User talk:Karanacs/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Romance novel

Please do not revert back to this. The edit goes against the WP:HAT guideline and, though I didn't give it much thought before, I've come to realize for good that if the link doesn't target the page, then the dab is unnecessary and WP:NAMB agrees with me. This is exactly why I re-placed the content at the See also section. Can we discuss this on your talk page instead of edit war? I have watchlisted this page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've created Romance genre to target Romance (genre). Do not change this link please. You don't see Action genre redirecting to anything but Action (genre) do you? Or Adventure genre to anything but Adventure (genre)? Please reply below. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I realize this is slightly off subject, but do you consider Sir Walter Scott or Samuel Shellabargeror a romantic novelist? Certainly Ivanhoe or The King's Cavalier is as much a romance novel as Arabella? What about Charlotte Bronte and Jane Eyre ? Just curious...JohninMaryland (talk) 10:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what your point is, however, we have guidelines for a reason. If people simply chose to ignore them then there'd be no point in having guidelines. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, one revert does not an edit war make, so please WP:AGF. I think it is very likely that someone looking for information about "romance genre" could find their way accidentally to "romance novel" and vice versa, which is why the hatnote is included. The first time I searched for the romance novel article I ended up at romance genre on accident and was very thankful for the hatnote at the top of the article to redirect me.

In reading your comemnts on my talk page, I think you mistakenly believe that the romance genre comprises romance novels, romantic movies, etc. That is not true. Both romance novel and romance genre are literary genres. A "romance genre" novel and a "romance novel" are very different things. It is rare for two different genres of literature to have pretty much the same name, which is the case here, and I think it is necessary for the hatnote to be present on each article. Please discuss your reasoning further, as I do not understand why you think these terms could not cause confusion. Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious, what did you type in to take you to "romance genre"? I think all of the redirects related to "romance" have been corrected. I noticed the dicussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote and will participate in that soon as I have the time. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I actually typed "romance genre". I had forgotten all about the "romance" of the Middle Ages, and I was pretty surprised to see that article. Karanacs (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly which article(s) do you feel the hats would be appropiate? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I think romance novel should have a hat to romance (genre) and vice versa. I don't think there should be the same level of confusion with any other articles. Karanacs (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I still fail to see the logic. Why not just leave the terms in the "See also" sections? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Because the terms are so easily confused that people need to be notified right away that there is another article with a similar name that might be what they intended to be at. I see this as the same scenario as easily confused people (Matt Smith (illustrator) and Matt Smith (comics)); these are two literary genres with almost identical names. If the hatnotes are acceptable in the case of the two people with the same name and similar occupations, I don't understand why they would not be in the case of two genres (same occupation) with extremely similar names. The guideline allows the hatnotes in cases where confusion is more likely, and this is one of those cases. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect. A novel and a genre have nothing to do with each other, hence, the Matt Smith (comics) sample is irrelevant to this case, as "(comics)" may usually refer to a fictional character or, like you said, illustrator. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The Romance novel is a genre of literature (see the page)! It is more commonly referred to as the "romance" genre, but that name is already used to refer to the genre of the Renaissance times. This discussion appears to be coming down to opinions on whether the subjects are easily confused or not. I think that in questionable cases such as this the decision should be left to people familiar with the articles. You are the first person to suggest there was not a need for these hatnotes. I am going to replace them and ask that you not remove them again. Karanacs (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Really, you are the only person who thinks the hatnotes are fitting, see WP:NAMB. No agreement was reached here and when someone contests something (especially when supported by guidelines) warring won't help. Let's continue this shall we? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been off-wiki for a while. You don't appear to understand that there are both literary genres. Your posts repeatedly say that "a novel is not a genre", but in this case "romance novel" is the name of a literary genre just as "romance (genre)" is the name of a literary genre. I'm not claiming that these are broad genres (covering films, literature, etc), but they are both literary genres. Have you actually read the articles? Per WP:BRD, you should be bold (as you were), then revert (as I did), then discuss whether the change made sense. You therefore appear to be the one edit warring. Karanacs (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if what you think about bringing the Glossary of Texas Aggie Terms to Wikipedia:Featured lists status Oldag07 (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What the heck. . . Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Glossary_of_Texas_Aggie_terms Oldag07 (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. they aren't my articles. some current student is posting up a lot of stuff. But thanks for the encouragement Oldag07 (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Great

That relieves the pressure for this week. If you haven't, ping User:Ral315 and he can add it tomorrow. The PR idea can thus be saved for next week. And we do need a spot to coordinate this. Marskell (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, see you already added to the Newsroom/Other. The Signpost is a little confusing—it has a few too many subpages. Marskell (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hillcourt

I've already addressed your issues at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Hillcourt. You're really quite good at this FAC reviewing. If you have more concerns, just let me know. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Thanks for the welcome! I noticed Tony pretty much sticks to criterion 1A and Sandy is quite apt at 1C, so I figured someone focusing on criterion 3 might be helpful, as it seems oft neglected at FAC and WP as a whole. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia signpost

Karanacs, thank you so much for the kind-hearted entry you authored on the Wikipedia signpost regarding me. I condsider myself lucky to have worked with an editor such as youself on the Nancy Reagan FAC review, and have really valued my time here at Wikipedia, the two FA articles being my personal victories. I'm honored that you selected me to be the subject of your passage. Thanks so much, Happyme22 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I nominated Milton Friedman for a FAC and you were recommended as a notable article reviewer. If you have a chance, could you take a look at the article and make any comments at the FAC page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Milton Friedman? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's Theatre

Hello. Thanks for all your help. I think we've resolved the issues that you raised. Can you support the FA now, or do you have any further concerns? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I think all issues have been addressed in this article but maybe I am forgetting something. Do you think it is sufficiently polished to resubmit to FA? If you have any suggestions for improvement I would like to know your thoughts. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured article dispatch workshop

I set up a basic shell (and archives) for coordinating the weekly dispatch at Wikipedia:Featured article dispatch workshop. The 25th is approaching! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Trial of Satanta and Big Tree

Karanacs (talk) Would you, being one of the very best reviewers I know, take a look at the new article, and give me your opinion? It is a fascinating incident, and I hope the article reflects that - but will feel better when you say it does! (and if not, I will correct the areas you find need improvement!) Thanks as always! JohninMaryland (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic-style diet

Hi, if you find the time, could you run through the FA candidate article Paleolithic-style diet. There may be punctuation and capitalization issues. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Karanacs, I left a list on that FAC, but I'm not sure if it's been dealt with. Do you have time to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Karanacs, when you're back from the weekend, both Paleolithic-style diet and Neilston need your revisit. Also, Epbr123 (talk · contribs) put up a semi-retired notice; that's a huge loss to FAC. If you're inclined to leave Epbr a nice note ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You're back

Five days MIA, I hope all is well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, when you don't have to chase toddlers or teenagers anymore ... everything else is easy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-18/Dispatches

This is a nice piece you put together. I'm curious, how did you select the editors and Featured Articles chosen to highlight in the piece? Did you get input from those editors in writing the piece? Cirt (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It was suggestead by Raul, the featured article director, on the talk page, WT:FAC ([1]) and the editors were notified after publication. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah okay, thanks for the info. So no one got input from those editors before publication? Cirt (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
No, not this time. I can see instances in the future where we might get more information from someone before writing an article, though. In these two cases, I was involved with some of the nominations and knew the background already, and Sandy and Raul filled in the rest of the details from their involvement. Feel free to nominate other editors who've participated in the various Featured Content areas at WP:FCDW. Karanacs (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the offer, I've got a lot on my plate at the moment but perhaps at some point soon. It certainly can be an interesting challenge to get articles up to WP:FA status in general, let alone those on a controversial topic. Cirt (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ANAK Society

Thanks so much for your comments on ANAK Society. I have tried to address each of them; any further help you can provide is greatly appreciated. MaxVeers (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Written Chinese FAC

Thanks for your comments. I have a couple of questions/responses to your comments; could you kindly take a look over at the FAC page for Written Chinese and give a couple of pointers? Thanks. BrianTung (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of POV tags on Texas-Indian Wars

Greetings my friend! Taquito1 tagged the article, (and rightly so), for POV language, and length of the article. He was kind enough to work with me on rewriting the introductory paragraph, the conclusion, and after he was done, I rewrote a significant amount of the article to either remove, or reword, language to assure that it was NPOV. I have posted a note on the talk page that I believe, given the foregoing, that it is appropriate to remove the POV tag. Would you take a look, to make sure that between Taquito1's rewrites, and my own, that we have successfully adapted the article? Thanks! (I note that the things you found, all have been addressed as well...) JohninMaryland (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) Greetings again my friend! I hope I am not imposing on you, but I have finished rewriting or eliminating every phrase or sentence you identified as being problematic, and ones like the notation on Ford being a merciless Indian Killer, I reworKed with a phrase out of the book. I literally went down the list, and got every one you identified, and some you did not. I will begin wroking on adding an article on the Spanish-Apache wars. In the interim, if you don't mind, look at the article, and if I don't hear from you tonight, I will pull the tag. THANKS AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR HELP, YOU HAVE BEEN SUPER. JohninMaryland (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)



Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bernard Fanning

Thanks for reviewing the article. I've done everything you requested, I think. Could you please take another look? Kind regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Etiquette

It is customary, in fact, for editors who have such preferences to make them clear when posting, or to abstain from bullet points.

Since doing so will make the conversation much longer, and far less clear (since your claims will have to be repeated almost verbatim), I would prefer that you not insist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it was an effort to identify the actual problem with the sentence; without a scale, the three million don't matter, and the statistic should be thrown out, no sourced. Without the comment to which it replied, my post was unintelligible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have stated my standards often enough: clarity, accuracy, neutrality, verifiability; I do, however, see no need to footnote any fact which can be trivially found in any of the obvious books. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney

Thanks for your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney. I have attempted to address your concerns (I still have 1 or 2 more things to do), and would really appreciate if you could have another look and see if I am on the right track. Thanks again! Loopla (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Carly phillips.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Carly phillips.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rossrs (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

East Carolina University

Hello. You recently looked over East Carolina University for WP:FA worthiness. I completed all items listed minus the prose. Do you think it is a FA minus the work with the prose? I want to ask the Leage of Copyeditors to do their magic. Do you have anyone that would be willing to look over and help with prose? Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, PGPirate 14:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch for March 17

Times are tough; don't you go and disappear on me.[2] [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, that's March 17, there's no hurry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC

No problem! I know you want it to be a better article (so do I), it's easy for people to take things personally when its matters of religion. (I know I've made that mistake a time or two, myself). I'll work on some more of your requests as I get time. I'm working on an "art" section beginning with Illuminated Manuscripts and maybe going as far as the Baroque. --Mike Searson (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Aggie terms FA nomination

Bad news, the List of Texas Aggie terms failed FL nomination. Negatives, we did not make it, positives, this article greatly improved. I need a huge break from wikipedia, as shown on my profile, but maybe a GA push would be more appropriate. I think the article could pass now honestly, if someone wants to do that. I might push few months from now. Oldag07 (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I just wanted you to know I answered all your comments. I had hoped you would cross them out before the FA reviewer comes around. I thank you for taking the time to do a careful review. A lot of your comments were very good and I made those changes in accordance with your wishes, even on some of the things I disagreed with you on personal taste. I did not make every change you suggested if it was something to do with personal taste so I hope you will respect my opinion on those issues that were not done because they did not violate any wikipedia policy and I was being sensitive to the other editors who may have wanted them. I had hoped in all sincerity to win your support vote which I hope will not be hindered over disagreements in taste. All other issues have been addressed including the refs. Thanks again. NancyHeise (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to have a go at the top half of the RCC article overnight, and see if Nancy is happy with any changes. Xandar (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for what you are trying to do with the origins and mission section of the RCC? I was trying to address your concerns and you have called my efforts propaganda. Are you suggesting we remove the referenced facts of the church origin and mission so the reader will not know what these are? Why don't you provide some examples of what you think we should do. I think your comment about propaganda was very POV and not acting good faith, I have spent multiple hours addresing your comments and I was trying to make you happy. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
While it is possible to move the origins section entirely into the history section, it is not possible to move the mission section which is core material to the definition of what the RCC is. I am very surprised to hear you suggest that the mission sectin should be deleted altogether and I will continue to oppose you on that. I have not seen one editor except you suggest its elimination and there are several who liked the article with the origin and mission at the top. NancyHeise (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For catching all those noms while I wasn't watching. I'm off building a spreadsheet to do what I was hoping Epbr would do a while back. Some reviewers repeatedly support articles with deficiencies that are later clearly identified by other reviewers (which seriously backlogs FAC), so I'm building a spreadsheet to score reviewers in terms of how often they declared the direction the FAC ultimately went. The numbers will likely reveal nothing to me, but hopefully something to those who enter unhelpful or invalid declarations. Time consuming work, I'm going through the Feb and March archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid there won't be useful feedback for you :-) Without Epbr's help, all I can do is throw together a spreadsheet that will score how often editors support articles that have serious deficiencies, etc., to highlight issues that contribute to a FAC backlog (yes, it's tedious, but I think I need to do it). I'm just aiming at a methodology that will give me a score to help some reviewers realize that consistently supporting articles that have deficiences affects FAC and reviewer credibility. I don't think your credibility can be questioned :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, done. Lots of work, very revealing, shows what I expected it to. Stay tuned :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Reviewers Award The Reviewers Award
To Karanacs, for high quality reviewing at FAC Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Maps

You could always beg User:Mike Christie, he's done a few maps for his Anglo-Saxons. Now whether he has the time... I don't know. Let me look through a few atlases I have here at home too, my father collected old atlases and there might be something likely in them that's PD. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

All I found was a map of claims in 1650ish to North America. Doesn't break down the various sub-regions in the area claimed by Spain. Probably not what you're looking for. Did you try Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection? Ealdgyth | Talk 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FCDW Dispatch

Am running through Wikipedia:FCDW/March 10, 2008 now, in case you have time for a quick look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And ... time to start tweaking next week: Wikipedia:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Thank you for your help. I appreciate it very much. NancyHeise (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happily going through my books so I can add that information for you and hopefully win your support - very hard won support at that! :) NancyHeise (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, there is some new content in Middle Ages about architecture - the Gothic and Romanesque styles, then I added a paragraph at the top of Renaissance to supplement. There is also a one sentence mention of Baroque architecture at the bottom of Renaissance. Let me know if like or dont like or if you think there needs to be more of a mention. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I expanded the Baroque section as well. NancyHeise (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! I appreciate it - I hoped I helped a little bit! Awadewit | talk 22:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg

Been worried about you; tune in to Ima Hogg for 4/1, Corvus is working on it, may need help with sources. Can you revisit Flag of Germany and anything else you may have towards the bottom of the FAC page? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was afraid you'd gotten the awful flu that is going around. If you are at all able to help beef up Ima Hogg for the April Fools mainpage, we're running out of time. There are still some untapped sources (I left in External links - some good hoaxy pop culture stuff could be written about other name issues - I also left some comments on the talk page), and I suspect someone needs to access the three books - maybe you can get them in TX? It would need to be finished up and come to FAC within a week; Corvus is working on it, and I did a bit, but it needs serious attention if it's to make it. Glad you're back ! Apparently Ral315 got the flu, and the March 10 dispatch hasn't run yet, so I'm not sure what's up there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

There is a revote on the FA leave comments page of this article. You are invited to reexamine the article and either confirm or deny your previous vote by voting again. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

While I'm here, I noticed the wording on this. I'm a bit worried that Nancy doesn't seem to understand the "not a vote" aspect of FAC; that no matter how many "votes", actionable opposes must be addressed. Perhaps Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Preity Zinta/archive1 (which ended 25 in favor, eight against, and failed) would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Miguel Ángel Asturias GA hold

Following up jbmurray's comments on the Mission 1 talk page, I'm rather concerned about the quality of the unsolicited GA review on Miguel Ángel Asturias. I know this article is on your watchlist - how do you think we should handle this? (I've also left a note with Gguy.) EyeSerenetalk 11:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Miss Ima

Great, any help is appreciated, especially offline sources. Corvus cornixtalk 17:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Trimming RCC

Karanacs, I have trimmed a lot out of Beleifs, Practices and Community sections. Any more trimming will omit basic facts and start violating FA criteria. Since you worked with us on the history section and know how much that section was expanded due to FA reviewers comments, I want to know what you think about eliminating things from this area. I am afraid to eliminate anything after all we went through with past FA reviewers comments. I think the article should stay long and we shouldnt eliminate anything more or else it will sacrifice basic important facts. I would like to know if you have specific things that you think should be trimmed from history and invite you to come see the changes i made to the other sections. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved your trim of the history section to the page already - it was really well done and trimmed the size of the article significantly, its down to 118KB - and I think that it is enough - Lingnut and I have worked to trim the other areas and there isn't any more to trim without eliminating core material or decent prose. NancyHeise (talk) 04:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

March 17 Dispatch

For review, Wikipedia:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

Would you mind weighing in regarding sources at the RCC FAC (see my list of comments)? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help now and from the beginning of the process.NancyHeise (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, did you know I have supplemented the Beliefs section quite a lot with a new source published by Servant Publications. It is called "The Essential Catholic Catechism" by Dr. Alan Schreck, professor of Theology at Franciscan University of Steubenville. This book is not a Catechism but a commentary and explanation on its contents supplemented with historical facts. It has a notation on the book information page stating the names of the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur - listing two Roman Catholic clergy - one is the bishop of Steubenville. It then goes on to explain that this means the book has been declared to be free of doctrinal or moral error. This is not a Catholic Church published source (neither is the Barry book) However, because the Catholic Church is a great consumer of books, like the Department of Education for the State of California, there are companies like Sadlier and this publisher, Servant who devote whole departments to publishing books for these big clients. That is not self-published. I would like to know what you think. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, you forgot to sign your entry on the discussion page on missions. Also, it is a common term within the church community to consider new converts as "children" also known as "little ones". This term comes from one of Paul's letters where he describes the people he is writing to as children who are being fed on milk, not yet able to eat something more advanced. What is referred to here is spiritual growth and it is not a derogatory term for other people. It is more like calling someone who is new in your company a "new employee" who does not yet know all of the company rules. NancyHeise (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hogg images

SandyGeorgia suggested asking User:Elcobbola about copyright on Hogg images. Corvus cornixtalk 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg photo

Although I’m obviously not able to see the image in context with accompanying prose, I’m not terribly confident that a fair use case could be made to support the “Imogene” image. NFCC#8 requires that fair use images significantly contribute to our understanding. Would we really understand Ima better – and significantly so – by seeing her alternate name/signature? I presume any such understanding could be adequately transferred by prose alone. Is there anything else unique about the image? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Award for work on Roman Catholic Church

The Saints Star Award Thank you for your time and effort trying to improve this article, I know you put in a lot of work to make it acceptable to FA. I am sorry it did not pass but much has been learned to be able to improve the article further.NancyHeise (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the star! I had hoped for one on top of the RCC page instead but I know the page can be improved before resubmission (not for several weeks). Thank you for your offer to archive my talk page, I have seen the place where they give you instructions on how to do it and I think I will just read it and try to do it myself. If I have a problem I may take you up on your offer. Thanks again. Please feel free to stop by the RCC page and give advice if you think we are off in the wrong direction. NancyHeise (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Miss Ima

I know you have Bernhard and Neely, but do you have this book?

Iscoe, Louise (1976). Ima Hogg: First Lady of Texas. Austin, TX: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health.

It's listed as the first reference, but I'm guessing nobody has had their hands on it, since it's used only to support the appellation 'First Lady of Texas', presumably from the title. I have a chance to get (indirect) access to it - should I snatch it up? I just don't want to waste his time if you've already got the book. Appreciate if you could let me know! Maralia (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, we edit conflicted as I was adding the Child Guidance text at the same time you were, and of course, yours was far better. I'd best stay out of your way; wish I could be of more help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for Yomangani, hoping he'll work on it this afternoon; he has beautiful prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ima's beautiful, and I can't believe you found the time to get those beautiful pictures. How are you holding up? I sure do miss your FAC reviews :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC

I notice you seem to be going round making comments about my posts. If you have any comments it might be helpful to address them to me first. i also notice that you ignore the attempted bullying and threats in LingNuts posts. Xandar (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 4, Issue 11 13 March 2008 About the Signpost
From the editor — From the editor
Features and admins
Features and admins
Volume 4, Issue 12 17 March 2008 About the Signpost
Features and admins
Features and admins
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC

What's this...you get me to come back...then you quit? :) We need you on that article more than just about anyone else there. I hope you'll reconsider and not let one ignorant editor run you off.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The problems over there are going to take more than a day or a week to work through, and Karanacs is Otherwise Entertained On A Very Important Article And The Clock Is Ticking Towards A Deadline :-) Now get back to work, K !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, ma'am. Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay Presson Allen

Thank you for your assessment of the Article. I understand your POV, but if you will check the archive, you will find I already did post a request and was waiting patiently. I would have waited much much longer, but to see my request swept into the archive indicated that the Texas Project was no longer interested in Ms. Allen. If you could indicated what could be improved to move the article up from a B grade I would appreciate it. EraserGirl (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. EraserGirl (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Mario Vargas Llosa

Hi. I know you've been watching Mario Vargas Llosa for the FA-Team. This article has come on in leaps and bounds in the last week or so. The editors who have been working on it hope to submit it to GA Review very shortly. It would be great if you were able to give it the once-over. Many thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Anthony Wolf

Hello Karanacs. Thanks you very much for the note concerning Anthony Wolf. I really appreciate you bringing this to my attention, I have started to work on the page and am excited about finding more info about him and the three people listed in the New York Times article. Thanks again, I look forward to working on this article. Thanks. Bhaktivinode (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

2005 ACC Championship Game FAC

I've addressed your comments to the best of my ability. If you could take another look, I'd be grateful. Thank you. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem with getting someone to copyedit is that there's such a backlog that the process for requesting one is effectively useless. There's far, far more articles out there in greater need of a copyedit, and the backlog, plus the fact that other articles need it far more than mine, make me hesitate to ask. I look at it this way: They've been good enough to pass in the past, they follow grammar rules, and they're understandable; that should be good enough. I'll see if I can grab a few more edits from people who aren't familiar with American football — that's where I think the article needs the most help, as I tend to write to an audience that is at least familiar with the sport and subject. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg travels to Europe

Great job on the Ima Hogg article. Growing up in Texas, I'd always heard about her, but always in a joke context, and not for the amazing person she really was. (By the way, an ad for the Houston Symphony young artist competition in her name was poked fun of by Jay Leno on the "Headlines" segment of The Tonight Show just this past Monday.)

Anyway, what caught my eye is the section on the trip to Europe before World War I. The timing of her travels doesn't add up. In looking at the page cited in the Bernhard book, I see that she sailed 11 June from Galveston on SS Chemnitz (coincidentally, a sister-ship to SS Breslau, which I have worked on just a little…) for Bremen. Chemnitz’s route typically would have been Galveston–Baltimore–Bremen and would have taken about 2½–3 weeks, which safely encompasses the Archduke's assassination while en route. The Bernhard book shows that she arrived in London on 5 August some five weeks after she would, typically, have arrived in Bremen. The article (my reading of it, at least) seems to imply it was all one journey, and that Miss Ima foolishly (and out of character for her!) stayed in Germany through October. I don't know if changing this would affect the real purpose of the article, so I thought I'd point it out here rather than at FAC.

By the way, the same page in Bernhard (p. 58) also gives an approximate date, around April 1914, for the burglary incident from the Iscoe book, if that's of interest. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty scary to have me tweaking prose, but I was afraid you were gone for the evening. Please undo prontissimo any damage I've done :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure Elcobbola's comments are fully addressed (something about a paragraph in education and music), and you should doublecheck that I got all of Graham's and Laser's OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, I don't want to get crossed up in editing; are you going to make those final changes? There's Ealdgyth's comments on the FAC (agree on "indignities"), and that final issue about the donated artwork according to MFAH needing rewording. I'm always thinking about the oldid that gets stored in articlehistory the minute it gets promoted, and not sure when/if Raul will promote. Anxious to get the final corrections in :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think we got them all, but you may need to fix my fixes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much!

Hi, I'm just dropping by to say thanks for all your work on Mario Vargas Llosa. All three of the members in our group were completely new to Wikipedia so your help was greatly needed and appreciated. Thanks again. :) Lincolnchan98 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Mary_higgins_clark.jpg

Replaceable fair use
Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Mary_higgins_clark.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Miss Ima"

Nice job on "Miss Ima"!
To all of the excellent editors who were part of the Karanacs-led collaboration to bring Ima Hogg to featured status, it was a pleasure working with you on such a fine article about a great lady. Thank you so much for your contribution to this fun collaboration (beautiful work, Karanacs).

Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Raul needs the blurb ASAP; see the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
ah, shucks, thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, great job on Ima Hogg. I think she would approve. And thanks for letting me share in the fun.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Karanacs: Good job on 'reinterpreting' Hogg's life! Well worth the chuckle." J.R. Gonzales, Bayou City History. Houston Chronicle, April 1, 2008 - Thanks from SWTPC6800 (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on an excellent article! WikiProject Houston will keep an eye on Miss Ima :) Cheers, Postoak (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

GA nominations

Do you think I should un-nominate them? They look good enough and they are running out of time. So I was trying to be a bit pro-active. Note, I've nominated most of the GA passes in their project so far. I know they are new at Wikipedia so I don't want them to think that GA is some sort of 'perfection clearing-house'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave a note on the talk pages. As for FA-team, thank you for the kind invite ... but I'm concentrating my efforts at WP:NOVELS. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mario Vargos Llosa

Hi, my name is Alex, and I´m from Cuba, I was reading your comments on the article about Mario Vargas Llosa, and I noted that you were wondering wether the name of the books were written in English or Spanish. I want you to know that eventhough I live in Cuba, and Mario Vargas Llosa is practically unmentioned here, and if you get caught with one of his many books, you might get in troubles, I have read many of his books , and I admire his work, I think he is (along with garcia Marquez) one of the best and finest writers in the Spanish world. Well, to answer your question I can tell you that Captain Pantoja and the Special Service is known in Spanish (it´s original language) as Pantaleon y las visitadoras, which could be roughly translated into English as Pantaleon and the female visitors (if you´ve read the book you´ll know why). One of the other books mentioned in the Style section is: The way to paradise, and it was originally published in Spanish as The paradise at the other corner, although you know, translation isn´t as exact as we´d like it to be, when you translate, you always have to change something, wether you like it or not. It was already said in the articule that his first widely acclaimed novel: The Time of the Hero, was originally published as The city and the dogs. Well, I hope this can help you, I hope you can leave me a message on my talkpage, take care,, Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aftus (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prague Spring

Hi, thanks for your help at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Prague Spring, I have completed some of your requests (and you completed many others, thank you!) but I have some questions, could you revisit please? The Dominator (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

walter review

The review was closed, but I don't want your work and that of others to go to waste, so I will responded here. Numbering is introduced for clarity, following the order of points you made.

  • 1) You don't think surnames in de look jarring? It's the lower case d that does it for me here.
  • 2) Redundant? You don't think that To modern historians adds clarity? He may have been, for instance, the 50th known to, say, Walter de Coventre.
  • 3) The technical term is "provide"; it has a very specific meaning, but earlier in the review process it was decided that "provide" [as you say] was too obscure, but the technical term could be retained in brackets for those familiar with its more specific meaning.
  • 4) Would you have any suggestions for de-proslining it? :)
  • 5) You are right about David. That paragraph is there just to give background. There is a suggestion that Walter's stay in France was related to David's, but that piece of explicitness has been lost. I can retrace it, re-insert it, and then think again about the usefulness of that paragraph.
  • 6) That particular ref was cited like that to make entry in question explicit, as demanded by the context. You are correct that it looks inconsistant, so have fixed it.

Thanks for the comments and copyediting. PS, "scholar" does indeed really mean "student", but in a modern context "scholar" is used as if it means "academic". This is the reasoning for the "i.e. student" in brackets. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Poor Miss Ima…

It seems that the real April Fools joke is on all who worked on the article now having to spend the rest of the day reverting all the vandalism done by 12-year-olds. :) Poor Miss Ima. She deserves better. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

awwwww ... it's a trade-off, Bellhalla. April Fools will end soon, and Miss Ima will be left with a beautiful article that wouldn't have happened without the April Fools' push. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice catch on my mistake...forgot the emphasis on L in WP:BLP.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Forensic Entomology Featured Article help

Hey there! Thanks for your message on our assignment page. I'm the lecturer for the class, and I know that several of my groups would love your input to try and get their articles to featured article status. At the moment, I think the Entomology_and_the_Law, Entomotoxicology, The_Original_Body_Farm, Dermestidae, and Bedbug may have the best chance at the moment, and seem to have the most dedicated students. Thanks again for your offer, and I'm sure everyone will be grateful for the help. Thanks! ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Awesomeness

Well I have no idea how to give away one of Wikipedia's fancy barnstars, so I decided to make one myself.

This is for being totally awesome with helping out with Mario Vargas Llosa Lincolnchan98 (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. That has to be the best barnstar on Wikipedia! Heh. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


FAC review dispatch

Ack, it's Thursday :-) Can you give it a good first pass, and I'll work on it over the weekend, so you can review it on Monday? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I remembered that this morning, and I've carved out some time tonight to work on it. Karanacs (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget WP:FCDW/April 7, 2008 today :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Sorry to bother you but I was wondering if we are supposed to italicize news organizations like Catholic News Service that are not necessarily newspapers. NancyHeise (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

More botherings: You had offered to help archive my talk page. I thought I might be able to figure it out myself so I declined your offer. Subsequently, after reading the help page on archiving, I think it is really over my head and I would like to take you up on your previous offer. Also, someone suggested we archive the RCC talk page as well - could you help out there too? Since this is probably a low priortity, I will not expect immediate help - just whenever you have a chance. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

eo:Franca Teksaso

Dear Karen,

You might be pleased to know that I've just completed the translation of French Texas in Esperanto. The promotion of the translation to our own featured status will certainly be fast and smooth. It was a real pleasure to work on such an interesting and unknown piece of history ! Best regards and keep up the great work ! Thomas Guibal (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10