd have to up my insurance rider again LOL), or putting what, to me, would be a pointless image of the under cover which just has the title. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we have resolved one more of the two remaining issues - will let you know when find the actual height for the Montgomery Ward restrictions. Ruhrfisch><>°°01:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You should be able to use the image on Adina's article. I'll fill out another fair use justification for you. Karanacs (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we consider this given to you automatically? I've have done it long ago but I thought you already had autoreviewer rights. It's a crappy system, but I'd rather work with it (and desysop any idiot admin who takes this away) rather than have to jump through hoops. It's your call, though - if you really don't want it I'll remove the flag. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I know you meant well but any system that's based on having to get all winds and dragons or fulfil some other randomly generated criteria unless you happen to be on nodding terms with an admin is too crappy to support. It's fine though, I'll switch back to Yomangani - about time I confused the counters again and the irritating auto-login already keeps putting me there when I come from commons. (All Sandy's fault anyway). Yomanganitalk16:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Risker specified it had to be in less than 80% of your edits. Unless, of course, you are editing the article poop. ;) Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Theory is right. All my eavesdropping on conversations at least gives me a familiarity with terminology and associated language that does not make discussions completely foreign, as if overhearing a complicated lecture on differential equations. --Moni3 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
I just noticed you gave me autoreviewers rights. Thank you, I'll read up on it so I know the ins and outs of this. Thanks for thinking of me. --CrohnieGalTalk16:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Autoreviewer is one of those "hidden" rights that you don't get any new buttons for. It automatically marks your new articles as reviewed, so that they don't appear on the new page patrol, and it should automatically mark your edits as reviewed when FlaggedProtection kicks in next week. SandyGeorgia pointed out that you didn't already have this right, and I'm trying to make sure that the good content editors don't have to jump through any additional hoops with FlaggedProtection. Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. And while I'm at it, if anyone wants rollback and doesn't have it, drop a note here. It can be very useful for reverting vandalism, but I hate giving that one without asking people, because that extra button can be a pain sometimes. Karanacs (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This exactly the kind of nonsense that I've been railing about. I'm not blaming you Karanacs, but it sticks in my craw. MalleusFatuorum01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
My thanks as well. I'm not sure I need it, as most of my article-space edits are to gnomish edits to existing articles rather than new article creations, but all the same it's good to know that I am considered a "trusted" editor. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like the Rollback feature as well. It used to just be there. Has this been a recent change that the option no longer appears? Maile66 (talk) 01:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Requesting rights
I am picking a random, unassociated admin to ask for Rollbacker and Reviewer rights. Please feel free to examine any of my edits or contributions and please let me know if you approve or if there is an area I need to work on. Padillah (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, I'll remove it. I've been checking the contribution history of most of those I've been granting the right to, but I assumed Majorly was still editing. Thanks for letting me know, and I'll be more diligent. Karanacs (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewers
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I guess that means I get to do more work... but it is ok, I am going to ask for a 15% salary increase next month. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The new reviewer right is related to the flagged revisions trial that starts tomorrow. You don't have to do anything extra - the right means that your edits can be marked as automatically reviewed and you won't have to wait to see your article changes. I'm giving the right to just about everyone who has participated on the Catholic Church article so that neither side is unfairly disadvantaged in the Next Great Edit War ;) (and yes, TPSes without a sense of humor, that's a joke). Karanacs (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the Reviewer rights from me as well. Not sure what it all means, but as is typical in my experience with Wikipedia, I'll figure it out. :-) Kmzundel (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The new reviewer right is related to the flagged revisions trial that starts tomorrow. You don't have to do anything extra - the right means that your edits can be marked as automatically reviewed and you won't have to wait to see your article changes. My goal today is to make sure that content contributors aren't inconvenienced when the trial starts. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate it! Do you know if there is a timeframe for the trial? I did not notice that on the policy page. Kmzundel (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that the trial is well-defined. I'm not sure how long it will last, which articles it will affect, or how we will judge if it was a success. Karanacs (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I last reminded/requested Verbal to give some feedback at the RfC in early April and late May, but there has been no direct response.
Then in the last 24 hours, Verbal has deleted all mention of Outlines from Portal:Contents, Template:Contents pages (header bar), and Template:Contents pages (footer box), which doesn't seem reasonable. I'm not sure how to deal with this - I'm trying to stay somewhat neutral, so have not reverted those 3 edits. Verbal seems like an otherwise very decent editor, but the Outline set is still being treated as a battleground. Please advise (me and/or him). I'll point him to this thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
If there is community consensus to add them back in, then fine. That would be best achieved by showing some form of consensus for the outline projects objectives, in any form. But they should not have been added in the first place without consensus. Verbalchat20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
And now they are not, which more accurately represents their place in wikipedia. Note that they are not in any wikipedia policy or guideline on lists or organisational structures. Outlines should be added to those first (by community consensus) before being added to any other derivative. Verbalchat06:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
They are list articles, and therefore are covered by the list guidelines. Just because their titles include the word "outline" doesn't mean they aren't lists. Keep in mind that there are a great many outline articles on Wikipedia that do not have "outline" in their titles. An outline is nothing more than a hierarchially-arranged list (of topics and/or sentences, or both). The title of a list is irrelevant to its being covered by the list guidelines - it's the content that determines this. Outlines are lists. Outlines are covered by the list guidelines by their virtue of being lists.
Lists (regardless of their titles), are allowed on Wikipedia, and they do not require consensus in order to exist. There is no need for approval in order to create a single article or 500 articles. That is the core feature of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community that has allowed Wikipedia to grow so quickly: we're now at 6,940,703 articles and growing!
Note also that the list guidelines do not preclude the creation of matching sets of lists, including outlines. Glossaries and the link to the glossaries subportal never achieved consensus, because they didn't have to. The list of portals and the links to it never achieved consensus, because they didn't have to. No type of page has to. The same with timelines, topic lists, alphabetical indexes, etc. Because there is no requirement for approval for creation on Wikipedia.
There are over 500 "outline of" articles on Wikipedia, which collectively present over 50,000 links to Wikipedia content in an organized way. It's counterintuitive and damaging to remove the link to this contents subsystem.
Basically, Verbal is asserting his will and POV over the rest of us.
Verbal has escalated his efforts and now appears to be in a full-blown campaign to disrupt outlines at any cost and also appears to be trying to influence the outcome of the RfC directly within pages of the encyclopedia.
I too find it a little discouraging how slowly this flag is being disseminated, further that we're going to have buttons in 24 hours 95% of us have never seen before. I guess it'll be like RevDel, though, we'll muddle through- the problem is that RevDel was purely a matter for us sysops- and even then no sysop is forced to use the button- flagged revisions is going to impact everyone, sysop, experienced editor, or newbie. And if this "reviewer" flag becomes some form of status symbol... we're in trouble. Hopefully once the buttons actually get turned on, other sysops will get more actively involved in handing out the reviewer flag and this will all go perfectly. At least let me be a Cassandra for another day with my hope, please... Courcelles (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It's already a status symbol, as evidenced by the "thanks for trusting me" messages we're already seeing. No doubt we'll soon also be seeing a reviewer version of the admin/rollbacker userpage icon to go with it. It's just inevitable in a project overwhelmed with children, particularly when so many of them are administrators with the new ability to hand out (or take away) this new "right". Control freaks of the world unite! MalleusFatuorum21:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
We'll see who turns out to be right Moni, perhaps it might even be neither of us. You have to remember though that we're sitting on different sides of that admin fence, and so it's inevitable that we see different things. MalleusFatuorum21:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
What would I have done with the rest of my day without being told what to remember? What more pearls of wisdom do you have to give me, magi? Speak to me and tell me truths that only you can know. I shall sit here and pine for my own triple-digit IQ and the good sense God gave a goat. I'm aglow in anticipation. --Moni3 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Malleus, you might listen to me since I've sat on both sides of that admin fence, and as you know am currently being harassed by a particularly obnoxious admin; this is not an issue worth fighting over. Yes, it's a crappy idea. Yes, it's certain to fail (I actually supported it in one of those interminable polls on the grounds that until it's tested and seen to fail, people will keep harping on about it). But no, this isn't something worth going to the barricades for; let it crash and burn of its own accord. It'll join WP:LDR in the part of the basement reserved for "Jimbo's shitty ideas" soon enough, and everyone will wonder what the fuss was about. If you're going to go down in flames, at least go down fighting something worthwhile. – iridescent23:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite ready to go the barricades yet, and you know, because I've told you, how I'll be going down in flames when the time comes. I'm not trying to stop the trial, in fact I think it's a good idea to expose its stupidity. All I'm saying is that I want no part of it, and if it affects any article I come across than I'll simply be ignoring that article. MalleusFatuorum23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"Thanks for trusting me" should not be misinterpreted as "Thanks for partaking in the conspiracy and giving me more power!" I think you're reading too far into it, to be perfectly honest, but as you said we won't know for a while. On the other hand, it is true that folks here tend to focus on insignificant rights, a trend which should be avoided in coming weeks with this particular flag. Juliancolton (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I thanked Karanacs for taking the time to think of me, and for taking the time to click a button. I'm not at all crazy about this change, but have to be pragmatic. A few days ago I spent almost two hours fixing a series of edits made by an admin to a semi-protected article. Without the reviewer power/status (whatever you want to call it) the admin's edits would have been in place, not flagged (but wrong). I took a test drive in the pending changes test area and have a very good sense of what will happen. Nonetheless, I stand by my polite thanks to Karanacs. (And, Malleus, I've thanked you a few times as well...) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not making any comment at all on either you or Karanacs, other that I think that given the poor preparation for this trial she's done a great job in handing this right out to editors like yourself. I just think the whole thing is ill-considered, and I want no part of it until the potential for abuse by admins having a bad hair day is removed. MalleusFatuorum23:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for reducing the shock of the upcoming trial. Some us didn't know it was actually being implemented and you saved some headaches by going through and giving editors more power (er... I mean trust) without forcing us to jump through extra hoops.Cptnono (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh good call Malleus. I am also not thinking the changes are a good thing but haven't looked into it much. Regardless, "Thanks for making it so my current privilege was not revoked. I wasn't paying attention and would have lost it otherwise!" That is more like it.Cptnono (talk) 11:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
So Malleus has half a dozen admins and an arb begging him to take autoreviewer rights and he's complaining he's less trusted than other editors? We are truly in separate realities. --Moni3 (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Since we're all in separate realities here, I have a millinery stockroom worthy of the foyer at the Kentucky Derby, all uploaded to my user page. If you can't see them, you're in the wrong dimension. --Moni3 (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Malleus (and Iridescent and the others) - flagged revisions is an inherently unworkable idea on this wiki, and I foresee a meltdown worthy of any hungry toddler in its future. It is ridiculous that we should make our competent and productive editors feel "untrusted" - and completely insane that this is due to be implemented in a way that guarantees that those users feel that way, by not giving them the same freaking rights they have right now. How hard would it have been to automatically grant this right to all users with more than X edits and Y days/weeks/months of membership? How many editors are we likely to tick off and lose because this wasn't granted automatically and we've implied we have no trust in them? I would be pretty damn angry if I suddenly found that I couldn't edit one of the several hundred articles I regularly maintain. I think this is the first time I've really appreciated the fact that I have admin tools - because in attempting to fix this mess I can actually benefit content contributors. My goal is to minimize the impact to Featured articles/lists - and their main contributors - as little as possible. I'm not willing to stand by and see editors I respect (or ones I would respect if we crossed paths) get screwed. And I'll do my damnedest to get any admin desysopped if they try to game this right to further grudges/punish "incivility"/otherwise get in the way of content contributors (Malleus, this might actually be a good reason for you to accept this - think of it as bait to get rid of the admins who most torment you). Let the crappy articles spark the drama that ultimately brings this down, but leave the serious content contributors out of it. Karanacs (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've not seen this system implemented and I have no concept of how it will work in reality until I do. I understand that BLPs and even medical articles need protection from crappy edits and vandals. I'm less supportive of this being used on FAs and GAs. If this is a step in the direction of being more reliable, then I'm willing to be patient and see how it plays out. No doubt it will have plenty of kinks in it. No system is perfect.
Yeah, but I don't get the instantaneous assumption of identity of Trusted User vs. Outcast. This is a tool, and for any record that anyone might give a shit to check, I will happily and unapologetically revert any admin who removes autoreviewer rights for a user over a petty disagreement. I won't even reply to an ArbCom case about this should I become the focus of my own actions. I simply don't care enough to respect that kind of mindset. So that's what that is... --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't even found the time to read what is involved yet, so I sure hope someone has my back if/when I have to use the damn thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Karanacs-- thank you for your summary above. It is the first, non-TLDR exposition I have seen, as the issue seems to have been buried in cries of The Sky Is Falling on one hand, and on the other, No Big Deal (and where have we heard that before?). Content contributors, as shown on this page, often seek to avoid the drama corners of this resource; it is unfortunate that their efforts may be frustrated (even if only temporarily) because they have not yet been deemed "trusted", when it is their work that, after all, makes this encylopedia what it is, or is supposed to be. Kablammo (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, not a single person has been denied reviewer rights yet. Yes, it's not being handed out automatically but I think this is more a function of the inability to allow removal of an implicit usergroup... –xenotalk14:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe everyone is acting in good faith right now. Those who don't follow the inner-wikipedia workings aren't necessarily going to understand that they weren't explicitly denied when/if they realize that the system has changed and their edits must now be approved by someone else. I agree that there are potential dangers with making this an implicit right, but it should have been so easy to run a quick update script on the user table and initially set the flag for people who qualify. Follow this with regular database reports to identify editors as they reach the criteria thresholds, and we'd likely not have much of a problem. (For interested admins - the initial report is here.) Karanacs (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be fairly trivial to create a script that went all the way through that list and grant it to everyone, it's probably something we should think about doing. Of course, the problem with that is there may be 'conscientious objectors' in that list. –xenotalk15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone (an ex-administrator) went to your userpage earlier did they not Xeno, suggesting that you reconsider having granted this new right to another editor? MalleusFatuorum15:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
No apology needed, thanks. I try to fade into the woodwork most of the time & don't mind going unnoticed. To a point. - Hordaland (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I granted that to him yesterday. I'm almost done granting it to all of the active FA writers - I'm down to 330 names to check! Thanks for watching out for him, though! Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
G'day!
Thank you for investing me with new status! Definitely the nicest thing that has happened all day! Can you tell me what this implies...What duties and responsibilities come with being a reviewer, etc?
Amandajm (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The reviewer right is related to flagged revisions, which are being implemented today. This ensures that you will continue to have the ability to edit articles just as you did before, without needing someone else to review and approve your changes. It also means you will be able to review the edits of editors who don't have this right, to see if those changes should be accepted or reverted. It's essentially one more hoop to jump through. Karanacs (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Xeno, I borrowed some of that notice to create a message to post at all of the major content-review-process talk pages. Hope you don't mind. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
// simple script to enable the reviewer bit and leave the user a noteMakeReviewerConfig={groupReason:"User can be trusted with reviewer",sectionHeader:"Reviewer granted",sectionBody:"{{subst\:reviewer-notice}} ~~\~~"};importScript("User:Amalthea/MakeReviewer.js");
Config can be changed or omitted, etc. If user doesn't have right, it grants it, and in either case, it leaves the message. –xenotalk16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Karanacs. I'm curious as to what this Reviewer power is. From my reading, I can't tell how it's more than what any editor can do. (Rollbacks I sorta understand.) --Yopienso (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, never mind--I just found this page: Wikipedia:Pending changes. Hmmm. Yah, maybe I'd like to be a reviewer. Wonder how this will work; hope it reduces vandalism and need to protect pages. Guess that's the object. --Yopienso (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Per your note at WT:FAC, Moni3 was kind enough to grant me Reviewer but it would be nice to have Rollback, too, to make article maintenance easier. Thanks! --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I also saw your note at FAC, and while I really don't understand this Reviewing/Reviewer development (and only just now remembered that I was granted the right several days ago...) rollback is something that I think I could very well use. I don't have too many high-vandal articles on my watchlist, but every now and then some genius feels the need to call Knut a Nazi or comment on the girth of Stephen Crane's member. So might I be granted rollback also/instead? María(habla conmigo) 17:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This right is brand-new (created over the weekend) and is being granted liberally to trusted users. I've used the list at WP:WBFAN as a starting point for granting access. Depending on which articles you work on, and whether they are subject to the new pending changes protection, you may not need to take advantage of the new tool. Just in case your interests overlap any of those articles, however, the new right ensures that you have the same level of access as you would have under the old semi-protection system. Ultimately, I foresee that most of the active and productive content contributors will have the right, it just takes time to hand it out. Karanacs (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the heads up. I'll test the new feature as much as I can, don't have as much time for Wikipedia as I would like these days. Zerbey (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
RE a FAC review
Left this thread on Sandy's talkpage instead of here while you were zooming around and didn't want to disturb you with an orange bar. Anyway, you should be aware this situation. I think I'll bow out of FAC reviewing for a little while. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Truth, please don't let one bad experience cause you to bow out-- we *really* need you! FA writers who don't understand that without FA reviewers, there are no FAs, are missing the boat! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll be back after a short break. Better to discuss the issues I have when this particular FAC is closed. Thanks, though, for the vote of confidence. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You and/or Sandy should probably also be aware of User:Noraft/Essays/Advice, which left a bad taste in my mouth (and not just because I was one of two reviewers on the FAC who pointed out things that could be added to the article). I will assume good faith and see it as a way of venting for Noraft, but it could also be seen in a much more negative light. Ruhrfisch><>°°03:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, a long time ago I had someone make some passive-agressive edits after I opposed an article they had nominated at FAC. I said nothing at the time, but when I mentioned it months later, you (Sandy) said to let someone know if I felt put in an awkward position as a FAC reviewer, so I did so here. I will do my best to avoid sweating, ;-) Thanks and sorry to bother you in a busy time, Ruhrfisch><>°°00:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I know :) Had a bit of a go with that editor myself :) I'm sorry he's making reviewers feel so put out, but I can't find the "off" button! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
We should all be allowed the freedom to tell it as we we see it, without being clubbed by some passing administrator. Moni3 recently described wikipedia's increasing infantilisation very well elsewhere.[6]MalleusFatuorum00:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Swimming...little girl is in her first swim class, and it unfortunately requires parental involvement. I'm turning into a prune! :( Karanacs (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware there has been ongoing problems with the page stats over the last few days, with many blogging on the User talk:Henrik page and the User talk:Midom page. No one is complaining about the stats today (so far). And, yet, I show no stats at all since Tuesday. Note the post on the Midom page from today, saying they see everything fine. Do you think something went wrong in my being able to view the stats when the changes took effect on June 15? I'm at a loss for this one. Maile66 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know anything about stats, so I couldn't even begin to guess at what could be a potential problem. Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, ok. In this maze of Wikipedia, would you have any idea where I could take this issue besides the two users already named above? I find it unlikely I would be the only user with tie issue. Maile66 (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the list! It's been recommended that we only give it out to recently active users, so I can't give it to Appraiser at the moment (although if (s)he comes back I'll be happy to grant it then). SusanLesch had already been granted this, and I took care of the rest. Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response! Appraiser has been an admin (I assume he still is) so it likely is not needed there. Kablammo (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Karanacs, when you have a chance please add as reviewer:
Thank you for the offer, but I don't really edit here much anymore to make usage of the rights. If you want to pass them on to someone else, feel free, I don't mind. The Clawed One (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
^It's not as if there are only so many flags to hand out- we can make as many as are required; so I'd suggest keeping it and if you never use it, it's not doing any harm. Courcelles (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm in the same situation--I have no need for such rights since I don't spend much time here anymore. Please take me off the list. Harmakheru✍06:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer rights
Thank you, but I don't understand. All I wanted to do was change my user name but for some reason I have been granted this right. I'm kinda confused. Dottiewest1fan (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have anything to do with changing usernames - someone will probably get to that for you soon. Reviewer rights are very new, and several of us are identifying content contributors who may benefit from having them. They are nothing that you have to use, but could be helpful if you end up editing an article that falls under the new pending changes protection. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't know so far what does this mean, but from the first glance it seems this will be useful for me. Thank you very much for granting reviewer's rights to me. Cmapm (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
MF, you were supposed to comment on my musical tastes! I put that up just for your enjoyment! When will you assume your obligation to entertain the abusive FAC delegates? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll try and think of a song that encapsulates my impression of you SandyG. Are you familiar with the (joke) Australian phrase "Brace yourself Sheila"? MalleusFatuorum21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
On present performance, I wouldn't worry about admins taking the right away, Malleus ... I can't shake the bloody thing off. Yomanganitalk22:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking about something that either Karanacs or Moni3 said a few days ago. If anyone's going to be threatened with the removal of this new right, then it's most likely going to be me, so I may just accept it. Just to prove the point. MalleusFatuorum22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't recommend it; it's very pushy in your watchlist. (can any admin watching remove it from me again please). Yomanganitalk22:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, now I'm disappointed. I assumed from your message I had *new* fans. I suppose I should be happy I haven't lost the esteem of my existing ones ;) Besides, I had to give the rights to NancyHeise - what fun are edit wars if only one "side" participates?the admin in me requires that I disclose that edit wars are naughty. very naughty! Karanacs (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I have done everything requested on this FAC. As it was only closed on wednesday, can it be reopened, or do I have to start another? Fourth ventricle (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The FAC rules require that you wait at least two weeks for bringing the article back to FAC. That gives you plenty of time to make sure that there are no other issues with the article that might not have been mentioned. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
What can I do until then? It's just that, past GA, I have been relying purely on the advice given in the FAC. As, at the point it was closed, the issues were clearly quite minor, or I wouldn't have been able to complete them so quickly, I have no idea what to do now. I'm also very dubious that a PR would work: this was the last one. Fourth ventricle (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I would probably have left the nomination open through the weekend if you hadn't said you'd be away for a week (and it had already been up a long time). In the interim, if I were you I would ping Brad and ask him to take a look at the article again and make sure that he didn't have any other issues. You might also ask some of the editors who have previously gotten articles on ship classes to FA to look over it. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
To stick my nose in, you asked a couple months ago for quick input on the WT:MILHIST page, and the advice still stands- take this one through A-class review before going back to FAC. First, it can be nominated today, and I remember reading somewhere that things that go through ACR first pass FAC in much higher percentages, due to the standards being so similar, while the ACR is a little lower-pressure than the featured content review processes. An ACR would give you a chance to get the WPShips and WPMilhist experts to look at things closely. (Oh, and Karen, thanks for the barnstar!). Courcelles (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how that could be of benefit now the article has already gone through one thorough review. As I see it, I have pretty much sorted out any outstanding issues on the article resulting from the last FAC. I can't see why an ACR, with lower standards than FAC, would find any additional problems that could not be very easily sorted out in the course of another FAC. I would much rather wait a fortnight and only have to go through one more review to achieve the same final result as going through two. I can see no evidence to suggest the article could not pass another FAC. Fourth ventricle (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
You are MUCH more likely to be successful at FAC after a MilHist ACR, because other reviewers may be reluctant to support if MilHist reviewers haven't been through. Otherwise, a second FAC might stagnate at FAC for weeks, while ACR is sometimes faster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
As proof of that, I checked on reference- just one- and found it lacked two pieces of bibliographic information in the citation that were right on the page cited. It was Ref 81, so you can fix it, but if I conducted the experiment again, would I find similar results? (NB: I didn't even glance at the prose.) Courcelles (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to do another review with this article. I'm the only person to have done anything significant on this article, but I'm not prepared to go any further with it. Fourth ventricle (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
CFM56
The article now has unanimous approval. The one disapproval has withdrawn citing time constraints. Sandy is busy until August. I think the article is not in perfect shape but a very well written article. The article is the oldest still on the FAC list. A star is in order? Please/thank you. It is not for me but for SidewinderX. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Just as a polite warning; bossing Karanacs (or Sandy, or Raul) around on how to assess FACs is not likely to have the effect you're hoping for. If you think an article deserves/doesn't deserve promotion, the place to say it is on the FAC, with an explanation of why you think the article meets/doesn't meet the FA criteria. (All of the criteria, not "the very most important criteria, in my opinion".) – iridescent19:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec, re Malleus) I'm trying to be gentle… Karanacs is the squishiest of the delegates; a lot better Suomi learn this particular lesson now. Care to picture what would happen if s/he issued a "ransom note" demand like this to Raul or YellowMonkey? – iridescent19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Further to Suomi: "Just go through the article with a fine tooth comb. First look at all the commas and semicolons. Then look for all the non-breaking spaces. Finally read each sentence and see if it is awkward. Would a teenager not interested in engines understand it. After that, you're done! The article should be considered as pass after that." shows a serious misunderstanding of the FA process—which is about compliance with a set of standards, not "is the article interesting?". The criteria a featured article has to meet are listed at WP:WIAFA; it has to meet all of these (none is more "important" than any other), and anything not covered by the criteria, such as "interesting", are irrelevant. A lot of Featured Articles, and even more so Featured Lists, are mind-numbingly dull (go see if U.S. Route 41 in Michigan or Westcott railway station meets your "interesting" criterion). – iridescent21:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Question about reviewer's rights
Now that I have been granted Reviewer's Powers...does that include the power to recommend articles to be placed on the semi-protected list? If so, I nominate Forward air control and Laotian Civil War, as they have both been contentious articles.
I just took new photos of the San Antonio Missions and uploaded them. :) I still need to go back again before noon and get better pictures of San Juan and Espada. I have a few more to upload, hope you like them.--Liveon001 (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
June 29 pr/ar
Karen, I think everything that I mentioned on FACs when I went through last week is all addressed now ... but I don't have time to check. It was all cleanup needed on almost-ready FACs. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I wrote to you about a different matter when I saw this. This article is a very nice read but I am concerned that it relies heavily on only 2 sources, Wiseman and von Boehm. RIPGC (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Archive request for Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)
On a more esoteric note, I think I might have stuck with it to improve it, but this and the preceding FAC, which I also abandoned, has proven to be very unpleasant. I think this article exhibits some of the finest potential Wikipedia has. I am in a confused minority it seems. Maybe I'm long, long overdue for a break. An interminably long break. I get no enjoyment out of this part of the process. I only find writing enjoyable. Perhaps this is the culmination of my belief that rewards can only be intrinsic. I'm too cognizant that I may develop a reputation for abandoning FACs, and that's the risk I suppose I take, but this is a hobby and it's not worth my time... you know the rest. At any rate, I apologize for the extra work. --Moni3 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
What's bothering you about the review Moni? It looks like the normal to-and-fro of any other review to me. If you're feeling alone with it, then I'll help where I can, but I'm no Buffy fan, so I couldn't take it over. MalleusFatuorum23:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
It's ok, Malleus. If you want to copy edit the article, copy edit it. I'm not interested in the star, not the process. I don't understand it anymore. That's ok. Bigger brains than mine can figure it out. --Moni3 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't particularly want to copy edit it, or any other article for that matter. I was just offering to support you. Oh well. MalleusFatuorum23:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Just take a few deep breaths, and let your head clear. I find the important thing about editing Wikipedia without burning out is to never lose your sense of humor about the whole thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Moni. I wasn't trying to dissuade you from working on the article with my review. I thought that most of the things I had commented on were easily resolvable. Perhaps I should be reviewing my reviewing practices. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Karen, please read my comment on the FAC before archiving this one, provided Moni doesn't tell me to shove off. Courcelles (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
ACK
Karen, I may be able to pr/ar on Tuesday the 13th and Saturday the 17th, but I have no time before then. Ack, bone tired, will only be able to periodically check my watchlist til then. Thanks for everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I seem to remember you being involved with proxy checking and blocking before. Can you take a look at 216.66.59.43? Behaviourally, I'd suspect Brexx, but geographically its on the wrong side of the globe.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I know you are the FA delegate and have nothing to do with GA. With that disclaimer, is length ever a factor in deciding on GA? Or is length not a factor, as long as the criteria are met. Also is passage just meeting a set of criteria or may some weight be given to comparing the article with GAs that passed and failed? RIPGC (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I can answer that. Length per se is not a deciding factor; what matters is whether the article covers its major topics – somewhat weaker than FA's comprehensive requirement. If the article is too short though, it'll likely prompt questions of whether the subject is really notable if it doesn't have much written about it by reliable third parties. If you have a particular article in mind RIPGC then I'll take a quick look and let you know what I think. MalleusFatuorum18:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I nominate Hicks (Essex cricketer)? The article includes all that has been and ever will be known about the man and thus easily passed "comprehensive", there's no way to improve the prose quality so it sails through 1a, and it's on a topic which is automatically notable per Wikipedia policy. Bring on the star! – iridescent19:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
At least it doesn't have the impenetrable jargon and stats you'll usually find in cricket articles. I know I'm responsible for some cricket articles, but no one's perfect. Nev1 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Admin eye requested
To Kill a Mockingbird is going to celebrate its 50th publication anniversary on July 11. GrahamColm just informed me that the BBC did a story on it this evening, which no doubt will increase traffic to the article. It may also be highlighted on the "On This Day..." main page box. It's currently had partial protection lifted for the pending changes trial. Can you keep an eye on it and replace partial protection if it gets too much vandalism? School is out, but when it was featured on the main page 2 years ago, it got over 100K hits. I would do it, but since I wrote it... you know... conflict of interest and all... Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
They did a documentary "TKAM at 50" of an hour, which will be on their website for a week, & might be worth a mention in the article. I haven't seen it yet; mind you, I've never read the book.... Johnbod (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if I'll be online enough in the next week to be able to keep a close watch, Moni, but I'll try. Johnbod, I highly encourage you to read the book. I'm a voracious reader, and this is my favorite book of all time. Karanacs (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I've had it on my watchlist for quite a long time. Good book, and a wonderful article. I'm happy to keep an eye on it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Question about Nobel Price FA
Hello! I saw you closed the Nobel Price FAC. I was away for some days and dealing with personal problems and when I returned it was closed. I can see no reason for it, there was no opposes and one support. Would you please be so kind and explain why you did this? And, can it be re-opened?
Hi Esuzu. The nomination had been active for over 3 weeks without gaining consensus for promotion, and without any recent comments. Usually by that point the nomination isn't successful, even if we leave it running longer. Sometimes an article will do better by coming back in a few weeks, when there may be other reviewers who are interested in the topic, or reviewers may have more free time to tackle a large article, or there are fewer articles competing for attention. You may want to contact the reviewers who commented and ensure that they don't have more feedback for you. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I thought it was only removed if consensus had been reached that it should not be a FA. But I think I understand, although it it hard to get reviewers. Thanks for your answer, Esuzu(talk)14:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
FT courtesy note
Hey. As I'm sure you know, Featured Topics are moving from requiring 1/3 of articles featured in a topic to 1/2 on September 1. I plan to notify those topics in danger and their creators within a couple weeks. As a result of doing this, there's a real possibility that in August, the number of FACs will jump a good deal (perhaps 10-15 extra, or maybe none, who knows). I don't want to cause a burden on FAC though, so I'm wondering if there's something I could do to make sure everything's ready for that change without causing any problems on your end; FAC is backlogged enough as is. WizardmanOperation Big Bear23:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up; we've started to see a few of these come through but I wasn't sure when the deadline was. The biggest help would probably be a reminder to the FT creators that they can only nominate one article at a time, and that if their nomination is archived they can't nominate another article for 2 weeks. That may help convince nominators to be a little more diligent before nominating. Karanacs (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
From a delegate perspective, the nomination's closure had nothing to do with Ottava's past assistance in creating the article. It was closed because there was only one support - and an outstanding oppose - after over three weeks. This has been pretty standard practice since FAC is often backlogged. Whether Ottava's past/present participation is discouraging reviewer participation is another question. FACs in which he was the nominator before his blocking were often tense, which may have discouraged future reviews. Also, Ottava did send several emails to me during the last Author's Farce FAC (note: I refused to read them during the nomination's life as my decision should be based solely on information provided on-wiki during the nomination. If the article is nominated again, I'll follow the same practice and disregard any off-wiki communications regarding the article or its nomination.) and if reviewers got anything similar to the vitriol in the one email I read after the nom closed, then I suspect reviewers may be turned off. Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks. I may re-run it soon, and if I do, I'll do my best to stifle Ottava's flaming, but you know how that goes. Props to your incredibly professional handling of his decidedly unprofessional action. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs20:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm a true believer that one should be held responsible only for one's own actions and not those of others, and I've been impressed with your handling of the situation. Be your usual helpful self (the note on Awadewit's talk page is a wonderful example of "steps to follow before renominating an article") and hopefully everything will work out. Karanacs (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm rather disappointed to hear that you got a "vitriolic" email after the FAC was closed Karanacs. It's no secret that I can be rather robust in my language, some may even say intemperate, but there's something personal about an email that there isn't about a posting on a public web site. To me at least. MalleusFatuorum20:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Once Ottava told me someone should be stabbed for writing a sentence he considered confusing. Another time he told me an editor who opposed an article he wrote that was nominated at FAC should die. I found these statements surprisingly hilarious because they were so unbelievably over the top and such an overreaction that laughing at them was like a paroxysm. If he decides to come back, I think ArbCom should place a sign on his talk page. "I'm Ottava. I will go off and post some crazyass shit and seem like I'm a psychopath." Just so people know. --Moni3 (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Not that an Ottava-bashing thread is really relevant or useful... On a slightly unrelated note, has anybody seen Awadewit recently? Her absence and lack of notice are worrying. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk // contribs20:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Awadewit is writing her dissertation, and in my imagination, drinking large vats of gin and shooting witty remarks like Dorothy Parker. I'm not bashing Ottava. I think the man is brilliant and hilarious, and obviously, batshit insane sometimes. --Moni3 (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm with you there, but where can I find these large vats of gin? Second to large quantities of cold lager, that's my favourite drink. MalleusFatuorum20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
(ecx2)Given that the editor in question is banned from participating on wiki at the moment, and I don't participate in IRC or WR, email was the only avenue open to him if he chose to communicate with me. I have no doubt that given the option he would have instead posted the same message on my talk page - or the FAC nomination itself. Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair point. Knowing Ottava, I think he probably would. Just to be clear, I think wikipedia needs more Ottavas, not fewer. MalleusFatuorum20:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, YM, go ahead and add another. Karen, I hope your son is better soon ... I thought I would be able to get through today, but had no internet all day. If I can get "real" computer installed here tonight, I may get through today or tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the good wishes...doctor says it's just something going around, but it's not really possible to be online while holding a fussy baby. I'll have free time this evening and will do a pass through. Karanacs (talk) 14:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm almost done going through the "older nominations" section and then will need to stop for the night. Whoever gets to the rest tomorrow wins! Karanacs (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Karen, I am a new editor with particular interest in the Theophostic article. I have two questions, if you could assist please. There is an editor of this article who seems very determined to keep it in the scurrilous state that it is in at present. This he does by deleting the positives and retaining the negatives, which are often quotes of poorly researched views. Is there a way of restraining him? My second question is whether it is possible to change the name of the article from Theophostic Counseling to Theophostic Prayer Ministry, which is more accurate. I intend to rewrite the article when my time permits. I would appreciate your response, as I would not like all my efforts to be fruitless. A key resource for this page is www.theophostic.com, if you want to look it up. I will watch this page to see your response. JohnSHolder (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Karen, I'm not a talk page stalker (sorry to dash your hopes) nor an admin (aw shucks) but since I did a few past edits to Theophostic counseling the other editor involved asked me to look at the current crop, reportedly fearing a point of view shift away from neutrality.
So, with no great opinion one way or the other about the article, I just looked at the edits produced by User:JohnSHolder. Interesting results, with an interestingly high level of knowledge of WP editing compared to the blunders I see done by the average newby. Also it looks like his/her edits are quite single purpose, quite polished in their presentation, quite professional. Not having access to admin tools (the upside of not being an admin) I'm going to follow along and see what develops and try not to bite the newby. Will also follow your talk page, but only to reduce conversation fragmentation. Trilobitealive (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Just because you and the Hanbook of Texas don't consider those battles to be battles (which is ridiculous) does not mean others don't. Any form of combat is battle. Every war article on wiki with a campaignbox features the naval battles if there were any. In this case there was battle between the Texas Navy and the Mexican Navy during the revolution therefore you should not be excluding their engagements from the box. It's not like the Texas Navy and the Mexican Navy were fighting a totally seperate war from that of the revolution, it was all the same conflict and can appropriately be included as so. The Campeche battle did have to go, it was not part of the revolutionary period. There should be no need for discussion.--Az81964444 (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
That was a pathetic and childish move, I guess I will just have to write the pages again some day. Merging articles is exactly what shouldn't happen on wiki. It only makes it harder to find the information readers are looking for.
(This is Wikipedia. We discuss everything) If that is your response Nikimaria than you apparently have no argument and are not willing to discuss the situation either.--Az81964444 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no dog in this fight, and I lack sufficient knowledge on the subject to argue either side. I was making a joke, nothing more, and meant no offense whatsoever. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Az8196444, Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent a consensus of scholarly literature on topics. I've read a great many books on the Texas Revolution in the last few years, and they do not include the naval skirmishes. They also don't include many of the teeny skirmishes that took place on land. Because these scholars don't consider those as separate battles of the revolution, then they shouldn't be included as part of the revolution. I also did searching to try to find information on some of the naval "battles" that you listed and could not. The Handbook of Texas is published by the Texas State Historial Association. If they don't think something is notable enough for an article in their encyclopedia - and if no other information can be found on it by that name except in passing in articles about the ship - then the topic isn't likely going to meet the inclusion criteria here either. You may personally disagree with that, but the solution is to get quality third-party sources to agree with you and write about these, not to make WP fit your notion of what is part of the revolution. Karanacs (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, Bwrs, but I don't really know a lot about Catholic teaching; I've read more about Catholic history. I don't think I'll be of any help to you on these articles. Karanacs (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It recently came to my attention that an editor is not allowed to have more than one FAC open at any time. I somehow missed this bit when I nominated .hack (video game series) and killer7, two articles I'd been working on extensively for the past few weeks. It is my understanding that the original rationale for the rule was to ensure that the nominator had enough time and energy to properly address all concerns with the article. I was wondering if you could bend the rules a bit since it's currently the summer and I'm practically a full-time editor. I would certainly accept withdrawing one nomination if it appears that the quality of my editing suffers from trying to maintain two, but could I at least get a chance? I promise it won't happen again in the future. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
We're also low on reviewers, Axem Titanium. One article at a time helps decrease the logjam on the FAC list. --Moni3 (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Legolas. Baby is fine now, but real-life has been crazy busy in general, so I may only be on sporadically. I am planning to finally go through FAC! Karanacs (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Take your time, but please don't leave. I understand how real life can be so pressurising, (ask me, I am the one getting married) --Legolas(talk2me)04:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay - I was finishing processing the promoted articles - but note that a closure should never "hurt" an article. Unfortunate that Ucucha had left that comment on a user talk page, as I did not see that. Since the bot hasn't gone through yet, I'll move this one back to the candidates pages until I process again at the end of the week. Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That's fine with me. You're FACs rarely need a lot of work. Time permitting, I'll do another round at FAC today or tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Karen, thank you so much for holding down the fort (so well, as usual) in my extended absence. Please let me know if I can cover for you some time! I hope your son is better, and all is well with you and yours! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you are back, and I hope you take some time to catch up on rest! We're healthy but crazy busy at the moment, so I'm online a lot less than I was...hopefully this will ease up in the next few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like we just take turns on TTT's noms - I reviewed the last one, bringing up many of the same issues (including sourcing concerns). Karanacs (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
sigh ... we have a clause in the FAC instructions to help avoid these recurring issues, don't we ? At what point is enough enough, and it should stop being a burden on reviewers to clean up recurring issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of bringing it up at WT:FAC? Not sure a single editor has been singled out before, and I'm not familiar with this nomination in particular, but I get the impression that volume for TTT is more important than quality. If the recurring criticism he meets at FACs aren't causing his behavior to change, what about discussing his actions at WT:FAC? Would you go so far as to suggest a moratorium on his nominations for 6 months until he can bring them to FAC with previous problems fixed? --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec with Moni, then add) TTT sticks to the letter of the law - if one of his nominations is archived, he noms the next one two weeks to the day afterwards. That's the only applicable clause in the FAC instructions. The hope had been that nominators would take the time to learn from their mistakes, but I don't see that happening. I'm going to try to start a dialogue on his talk page and see if we get anywhere; if not, I think Moni's advice of a wider discussion at WT:FAC is in order. Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I do recall one editor who brought an article to FAC eight times and had severe problems in collaborating with others and responding to criticism. Sandy and Karanacs were going to impose an FAC ban of sorts (but then he was indef blocked), so I don't think such a moratorium is without precedent. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
But unlike that editor, TTT has generated a lot of FA content-- the concern here is to see if he will begin to understand how draining his nominations are, and take responsibility for them himself, rather than using FAC as PR and waiting for others to fix his noms. So far, I see no indication of that happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Karanacs isn't online a lot (busy), and I probably can't get to FAC til tomorrow ... yes, YM, go ahead with a second nom. (Has QCQ had am inage review? If not, could you locate an image reviewer?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I would give you the link, but I'm away from home for a bit and on through my phone. You've archived the FAC before I could render a final suggestion and my support for promotion. (I was going to suggest that a few subheadings be added to the History section but otherwise I was supporting per my previous comments.) I don't know how much of a difference that makes. I leave judgement to you. Imzadi1979→01:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
It's been up over three weeks and hadn't quite reached promotion consensus. I might have left it up if there had been another support, but, well, too late now. I hope you'll return to the article when it is renominated. Karanacs (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey. I thought it'd be better to ask you, as you're the one who archived it: it was archived for lack of feedback, am I correct? There was some feedback on the length, but I personally saw that as helpful guidance than a nomination-breaking concern. Other than that, I only got one traditional !vote (an oppose over an image no longer on the article), and I'd personally archive a nomination with that level of feedback. I intend to nominate it for FAC again soon, but I'd much rather double check before running afoul of FAC's rules :) Sceptre(talk)02:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sceptre, although the nomination didn't have many !votes, it did have quite a bit of feedback on the prose. I'd give it two weeks and polish that up a little more, and then you shouldn't have any trouble next time around. Karanacs (talk) 13:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, I did take the article to the GOCE for a copyedit. Other than very minor changes, I don't think there's that much to improve the prose. That said, I'll have a look at the article to see where I could streamline it, and nominate it on the other end of my exams. Sceptre(talk)17:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Don Valley Parkway FAC
Hey Karanics, I noticed you closed the DVP FAC, most likely since it was moving pretty slow, as not promoted.
Seeing as it had two supports, one in the works, and no opposes, would it be fine for me to open a new nomination (I'll contact the previous reviewers as well, hopefully it'll go much faster)? Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢16:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
How are things going there? I don't want to get crossways, since you already have a shortlist to promote, but would you prefer that I go through FAC today? Alternately, you could post your shortlist, and The Bomb and I can check them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Ack, this has just been the week from busy hell (should not have surprised me, it's been that kind of month). Baby is all better now, but of course it is Friday and just about time for weekend promotions. Do you want me to run through quickly today and take care of the whole week/weekend? Karanacs (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I've been essentially working a double shift all week - all day taking care of sick baby (who believes computers were invented for him to pound on) and all evening/half the night trying to meet unreasonable deadlines for my actual paycheck-producing job. Today is a much better day - baby is healthy again, deadlines have been met (I rock!), and tomorrow is Saturday so I get to sleep :) Karanacs (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Gimmetrow/Gimmetoo
I find this all very confusing myself. My first reaction was the same as yours, and still kind of is: if Gimmetoo is a Gimmetrow impersonator, he is doing an extremely good job. It seems easier to believe that they are the same person than it is to believe some vandal could pull off such a skilled impersonation. Note the conversation between us on Gimmetoo's talk page: while I blocked him, it was over a dispute where I took for granted that the editor I had blocked was indeed Gimmetrow. It's Gimmetrow's silence when prodded that confuses me: there's nothing obvious that prevents him from logging in and replying. Even if he can't log in for some reason, he would be able to reply to my e-mail. There's something very strange going on.—Kww(talk) 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If he's traveling, it's possible he isn't checking his regular email or logging in regularly as gimmetrow...or, if he's like me, email is checked only rarely, even when at home. I will be watching closely to see what comes out of this. Karanacs (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
True, but he responded as Gimmetoo within minutes of being blocked, and his talk page and block log clearly tell him to log in as Gimmetrow to clear things up. It even gives Gimmetrow permission to unblock Gimmetoo (which I think is a bit dicey, myself). I hope it all works out well in the end: Gimmetrow is one of the few admins that helped me take care of the Disney Channel area, and I wish he would come back in an admin capacity.—Kww(talk) 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Does the message here sound like Gimmetrow? I have only ever seen Gimmetrow on a couple of pages, but it doesn't really sound like it to me. NW(Talk)00:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful if admins opining on the Gimme issue would engage in a reasoned debate of the policy points he raises, rather than ignoring them. Added: I was late to catch up, but see that Risker handled it well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The Bomb
Karen, three things:
I haven't started RFA blurb because my prose sucks-- I'd rather follow you.
RFAs are being stalled right now because of the absence of edit counter tools, so waiting for that to blow over or get resolved may help; DaBomb is in no hurry.
I'm going to be traveling from 20 to 30 August, and prefer to keep close tabs on RFAs I nom.
According to the editcounter site, the tool will be back online on August 17. Starting August 21 or so I also will be busier than I have been in the past month and a half, though I should still have some time for Wiki. At this point, I don't know what my schedule will look like beyond the Labor Day weekend. From what I've seen of RfAs, the first few days are quite critical (to answer questions and such), so from that point of view this coming week is ideal for me to start it. Of course, it's important that you two have time to set aside for it, so if this week doesn't work out, that's fine too. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep, but takes quite a while to load when I ask it to analyze all of my edits (I assume that's what the RfA folk want). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:Popups (which doesn't tell me much) at this moment you (Dabomb87) have "51354 edits since: 2007-06-26". Neat little thing they have added. Gives you an edit count, though not much more than that. Also, tells you who is what, like admin (or sysop according to popups), reviewer, etc. Hope that kinda helps. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that's good enough for most editors (including me). The only thing X!'s tool shows that most of the others do not is the proportion of edits made in each namespace, which can be determined quite easily using River's tool (or WikiChecker). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I asked for a clarification on an FAC-related issue here. That talk page is not frequented much by users, so I'm sending out some messages in the hope that one of you can shed some light on this. Prime Blue (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
This here really is a pressing issue given the length of the discussion – and the virtual inability to continue without having this issue clarified. Those proposed solutions would directly affect FAC candidates if they are impossible to use, so you FAC delegates are propably the only ones who can answer this. Please help. Prime Blue (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Karen, I just wanted to express my deep gratitude for your support and encouragement. I'm deeply appreciative of the fact that you managed to take the time to start and co-nominate an RfA for me despite the difficult times you're going through. I'm hoping that everything turns out well. Warm regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Personal events progressed as expected, which is a blessing and a sorrow. Thank you so much, Sandy, for taking care of FAC for me the last two weeks - I was in no frame of mind to think about it. My goal this week is to get back to a normal routine, and that includes FAC and a bit of wiki-time. I'll go through FAC tomorrow and make sure to take close looks at both of these nominations. And Dabomb, thank you and congratulations and I'm sorry, all wrapped up into a big hug. Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just happened along here and my attention was caught by the title of this thread. I hope it is/was nothing serious and wish you all the best. Yours, Verbalchat20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Karen. How many supports does an Featured Article need? I've got five here, but my other successful one had 7. Shall I ask some more people to review? Kind regards, Tom (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You have excellent timing - I just opened the Featured Log page to start promoting for today. The Judd School is on the promotion list for this week. The number of supports needed varies based on whether there are opposes or comments, whether there are any interesting issues brought up (such as the sourcing that originally was mentioned here), and whether all the supports came in between the times when Sandy and I promote. The promotion schedule has been a little hokey in the last few weeks due to my lack of wikipedia time and Sandy's travel, but hopefully we'll get back on track. Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
(ec with Karanacs) There is no set number; the strength of the arguments, issues reviewed, outstanding issues to be resolved, and many other factors come in to play. There seems to be some misunderstanding because a minimum amount of support is needed to determine consensus, but FACs have been archived with dozens of supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah ok gotcha. I wrongly assumed it was just a matter of getting a certain number of supports. Thanks for clarifying! Tom (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Karanacs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
