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.
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 (Le Goff's a bit outdated and the work you're citing is somewhat of a cross between a popular history and a low level textbook.)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 CitiesWorld Catwhich is a good recent comprehensive history of the High Middle Ages, which does have mentions of women's status and the church. Ealdgyth - Talk15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
Message
Hi Karanacs, I was thrilled to see your name pop up on my watchlist recently. Not so thrilled to see the "I'm mostly gone" message, but I understand completely. Just wanted to leave you a message to say that you're missed - along with the long list of other editors who have vanished in the past year. Very much missed. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Truthkeeper. You are one of the pieces of Wikipedia I have missed :) I need to figure out a way to write articles without stepping back into some of the drama that demoralized me in the first place. Karanacs (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
It's very hard to do. I went through my mess of archives this afternoon - I spent much of the last year quite upset and angry - and not until I read some of it, did I realize that the demoralization was endless and very embarrassingly public. I like it here as a hobby and that's what keeps bringing me back, but I take day by day. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I've spent most of my life angry, which I think every right-thinking person should be. Karanacs, I look back fondly on the work we did with Moni3 on the Donner Party, and I very much hope you can find a way back that fits in with what you want to do here. MalleusFatuorum23:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Mal, Donner Party and Ima Hogg are two of my favorite WP times - I loved the collegial collaboration. Too bad Truth and I couldn't find that on Catholic Church - I should never have stepped into that article. I have a drama/stress limit, and if I reach it my brain collapses in on itself (very messy, too much cleanup) and I have giant tantrums (which just gives my kids ideas). So much IRL drama over the past two years, and WP ended up being the easiest stressor to cut. Life is back on a mostly even keel, and I'm starting to work on another article again. Hopefully I will be around a little more often :) Karanacs (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Michael Pollack
Even though the discussion closed as a "delete" I talked with the closing administrator, and he said that it would be fine to write a new version of the article and propose it to Articles for Creation or for DRV. In any case I started Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Pollack#Michael_Pollack_.28new_version.29 and attached a note. I found additional sources that state that he was active in three states. And as for your latest reply at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Pollack I would like to answer your inquiries. (I am answering them here because the discussion at AFD was closed - if you want to move this to another venue, it's fine)
1. "We have different definitions of extensive and trivial." - I was referring to Wikipedia's definition of "trivial" and unless one explicitly states "I am using a different definition" it becomes confusing if you use your own definition. Wikipedia's definition of a "trivial" mention is a source which says very little to nothing about a subject. If an article or book discusses a subject in a significant manner (maybe at least paragraph or two) then it becomes "non-trivial" no matter what the article actually says about the subject. WP:N says '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.' (underline added by me) Think about how the examples at Wikipedia:N#cite_note-1 are different - the book says a lot about the subject, while an article that mentions the subject in passing says little and is therefore trivial.
WP:N does state that "directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories" do not prove notability - But as for the last one I don't think an article in a major metropolitan newspaper would be a "minor" news story. In Pollack's case he has articles from the Houston Chronicle, the Phoenix Business Journal, and The Arizona Republic discussing him.
2. "flowing hair?" - Not trivial - it's part of his flamboyant persona that has been mentioned in newspapers both in Houston and Phoenix. In particular in Houston he had an image which he used to sell apartment complexes, and the "flowing hair" was a part of that image. That image was a part of his celebrity.
3. "drummer in a local rock band?" - Various biography articles have "personal life" sections that document family, hobbies, etc. His primary job is selling real estate and an article about him would focus on that, but articles on his personal hobbies do add to the article.
4. "He owns apartments and had one tv commercial that people thought was funny." - That understates his image and his persona in Houston. This Houston Chronicle states explicitly "He became a local celebrity, hosting a television talk show, emceeing beauty pageants and making the rounds of Houston's night clubs." - That's not merely "people thought was funny" and looking through these sources, it turns out he starred in multiple commercials in the Houston area, not just one. Today in Greater Phoenix his company owns multiple real estate developments throughout the Phoenix region. And also the sources revealed he was active in California. That's activity in three states with extensive reliable sources about his activities in two of them.
There are lots of articles in the Houston Chronicle and other papers that are considered minor stories. By the WP definition, the articles are trivial coverage - a few sentences, at most, about the man - most of the text is about the commercial. Most of what was in the original article was done not in a newsy way, but in superficial coverage - minor, trivial, whatever. Karanacs (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
What I should have done was try to re-write the article as soon as possible; based on a re-write one would be able to tell how much of each article discussed the subject. Anyway, in two of the articles (Sheridan article, which was about Pollack's proposed plans in Houston in the late 1980s, and the Kaplan article, which discussed his subsequent career in Arizona and recapped how he became well known in Houston) Pollack the person was clearly the primary subject, and so those two articles discuss him in depth. One could argue that, say, the Barlow article would be "trivial" is the primary subject of the article (it might help to have multiple persons check it and see what they think). WhisperToMe (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi, great to see you back, however briefly! Would you be able to update the status of your oppose here? Given the relatively few reviews this has had, it will make it easier to decide whether we keep it open or not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Thoughts on Sowell
You wrote, "I fundamentally disagree that anyone who fought in the Texas Revolution is notable in terms of getting a Wikipedia article." You are correct. I am proud of my ancestors, but they are mostly notable to my family and have no Wiki articles (and should not). Some of those persons are in the Handbook, but that site is sluggish. I submit corrections and source documentation to the Handbook to support necessary changes (not about my ancestors-- I do not specialize in genealogy) and doubt any were acted upon.
However, and just as one example: Because of my being a direct descendent of two Rangers involved, I researched many items most find unimportant. I probably have more detail and insight as to the movements of General Gaona's battalion than anyone-- because three of my family road as rear guard with Gaona pursuing. Few history books mention the movements of that northern prong, but if one was looking for camp sites for archeological purposes, or trying to understand why Gaona was "Lost in the desert" I would be the guy. I have not published (print) anything on this topic (and I may not) but I can reconstruct, with sources, much that has not been in print.
My point is, because the war archives burned, we are reconstructing the history, and it may take time to recognize what, that IS important, has been regained. Specifically regarding Andrew Jackson Sowell, I am most impressed by the fact that he is one of the relatively rare native-English-speaking persons who settled beyond the Colorado. From that, I am intrigued.
No need to respond. I just wanted to share a point of view that had me, ever-so-slightly, seeking to spare the article. --cregil(talk)00:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you that there is much scholars still have to discover about what was truly important in the Texas Revolution. Until they have written more on these "new" discoveries, though, I think that information doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Our job is to summarize what the scholarly sources say, not what the primary sources say. I do look forward to reading the newer scholarly books, though - I've been fascinated with how much has come out in the last few years on the Alamo that has changed how people have viewed parts of the battle. Karanacs (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Seasons greetings...
Happy Holidays
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk17:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!
Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.
Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; we miss you a lot in here, but trust that you are happy and settled! Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!
What a nice illustration of why I am so frustrated with Wikipedia....yet another sock of yet another proven disruptive user ... and yet again those who are trying to defend content get blocked or at least lack the support to get rid of the problem so that we can just get on with the damn job of writing and maintaining good content. Karanacs (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for tagging this for notability back in Jan 2008. The tag's still there. You may want to consider taking it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Irish Thoroughbred, the debut novel by Nora Roberts(pictured), was first published in January 1981 as a category romance. Like other category romances, it was less than 200 pages and was intended to be on sale for only one month. It proved so popular that it was repackaged as a stand-alone romance and reprinted multiple times. Roberts drew on her Irish heritage to create an Irish heroine, Adelia "Dee" Cunnane. In the novel, Dee moves to the United States, where her sick uncle arranges for her to marry his employer, wealthy American horsebreeder Travis Grant. Although the early part of their relationship is marked by frequent arguments, by the end of the story Travis and Dee reconcile. According to one critic, the couple's transformation from adversaries to a loving married couple is one of many formulaic elements in the book. Although the protagonists adhered to many stereotypes common to 1980s romance novels, Roberts's heroine is more independent and feisty than most others of the time. Roberts wrote two sequels, Irish Rebel and Irish Rose. (Full article...)
Hello, Karanacs. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I see that you don't specialize in Catherine Parr, but took out a huge chunk of her page. I understand that it was perhaps too much to put in the history of her family however this has been an ongoing issue with the English queens of King Henry VIII. If you would like Parr or any of the others to not be compared to Boleyn, perhaps all of that should be taken out of her page as well, especially the fact that she was of better birth. That is one authors opinion (Ives who incorrectly states that she was the granddaughter of a Duke; he didn't become Duke until 1514, after her birth) and there are several that dispute Boleyn's better birth claim saying Parr's family had the better lineage and presence at court, etc. (Starkey and Strickland). It would be nice to not see any comparison on any page actually (of the English queens). -- Lady Meg (talk) 19:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Main Page appearance: Georgette Heyer
This is a note to let the main editors of Georgette Heyer know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 29, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk·contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 29, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:
Georgette Heyer (1902–74) was a British historical romance and detective fiction novelist. Her writing career began in 1921, when she turned a story for her younger brother into the novel The Black Moth. After These Old Shades became popular despite its release during the General Strike, Heyer determined that publicity was not necessary for good sales and refused to give interviews thereafter. She essentially established the historical romance genre and its subgenre Regency romance. To ensure accuracy, Heyer kept detailed notes on all aspects of Regency life. While some critics thought the novels were too detailed, others considered the detail to be her greatest asset. Beginning in 1932, Heyer released one romance novel and one thriller each year. Her husband often provided basic plot outlines, leaving Heyer to develop character relationships and dialogue. Although many critics describe Heyer's detective novels as unoriginal, others praise them for their wit and plots. Her success was sometimes clouded by problems with tax inspectors and alleged plagiarists. Heyer continued writing until her death; her last book, My Lord John, was published posthumously. (Full article...)
And Ole! to you for responding. Looks like seeing your post on that project page brought out the "big dogs" to help. — Maile (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Ealdgyth! Congratulations to you on getting Middle Ages to FA - I just saw that you finished that project. I don't know much about Monroe Edwards. That sounds like an interesting article to write. Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I think between Middle Ages, Norman Conquest of England and Battle of Hastings last year, I burned myself out and it's taken most of this year to get some energy for research back. And RL hasn't helped much ... crazy busy in RL. We were down in your neck of the woods for Texas Ren Faire on opening weekend ... just didn't get into Houston at all. Hoping to go next year with a bit more time - we might be able to meet! If you run across anything on Monroe Edwards, let me know. I ran across him because of my work on George Wilkes, who wrote a "sensationalized" biography of Edwards right after the forgery trial. Ealdgyth - Talk16:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
We went to the Renaissance festival the weekend after that (we go one or two weekends every year)! Definitely let me know if you come back to the area - I'll happily drive a few hours to get to finally meet you in person. Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
So do we :) Hubby and I are Irish peasants, one child was Robin Hood, one was a witch, and one was a pirate. I realllly want the full regalia of a lady, but I've had a hard time parting with the money. Karanacs (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Sew it. Cheaper. And ... well, I wouldn't camp with children... but it was very fun and ... "adult" (grins). I go pirate wench because it's no fun if I don't get to wear a sword... hubby usually wears one of his kilts. Ealdgyth - Talk17:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Texian Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Home guard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. - Ealdgyth - Talk15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you help?
I did something I don't know how to correct. I moved Texas Santa Fe Expedition to Texan Santa Fe Expedition. Only afterwards did I realize I had actually moved it over an existing same-name redirect page. I don't know how to fix this one. — Maile (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I can't figure out how to see what was there before you moved it. It's not in the normal Deleted revisions (I either don't have access or don't remember how to look). If you want to restore it the way it was, it'll take someone else. If it was just a redirect, though, is it a big deal? Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not a big deal to me, if it's not hurting anything. I think it was just a redirect before I made the move, based on what I see linked to it. — Maile (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Texas Revolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Camino Real. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Luciano Pacheco at the Alamo edit
To your question if Jose "Luciano" Pacheco was ever mentioned by researchers, the answer is yes. He was mentioned on page 90 in the book "Alamo Traces and new evidence" by Thomas Ricks Lindley. I am an author researching the Tejano families, their relationships prior to the Texas revolution. The Pacheco family which also went by the name Pacheco, Granado y Pacheco and Granado. They were the descendants of one of the original Canary Islander families of San Antonio by way of Maria Robaina de Bethencourt and were thus Granados. Luciano's father was a former council member of the Cabildo of San Antonio in the 1810s. He and Erasmo Seguin were well acquainted with each other as were their families.
Yes, the information is based upon independent research, however all references have been included. 1) The birth certificate of Jose Sebastian de Jesus Pacheco along with the record number of the certificate in the baptismal registry which lists his parents, the records are held in the Nettie Benson center at the University of Texas (which was cited) as well as the Catholic Archives of Texas. 2) Two census records, the first taken a few months after his birth with his family where he is recorded with the name "Luciano" which was a nick name, he continued to use this name the remainder of his life in all public records. The book was, published by the Institute of Texan Cultures is cited. 3) Republic Pension records which are available online from the Texas Archives and Library commission website, which included an affidavit from Juan Seguin stating Luciano's participation and resulting role as a messenger and also include an order from the Wilson county judge acknowledging and granting the granting of the pension as a veteran of the revolution.
I also have a photographic copy of the letter written in 1890 by Juan Seguin, which states the sons of the Pacheco widow (of which his mother was) who was well known to Juan Seguin. In the letter he states that she sent her sons to the Alamo to bring his dinner during the early part of the siege of the Alamo (being family friends) and their actions as messengers during the siege. Luciano is mentioned as his christian name "Sebastian" although it was transcribed as "Estaban" by the stenographer. This letter was written 3 months before the death of Seguin, who was 90yrs old. It is know that in his final days that Seguin did make errors with names, and there is more than one example of this with some of the American defenders as well. The family of Luciano were the only Pachecos at the time in San Antonio. Additionally, Jim Bowie, with whom Seguin and Luciano entered the Alamo, was married to a cousin of the Pachecos, Ursula Veramendi through Ursula's grandmother who was also a Granado.
Luciano's brother Jose Wenseslado's widow likewise received an republic pension posthumously, which can also be found in the Texas Archives. His affidavit is signed by capt. Antonio Menchaca, the original request for the pension for Wenseslado does mention the Alamo as well, showing as well as Wenseslado likewise was probably one of the "Pacheco sons" that were mentioned in the 1890 letter of Seguin.
This evidence has been shown to the groups Daughters of the Republic of Texas as well as the Sons of the Republic of Texas and both groups for the first time this year acknowledged the participation of the both brothers in the battle for independence in light of this evidence.
One branch of the family, in interviews, has family lore of another brother Jose Leonicio Pacheco as an Alamo rider, but no documented evidence has yet to be found. The family were not literate and unfamiliar with the English language as stated by Seguin so no written record from the family is likely ever to be found, thus without concrete proof, Jose Leonicio is likely to never be included.
In the end, the record of Luciano's participation at the Alamo is irrefutable and solid citation was provided. Perhaps Wenseslado will at some point be added, but Luciano's evidence was much more solid with good citation available.
Other Tejanos and their relationships
The relationships I have thus far established are the Pacheco family and the Seguin family. The Curviers (changed from Curbelo after the failed Gutierrez-McGee rebellion) and the Villanueva family. In the case of Villanueva and the Pachecos, the youngest of the Pachecos, Luciano was dispatched with Villanueva at the order of col. Travis and Seguin in the early part of the siege (as per Seguin's affidavit and republic pension records). Other Pacheco brothers are known to have joined Seguin at Molino Blanco with the other Tejano participants and participated at the battle of Concepcion and the siege of Bexar (as per republic pension records). Luciano's brother Wenseslado, married the step daughter of Candelario Villanueva, Francisca Flores. The Curiers were most likely playmates of the Pachecos as children and Mathias Curvier was a lifelong friend of Luciano and the Mexican census records indicate that they were all but neighbors and had children of similar ages.
Luciano is also a witness to others' republic pension claims, again documentation is in the state archives. Luciano is a very interesting historical character as he was not only an Alamo veteran (at 17yrs old), but was also a Civil War veteran and an early Texas ranger, under the command of capt. Antonio Menchaca. Luciano's older brother Francisco was killed in 1837 during the conflict (roster of the Mounted Men of the municipality of Bexar, record is in the state archives only, not online). The only one not found in the record is of the brother Antonio Pacheco, although he is very likely to have participated along with the other four brothers. I am doing further research on him and Jose Leonicio Pacheco to prove their cases. It is very probable the Pacheco brothers were at least a few of the members of Seguin's company that entered the Alamo with him. The evidence suggests that they all seem to have been used as couriers during the battle, which is backed up by family lore. Luciano was present when hostilities began, as per Seguin's affidavit.
Much of the relationships between these families I am finding via the sacramental registries of San Fernando church. Often times they appear as godparents in one another's sacraments throughout the 1800s.
Your point is taken about publishing the information with a historical journal, and I will make efforts to do that shortly.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarbase (talk • contribs)
Howdy!
I decided to lurk on your page. I haven't been that active, but it is good that you are still doing some editing. I hope you are doing well. Gosh it is 2015, and I was first an editor in 2007. Man does time fly. . . Oldag07 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm only part shithead ;) thank you so much I was started to go through to research but I saw you did it and did a splendidly neutral job as well. You have my thanks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
No thanks necessary; I thought it best to have someone relatively neutral do the research, and I was curious myself at the backstory. I've only been un-retired for a bit and I'm out of the loop. Karanacs (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
also
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
[2] initiated 24 January 2015 by Lightbreather, resulting in a 48 hour block of Eric Corbett
Did so. I hope they pay attention, since these focus on Eric Corbett, as do Lightbreather's comments at Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling. EChastain (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I saw you commented on the City of Angels FAC, and I wondered if I could get you to expand on one of your comments. I opposed on the first FAC, and haven't commented yet on this one. I'm considering commenting but wanted to understand your oppose first. The comment I'm interested in is the one about having too many quotes from Leto. Earthh's reply was that the quotes are appropriate given Leto's role, and aren't presented as neutral sources, only as his opinions. Is it that you think there are just too many of them for balance in the article?
I think there are too many to strike the proper balance. We definitely need to hear Leto's point of view (and the quotes are satisfactorily marked as being Leto's opinion, etc), but it seems that is presented without enough third party, more neutral interpretations. I suspect there just aren't enough third party, neutral interpretations to put in the article, and because of that I wasn't sure how to fix the balance. Pop culture articles are challenging. Karanacs (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Weeks With Lady X until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Deunanknute (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
And this, ladies and gentlemen who still stalk my talk page, is an example of the gender gap at AFD. An article on a romance novel nominated for deletion - despite the book being nominated for 2 awards from the only magazine that focuses on romance novels, despite reviews by Romantic Times, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus, USAToday, and the most well-respected website focusing on romance novels. Karanacs (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
This book was nominated for deletion only because the sources appeared to be paid. The reason I looked at the article in the first place was because it was a new page, and many new articles on books are written for promotional reasons or otherwise fail notability guidelines. I have put more than a few book and book related articles up for AfD, and neither the author's nor the audience's gender is a criteria I use to decide how much to research the topic or whether or not to AfD it. Deunanknute (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Deunanknute, I'm so sorry if it read that I was accusing you of nominating it solely on the basis of gender the author or audience - that wasn't my intent (and I never thought it was yours!). The bigger problem is that the vast majority of men (95%+) don't have any knowledge whatsoever of typically female topics like romance novels, so it can be quite difficult to evaluate whether an article on that subject is notable or not. I was actually surprised that there wasn't already an article on this book, because it made a huge splash last year in the romance realm. But new page patrollers like yourself, who aren't familiar with this category of knowledge, are more quick to nominate something like this for deletion because it's so outside your realm. Karanacs (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't keep much of an eye of AfD, but there was this too. Surprised me! Welcome back btw! It's nice seeing your name on my watch again. (um … (Truthkeeper88)) Victoria (tk) 02:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I just want to be clear: You found nothing wrong w/ monatanbw calling me a "Slovenian nationalist," yet you warned me to "comment on content, not on contributors." Well, I guess it's nice to have friends in high places. --LJU2ORD (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks ;) Those types of discussions make me sad, and, it appears they make all the editors involved angry. There has to be a better way, but I haven't figured one out. Karanacs (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
User:2601:C:6380:16F:D5BD:CA17:DD26:4135
Hello, Karanacs. I just wanted to let you know that I unblocked the above IP address after I blocked the /64 range it is part of. Comcast assigns a /64 IPv6 block to each subscriber, so blocking just one of them is usually ineffective. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Getting Rid of Bradley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WOSU. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
So as not to post on her page I wanted to give you a suggestion [[7]] is a pretty weak personal attack honestly. If you have other concerns you can always refer her back to User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch/Pledge, " I will abide by the WP:CIVILITY policy at the strictest level; I will not speak negatively about non-members (WP editors who are not members of the group) by name, initials, or other identifying characteristics." That's where the whole story breaks down as to the motives. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Considering Lightbreather just yesterday scolded Montanabw for referring to LB as Voldemort, I have no doubt she considered her own comments to fall within the realm of a personal attack. I saw that as enough hypocrisy to say something, though IMO it isn't block-worthy. Karanacs (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello to the members of WikiProject Women writers! Victuallers and I have developed a proposal for a talk to be presented at Wikimania 2015. It's titled, How to pick up more women -- as in more women editors and more women's biographies. The proposal review process has begun and there's no guarantee that this proposal will be accepted. That's where you come in. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. Ultimately, we hope you add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal which signifies you're interested in the talk (it does not signify you'll be attending the event). Thank you! Rosiestep (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
On the Donner Party talk page you considered filing an ANI on RO if her behavior continues. I want you to know that I will support your proposal. I have given RO the benefit of the doubt in the past, and I have actively supported her against her detractors. The SPI was poorly presented and hastily put together; there was no way I could support it given the weak case against her, and doing so could have had repercussions on those who are falsely accused. However, since that time, her behavior has degenerated further. I think we are now at the WP:ROPE stage and she needs to be blocked or banned. She was given many chances and she blew it. When she began attacking SV and Victoria a week ago, I gave her a stern warning to stop and to avoid this kind of pointy response, going after their articles, etc. She ignored that warning and has now gone after Eric and John. Today, she sent me a "thanks" for asking another admin to block her, so we clearly have a problem that needs to be solved. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I am extremely disappointed in today's behavior from this editor, but it appears the bulk of the disruption has stopped on Donner Party, which was my goal. Has it moved to someone else's article? Because if so, I'm willing to file one for a pattern of behavior. Karanacs (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
She has reverted your message on her page. Personally I think it needs to stay there for a little while anyway, to remind her and others what the problem is. There seems to be little awareness of the massive disruption she caused recently, posting all over the place, arguing on other editors' talk pages, noticeboards and article talk pages, aside from pointy editing FA articles. Would it be ok if I reverted it? Or is that something I shouldn't do? Strangely, seeing some comments directed at your block of Lightbreather, a result of the GGTF arbcom may be that female editors who disagree with GGTF tactics and viewpoint could get sanctioned for expressing their disagreement with it. EChastain (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I saw her reverts; it is her choice whether or not to leave comments on her page and none of us (whether logged in or not) should be reverting that. If nothing else, now I have the diff that it was there and she is well aware that the tactics previously used are unacceptable. Karanacs (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
EChastain, I'm not interested in following rationalobserver's articles. As I mentioned on her talk page before, I would prefer not to escalate disagreements by giving the appearance of a tit-for-tat. If you think there are issues (I don't even know what the GA cup is), then feel free to take those up at WP:GAN or the appropriate noticeboard. Karanacs (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry! I didn't mean it as an issue to bring up but just an ironic comment. The GA cup is a contest just closed and the winner awarded. Someone (I thought it was you) said that WikiCup contests are destructive because reviewers are racking up points and poor GA reviews result. I find the Commons such a relief from this place. EChastain (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Saw the FA nomination. Thanks for putting my name on it. Your doing 99% of the research and work is what makes the article work. But I'm so glad you're back in the mix now. For many years I've felt like a lone candle in the wind. Of course, thanks to your explanatation on the FAC template, I now have a mental image of Seth Myers on the scene in Tejas and doing a running commentary as the action unfolds. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Maile, you deserve the co-nom - it took both of us to get it to this point, and I thought it quite fitting to delay the nom until Independence Day. Although when I was writing the article, it wasn't Myers but Stephen Colbert's voice in my head describing the events. I had to work really hard to keep the snark from coming through my keyboard. Anyway, I think Battle of San Patricio is next on my FA-nom list, if you want to take a look when you have a chance. Karanacs (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll wander over there and have a look. I enjoy working with you. So, in the Colbert/Myers movie of the revolution, I see Johnny Depp in a starring role - Santa Anna or Sam Houston, pick your choice. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there anyone still watching my talk page with JSTOR access? I would like to see this article: from the Hispanic American Historical Review. Full cite: Mecham, J. Lloyd (August 1958). "Obituary Notes: Carlos Eduardo Castañeda, 1896-1958". The Hispanic American Historical Review. 38 (3): 383–388.
Thanks!! Karanacs (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Karanacs, I noticed this conversation, and wondered if you'd seen this, which is probably the best thing to happen to Wikipedia while you've been inactive. JSTOR is one of the partnerships. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Mike, I actually found that after I posted this message (I noticed so many of you were getting newsletters from this new-to-me "Library") and I did a major happy dance. It looks like JSTOR has a waiting list, but I've requested access to a few others. I'm so impressed with these companies and those who negotiated the increased access. Really makes what we do seem a little more worthwhile. Karanacs (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carlos Castañeda (historian), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Camargo, Mexico. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Karanacs, I just noticed that you never responded to the latest post in your nomination, urging you to reconsider your decision to withdraw your nomination of the two Julia Quinn novels. It would be a shame for them not to run—Quinn's a fun author and probably not all that well known to most Wikipedians, so an appearance on the main page might lead to more people discovering her—so I thought I'd quickly mention what's involved in a QPQ (quid pro quo) review. Since you work in the FAC space, it should be a walk in the park for you to do two DYK reviews (one for each article nominated in the hook), and what's being looked for in a review is neatly summarized above the edit screen for your nomination template.
There are also some useful tools. WP:DYKcheck not only checks for newness, length, and expansion, but also looks to see whether the article has appeared on the main page before in some other manner that could render it ineligible for DYK. And I'm sure you're used to doing copyvio/close paraphrasing/neutrality checks at FAC. The hook facts need to be sourced in the relevant article(s), and no later than the end of the sentence that a fact appears in.
If you truly wish to withdraw it, then we'll naturally honor your wishes. I'm just hoping that the quid pro quo requirement, now a few years old, won't discourage you from contributing to DYK, both now and in the future. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I appreciate your reaching out, but if the QPQ had been listed explicitly in the nomination rules, I wouldn't have made the nomination in the first place (it's been years since I was last active on WP, and I didn't see any signs that the rules had changed). Although it's likely selfish of me, I do enough reviews in other areas of the encyclopedia that I don't want to add another type. I can definitely understand why the rule was added, and it's not a problem for me to stay away from DYK for now. I apologize for wasting your time and that of the reviewer who looked at my nomination. Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Karanacs. I noticed that you're back at FAC again, which is good. I've always enjoyed your articles (especially Ima Hogg), and I also returned recently after a long absence. I'm familiar with the DYK rules, so if you want me to do a couple reviews for you, just let me know.-RHM22 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but just let me know if you change your mind. I sometimes review DYK nominations when I have nothing to do, between articles.-RHM22 (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Karanacs, just to let you know that I donated a couple of aging QPQs that I'd never used, and the nomination has since been approved and promoted. Assuming nothing else changes, it will be on the main page for 12 hours beginning at 00:00 UTC on March 15. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Mexican Frontier, 1821-1846: The American Southwest Under Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuevo Mexico. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bet Me, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glamour. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
no need to remove pages linking to non existing catagory, plans might be made to reuse it, until final decision not made do not remove pages withthis catagory tag.
Then why are there so many awards, that are just like that, they are not delted? Also, there is some kind of code error on the server my account is on, I do sign it, and the bot comes along and signs it again, I tried going out of the list, but then the the links to my page and talkpage do not come up. My account's server is just messed up. Doorknob747 21:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doorknob747 (talk • contribs)
FA Texas Revolution is waiting for your comments
On vacation? Everything OK? FA TR has been waiting for response from you since March 24. I believe your original target date for FA was end of March. — Maile (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Life got nuts for a little bit, and I forgot to revisit the FA. I'll go look at those comments. Karanacs (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The preview was done well, if a little graphic. Wasn't this going to be about the Texas Rangers at some point? The preview is a lot of people reading the Travis letter from the Alamo, interspersed quick scenes related to the Alamo. And at least one phoney (icky) Texas accent on a woman probably supposed to be Emily West. — Maile (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I can't watch it here (it keeps telling me it isn't available) - will have to try out a different browser on another computer later. I have my fingers crossed we'll get the article promoted within the week. Soooo close. I've got Battle of San Patricio queued up for next. I think it's ready. Karanacs (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, the preview is really, really graphic with blood and gore, and bodies hanging upside down from trees - the gunk you'd see in war. It has the key players in it, as far as I can make out who they are supposed to be. Makes me want to watch it just to see how they do. As you know, I'm willing to help out on any of it. Just not the main writing, because I don't have access to the resources to do it. And you're a much better writer. — Maile (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to you and Maile66 on bringing Texas Revolution to featured level. So many FAs are about highly specialized topics; it's great to see a more general article make it to FA. I look forward to seeing it on the front page. And of course it's nice to see you back actively editing; I hope to see you at FAC again too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated TFA/requests/Texas Revolution for May 25, Memorial Day. Please feel free to edit, change the date, whatever you deem necessary. The San Jacinto monument image was the only thing that looked good at that size, except for the images of either Houston or Santa Anna. — Maile (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Karanacs, also pinging admins @Cassianto: and @Dennis Brown:, and my fellow "kicked off the talk page" editors @Sagaciousphil:, @Victoriaearle:, and @Giano: just to keep the discussion confined to one thread (sorry to hijack yours, but had to pick someone!) Rationalobserver has banned the four of us from posting on her talk page and reverts/removes anything we post. (you noted this on her page) But as Dennis has offered support for the concept of an interaction ban between RO and some of us, I realize that important voices have been silenced. Given that there is no forum where we four can interact with RO to discuss this matter, such a proposal could, in theory, be passed without any of us having a fair chance to weigh in, and so I am posting here so that someone has a heads up. Montanabw(talk)19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I cannot speak for the other three editors, but I for one am not at all comfortable with the idea that those of us who have been - legitimately - critical of the problems Rationalobserver is causing could be asked to unilaterally disarm when we happen to be the people who are among the most cognizant of the issues. RO may call our comments "harassment" - while viciously harassing others such as Victoriaearle in particular (and also Eric Corbett a while back) - I call it "pointing out legitimate concerns." To be prohibited from calling it as one sees it raises a risk that this editor could continue to seek the unwary and present her usual MO for getting articles to GA status: Making it sound good, but using a lot of offline source material and when one actually goes into the source material, it is discovered that research materiala are misunderstood, misattributed, misstated, or just plain unverified. Montanabw(talk)19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
While RO has complained that people (including me) are stalking and harassing her, I must point out that she WAS the person who posted that Irataba was up for FAC on a wikiproject page where I am a member, and I went over there because I am qualified to review the topic. Her behavior aside, I am particularly troubled by ROs article writing: at Irataba, I commented upon a troublesome tip that - post0block - led to the discovery of a huge iceberg of problems with the article - it has since been subject to an extensive rewrite by two of the other FAC reviewers to resolve many of the problems, and due to the changes and need for a new review, the FAC coordinators withdrew it from consideration. Some of her other articles, such as Rose-Baley Party also had problems. Montanabw(talk)19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
So, long story short, while I oppose lifting the block on RO due to clear evidence at her talk that she hasn't changed a bit, even if it is, I also think that the IBAN question should not be discussed there without the input of the people most likely to be involved - I personally think RO does need significant restrictions placed upon her if she is unblocked, (in particular she should not be allowed to interact with Victoriaearle at all) but I think it is important that the people who are the innocent parties not be subjected to a "you are all equally responsible" false equivalency. Montanabw(talk)19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you, and I've argued the same in other cases not concerning you. Without commenting specifically on this case, while a mutual interaction ban often sounds like a great idea to stop the disruption, I believe it's often suggested (or embraced) as a way to hide the cause of the disruption. Me reacting poorly to something that you say in no way means that you were disruptive, a fact that some seem not to see. Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. Interaction bans, in my view, are counterproductive, perpetuate divisiveness in an environment of collaboration, and should only be imposed in the most egregious of cases, which this doesn't even come close to. I wouldn't agree to one under these circumstances. Victoria (tk) 21:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Cheers for the ping Montanabw, and I'm in total agreement with you about RO. They are a nasty piece of work and I can never forget the disgusting comments made about me in January when OrangesRYellow accused me of glorifying the act of rape. RO was instrumental in that arguement and sided with the the other two filthy specimens who made the comments. This resulted in a block for me, a month or two away from the project, and a lasting reluctance to return to FA writing. RO is a toxic personality. They should have been banned months ago, and this block has been a long time coming. The Iritaba article is was, in my opinion, a load of old rubbish and certainly not worth the paper it's written on. The last time I looked in, it was littered with mistakes and needed a complete rewrite; something that has since taken place, and all the better for it. I'm not to up to speed with the dispute with Victoria but to me, it sounds like she has discovered what sort of person RO truly is. By the way, I'm not an admin but I wish I was because I'd have blocked them indef months ago. ;) CassiantoTalk06:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with all the above comments. A disruptive attitude combined with content that requires constant in-depth checking and major re-work by others is just going to keep leading to more drama. SagaciousPhil - Chat14:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: I thought you made a promise fairly recently that you would not be involving yourself in any drama and would only be working on articles? I can dig up a diff if necessary. SagaciousPhil - Chat18:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to end the drama here, this is a dead horse argument no need to pile onto it. This should be closed end of discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
No, you're adding to it, as is your wont. Weren't you unblocked on the basis of giving up on drama mongering? EricCorbett19:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, responding to every single instance that you believe is improper actually increases rather than decreases drama. You've now brought more attention to a subject that was getting no discussion. It's time for everyone to drop the stick right now. Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
fyi
[11] - request for iban against Scalhotrod, in case it gets deleted from LB's page.
Hello, Karanacs. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 22:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I believe you are in the US. Are you familiar with the saying elephant in the room? Our article suggests that it is an English phrase, which is somewhat ambiguous even though linked (British? English language?). It does mention US usage. I ask because I've got the horrible feeling that someone thinks I am talking about their weight or looks, even though I've never set eyes on them and would be highly unlikely to comment as such even if I had. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we usually use this to mean that there is something everyone is thinking but no one is willing to say. It's not usually about talking in code (hinting around that someone is overweight, etc). It's more about pretending that there is absolutely nothing wrong, nothing to see here, everyone mind your own business, etc. It's sort of like The Emperor's New Clothes - everyone knew he was naked but everyone ignored it except the one kid. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That is my understanding, too, and I'm pleased to see that it isn't restricted to the UK or similar. I've no idea why such a song-and-dance is being made about using the phrase but, hey-ho. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Eric's done his magic on the prose, I can't find anything else about the guy - do you have any comments, etc to add before I drag him off to FAC shortly? Ealdgyth - Talk14:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Karanacs, I have a question for you as an Admin. Given the requests for amendment that LB made[13], what's the best way to respond and say that I don't want to be involved? I was not involved in the Gun control or the GGTF ArbComs. In fact, my only direct connection was the ArbCom Enforcement about Gun Control that LB dragged me into which resulted in a 6 months Topic Ban for both of us for Edit Warring. I didn't even contribute Comments to either case. Per your filing, I feel that this is just another tactic to silence Editors LB considers an obstacle to the way LB edits.
In fact, the more I think about it, this ANI from September of last year now almost seems like it was "practice" for LB to go after other, more senior Editors. Your input, if you don't mind giving it given the circumstances, is appreciated. And if not, I completely understand. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
My opinion as a party to the case is that if I were in your shoes, I would submit a statement and state why I believe I should not be considered a named party. You can enter pretty much exactly what you wrote above if you like. The Arbs will start responding within a few days and probably asking questions. At that time, you may want to say more, and I may do so as well. Personally, I do not believe that either Gun control or GGTF should be reopened, as the behavior spans multiple subject areas and project space as well as article space, but since I am already a party, it doesn't make sense for me to say anything else until more Arbs start to weigh in and I see if there is any traction for that proposal. In your shoes, as someone who could be added as a party, I would speak up now. Karanacs (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised to realize how many of my FAs would never have been tackled if someone else hadn't invited me or challenged me to participate in the article improvement - and that includes Donner Party. I wouldn't be the editor I am today if users at WikiProject Texas A&M hadn't decided to do a push to FA and invited me to help back when I was a newbie. Heck, I'd still be in retirement if Maile66 hadn't pinged me into the Texas Revolution collaboration - the idea of having a partner made the whole project (article and WP) seem a lot more inviting. And that's me, today, with 25+k edits and almost 2 dozen FAs. Imagine the possibilities if we could foster an appropriate environment for new/inexperienced/advanced editors - of all genders - to find or develop the right partnership. It is just going to take someone with more vision (and determination) than I have to make it work. Karanacs (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So far as I recall I was the only male working with you girls (can I say that?) on the Donner Party, but we seemed to get along just fine. More recently Sagaciousphil and I have worked on loads of articles together, and are still doing so. I rather fancy though that if we hadn't stumbled across each other neither of us might still be editing today. She's a dab hand at the research, leaving me just to move a few commas around when she's done. EricCorbett22:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm at the point where I'm now being called "ma'am" a whole lot more often than "miss", so by all means, call me a girl. Helps me pretend I'm not getting older ;) After a day of chasing kids around, I feel ancient. Karanacs (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Everything on Wikipedia that involves teamwork makes all involved better editors in the long run. And that includes doing reviews on any given level. Even the most seasoned editors can still learn a few new ideas from working with others. And the newer editors will better learn how to navigate through the Wikipedia framework. — Maile (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Eric has certainly enticed/encouraged me back to editing on several occasions, even very recently when I spent a day contemplating whether to throw in the towel by putting a retired template up. I'm not so sure a formally arranged way of putting teams/collaborators together would necessarily work so well though. Thinking back, Eric and I first stumbled into each other, when (as he frequently does and receives so little recognition for) he helped me after a now banned GA reviewer quick failed my nomination; I'd say that gradually since then a deeper working relationship has developed and more often than not we now work on articles together, hopefully Eric doesn't disagree, and he does far more than move a few commas around! Another excellent example of collaboration between several editors, I think, is Florence Nagle: Giano mentioned he'd created a stub for a feminist, which after some great work from lots of people, developed into the FAC it is at the moment. I guess what I'm saying is that, as is so often the case in real life, a naturally evolving working relationship can be stronger.
Picking up on Maile66's comment, perhaps GAN (and maybe DYK) are areas that could be looked at as having potential for developing further collaboration? Experienced editors concentrating on reviewing GA/DYKs submitted by inexperienced editors, rather than the well meaning enthusiastic but inexperienced reviewing each others? The next step being the experienced editor guiding/collaborating with/helping the newer editor to either further develop that article or moving on to improve another (associated) article? SagaciousPhil - Chat15:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Perhaps GAN as you suggest. I'm just dipping my toes into GAN reviewing, and I feel a comfort zone in working there. WikiProject Military history has a working system that exemplifies what teamwork should be accomplishing on reviews - everybody working together to bring up the quality of an article. I pretty much learned the basics of how to construct an article through doing reviews at DYK. That said, the project, for a number of reasons (or no reason at all), is a lightening rod for caustic situations. I have much fondness for many at DYK, but it can be dicey over there.— Maile (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Smaller watched supporting articles re Crockett, Houston, and a variety of Alamo aspects, normally not edited at all. People are going in and tidying up, a little tweak here, a jiggle there. Interesting timing. — Maile (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Karanacs. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Did you turn your function off? I don't see the link in the menu. I just created a new email address that seems to work now. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Weird. I just double-checked my preferences and everything is still set up the same. I've gotten email through the link several times in the last few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Maybe I triggered some kind of automated block by using it too many times in a row. Anyway, my new for WP use only email is wikiscalhotrod@gmail.com. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Karanacs, I'd like to email you too. Is that ok with you? (I find this arbcom very confusing.) If so, like Scal, I get a message that your email isn't set up.
I gave you a link, above regarding a comment on a mailing list of WMF about WER and EC. All the archives of that list are available here for anyone to look through. EChastain (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I honestly think it's best to keep any discussion here on wiki if at all possible, although we can open up user talk:Karanacs/Dispute resolution if you'd rather it not be front and center. I prefer to be as transparent as possible, especially given that there appears to be canvassing going on for the other side. If there are concerns about privacy or retaliation, I can email. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm a firm believer in transparency as well, but I'd like to use email just to pass along some information that I think you might find useful. No need for replies, one-way is adequate. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I am also. But everything I do seems to add the "proof" that I'm a sock. I don't plan to add comments to the case but I'd like to get feedback from you and point out possibly useful things I find. EChastain (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
One problem: I'm limited in the amount of evidence I can provide (1000 words). EChastain, since you are not under any form of Iban with LB, and I don't believe one has been requested between the two of you, I think you're safe submitting evidence on your own. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I'm very concerned about retaliation. Can't those will Iban's post after getting permission? Everything I've done since registering seems to reinforce that I'm Sue Rangell and I've gotten really tired and don't edit much here anymore. I thought having an account would make editing easier but no it hasn't. I've edited less since having an account! At arbcom I could repeat that I'm not Sue Rangell, but I've done that already other places. If the arbs just look at the evidence she's produced about me, they'll see it's foolish. I don't want more harassment from LB's helpers if I try to edit articles. EChastain (talk)
Tip of iceberg?
While I agree with the rationale of this and the related removal, it may constitute only the tip of the iceberg in view of this. Like it or loathe it, the case is already being "genderised" and it will continue. Nothing can be done, of course. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I would be quite surprised if this is not being discussed on the private list. One of the justifications for the KaffeeKlatsch was that women needed a place to go when they felt attacked, and pretty much everyone would see an Arbcom proceeding against oneself as an attack. I debated requesting access to the mailing list to see what was going on (it would be quite hypocritical if I was rejected since I have all the parts that should earn me access), but it would be equally hypocritical of me to sign up for something that goes against my principles. Instead, I'll trust that those who appear after being canvassed will make that incredibly obvious (as is the case of the person who is posting on the workshop page). Karanacs (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I lurk around that list, but I'm not a member. Don't think anyone so far commenting on the case so far is, unless its under a different name. I checked the archives. There's yet no mention of the arbcom. EChastain (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Not on the Gender Gap list, no. There is a private list for women only which does not have publicly available archives. Karanacs (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to reiterate my official position[15] for anyone who stumbles across this...What happens on the private mailing list that is not hosted by the WMF is obviously only the business of the people who are members of the list, with the caveat that, as with all off-wiki discussion, collusion is bad. There has been no allegation (to my knowledge) that anything sanctionable is happening on that list. Basically, I don't care. Karanacs (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Karanacs. Re the "Mail" section up above on this page: I wanted to e-mail you today, but the "Email this user" link wasn't there under "tools" on your page. So, I constructed the link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Karanacs. Predictably that also didn't work: I got a "This user has not specified a valid email address" note in red. If you have your addy in your prefs just as before, I guess you do have gremlins. :-( Can you see other people's email links on their pages? Can you see your own? (Because normally you can.) Bishonen | talk23:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC).
Bishonen, thank you, you are awesome. I clicked the link you made to see what happened and it told me that my email address wasn't confirmed. I went through that process (again) and it seems to be working now. I'm not sure how I got unconfirmed (maybe it expires?) - I got email a few days ago and last week and before that. Just needed a bit more basic troubleshooting. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Can I just ask that people try to make sure this doesn't become an outpost of the case? I'll also note that User:Hell in a Bucket has an iBan, and those with iBans should not be making reference to or comment on the other editor anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly (which obviously includes talk pages).
Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I am a party to this case and apparently you are the only arb to take issue with my participation. The fact that you complain over a statement that another editor did a fine job of preparation is interesting. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
There are only two parties to the case, Karanacs and Lightbreather. And of course I wasn't referring to a specific comment, that was a general statement about your iBan. I'll add a more detailed statement to your talk page later. Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok please do I had previously asked about this and received the notice on my TP so a clarification is probably needed at this point. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2015 (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.
