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.
Well, I've set it up... Feel free to let me know if there are any changes you'd like me to make to the nomination statement. When you're ready, follow the instructions here; it will run for seven days from the moment you send it live. It would probably be a good idea to read the current RFAs to see what sort of things people are looking for in the answers.
One thing I will say is, don't panic if the "opposes" shoot up when you first send it live! Whatever enemies you've made will have had the redlinked RFA watchlisted, and will jump in to oppose the moment it goes live, whereas people who don't know you will take a while to review your history before (hopefully) deciding to support you. RFAs go from this to this over their course.
Do feel free to ask if you've any questions...
Iridescent would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Iridescent to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Karanacs . If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
Heh. You might note that you've garnered one (premature and thus illegitimate) oppose already. So the people can't hold back; they want to get out there and !vote... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Surprise! Should I explain the !voting "rules" to him so that he can strike for now and reenter his oppose at the appropriate time or just leave it? Karanacs (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If it is not too much trouble for you, then I would be flattered if you would do that. Since we've actually worked together, that would mean a lot. If you get busy though, no worries. Karanacs (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Before you do that, by the way, could you give me a shout? I'd like to add something to my co-nom, but it's time sensitive, so I don't want to do it until the last minute. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I will definitely let you know. I'll be out of town next week, so I'm planning to put this up on Monday the 16th probably. I'll leave you a note when i'm sure and wait until you've made any corrections you want. Thank you very much for the kind words that are there now...it's hard to express how nice that is to see. Karanacs (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, to answer to your comment on my talk page: If I am not allowed to offer constructive criticism of reviewers poor reviewing skills, I dont see how we can expect to improve a process like FAC that really could use some improvement. If someone is going to oppose an article, they should be able to give a list of reasons why and what FAC criteria they feel has not been met in addition to providing any Wikipedia policies violated. I offered my comments in an effort to help him be a better reviewer for other articles in the future. FAC reviewers should not be allowed to insist on removal of sources that meet WP:RS as top level sources like the Norman book he proposed, they should also not bring up issues unrelated to the FAC process like his comment about Catholics creating Catholic articles. His comments were poorly offered, poorly organized and off-topic and he ended up provoking an argument among other editors of the page - completely unprofessional. If he was just a teenager learning from Wikipedia I would never have said anything but he is on the FAC team, a seasoned FAC reviewer who is expected to help lead a page to FA, not prevent it. NancyHeise (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it even worth pointing out a) that this is not a profession b) that there is no such thing as an "FAC team" and c) that my point about Norman was about the way that the source was used as though it were representative, not about the source itself? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, I think we were both correcting threading on the FAC at the same time, and duplicated each others' work. Since I'm in a hotel (leaving soon), can you doublecheck the work? I think I've removed all duplicates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I'll take a look. I'm also planning to watch the FAC for the next 4 hours and fix any threading issues I see, so don't worry about this one for now. PS I hope they left chocolate on your pillow; it looks like you might need it soon! Karanacs (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, plenty of chocolate, although I don't expect any on the plane! I'd like to try to keep the FAC readable; thanks for the help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Should I interpret the archiving of my last comment to mean that you have no remaining comments about the article? Savidan06:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Savidan, I should have notified you before I did the archive. I've been intending to look at Assata Shakur again but haven't had a solid block of time yet. I'm glad that you were able to find sources about her other trials - I think that will round out the article a bit more. Karanacs (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I really apologize for not having made the time to do an in-depth look at the article again. I skimmed it and I think it looks much better than before. I'll be out of town for the next week; if I manage to hijack a computer I'll try to do a review for the FAC. Good luck!! Karanacs (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Main page is a little iffy since we don't have a free image of her (I'll be in NYC later this summer and will try to take a picture of one of the many murals of her). Savidan18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The hide template text? Yes, I did that on purpose so that I can copy and paste it into FAC noms when needed. I'm lazy ;) Karanacs (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, whenever a school gets a Blue Ribbon, it is a sign of notability. I will have to undo the four elementary school merges. Next time, when you see a Blue Ribbon, please start a talk page discussion first. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
A merge does not mean that the article is not notable on its own, but that there is not enough info to make a good article. I left a talk page message on at least one school before I merged and got no response after a week. The school district article already contained that information. If more info can be found in independent reliable sources, then the article should definitely be stand-alone; at this time there doesn't seem to be any. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC) <crossposted to User talk:WhisperToMe>
I'll search Google News and the Houston Chronicle for more sources - I.E. I found one newspaper source stating that Afton Village in Houston was zoned to Memorial MS and Memorial HS. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's still just trivial coverage, though. I really don't see the need for a separate article about an elementary school when the feeder information and the Blue Ribbon listing can go perfectly well in the ISD article (and much of it is already there). Karanacs (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
(crossposted to assorted user's talk pages, if you're thinking this looks a bit familiar)
While looking at WP:GAN for other articles to review (I don't like nominating things without reviewing one if possible), I've come across Anglesey Central Railway. Looking at the creator's history, all they've worked on is this article and articles related to it (aside, bizarrely, from Characters in Asterix). While I can't in all honesty pass this at the moment – it has serious structural failures, as well as bending the MOS to breaking point – this is so much better than a new editor's usual "my favourite band" starting effort that I'd really like to get this one through the GA hoop. (IMO there's enough sourced content there to get it to FA.) I'll have a go at cleaning it up, but you're generally much better at the "nuts and bolts" side of things than me; would you mind having a look at it too, as I really think this looks like an author who should be encouraged. (What I know about Welsh railways can be summarised as 1) they're railways and 2) they're Welsh, so I don't think I'll be much use in content-adding.) — iridescent21:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs is out this week; I did a lot of cleanup, but more is needed. The most significant thing is that publishers are missing on all sources, so they will need to be added so the article can be evaluated for reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
RCC FAC
This message is being sent to all opposers of the Roman Catholic Church FAC. Thank you for taking the time to come see the page and give us your comments. I apologize for any drama caused by my imperfect human nature. As specified in WP:FAC, I am required to encourage you to come see the page and decide if your oppose still stands. Ceoil and others have made changes to prose and many edits have been made to address FAC reviewers comments like yours. Thank you. NancyHeise (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
May FAC reviewer award
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
To Karanacs, For your superior reviews of at least 19 Featured article candidates during May, thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month and for your careful work and thorough reviews to help promote Wiki's finest work. Someone recently described you as an editor who is the best at pouring calming oil on troubled waters: keep up the exceptional work and your good-natured calmness! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Special thanks to Ling.Nut—a retired editor who had a strong commitment to excellence in content review—for designing this award, and to Maralia for running the stats for May.
Oops! I think i usually am more careful. Yes, i will visit all the sites that linked to Fort Saint Louis meaning to get to the Texas article. Thanks for letting me know so i can fix them, and sorry for the inconvenience. I will clean it up this evening. doncram (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think i cleaned it up. After changing a few "Fort Saint Louis" links to "French Texas" already, it occurred to me to create "Fort Saint Louis (Texas)" as a redirect to French Texas, and then after that i generally put in the redirect. It seems more natural to use in articles. Anyhow, should be okay now. Thanks. doncram (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I was just wondering how you were doing. I am moving back to Texas! Ohio/the Americorps was extremely challenging but it forced me to grow up a lot. Not going to say much more on something as public as wikipedia, but i hope everything is going well for you.
Oldag07 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it's nice to hear from you! It's always a good feeling to come back to Texas, and I hope you feel the same when you get settled in again. Unfortunately, you picked the wrong season to come back - it is HOT. Some of my friends have participated in the Americorps program too, and they all had similar things to say about it. I've ordered a few books about Texas A&M; if I can ever finish up the project I started on the battles of the Texas Revolution then I'll be able to do a bit more work on Aggie-related topics. Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC) crossposted to OldAg07's talk page.
Nice to hear that. Heat? I am getting to see everything. walking though a blizzard ain't fun either. To be more specific, the Americorps is a big umbrella organization with many non-profits under it. I work for the Americorps sponsored organization City Year. I have been working on that page too as well as the state of Texas page. that page gives me a headache. Texas revolution huh. Good stuff. BTW, I think I have been a little too paranoid in covering up my tracks. I guess if someone was determined for find out who oldag07 is, i guess they could find out with a little research. oh well. Well then, thanks for all the hard work. good luck with everything. Oldag07 (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hat in hand
How does it feel to be pounced upon? SO glad you're back :-) FAC is languishing with many of them bouncing around the bottom of the list with no decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It's always nice to be missed! I'll likely be back at FAC tomorrow; my Father's Day present to my husband is to be his video game partner today. Now maybe I'll be more qualified to review those FACs ;). 23:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I supported since there aren't any big issues. I just wanted to comment on your answer to question 1, and figured here'd be a better place since the support section will probably get flooded (and this issue could just be an issue of semantics, but in case it isn't, I felt it was important enough to mention).
You said you'd close csds if you felt the issue was "extremely clear-cut". If the issue's not clear-cut, you can still close the csd, by removing the tag. Sometimes articles get stuck in cat:csd for close to a day, because no one's willing to either delete or remove the tag and just pass it on to the next pair of eyes. If you notice that happening, just untag the article. Usually when I look at the category, I end up only deleting a few articles and then drift off when I come upon something that's about a decent subject that's easily improved. - Bobet16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I was trying to say that I'd only actually delete if it was really clear-cut that it fell into the criteria (and not just delete any article with a tag). I'd probably hesitate to remove some tags, though, if I was unsure how broadly or narrowly to interpret the criteria - then I'd probably watch and see what another administrator decided to do with it (or ask another admin). I may need to rethink my wording to see if I can make that more clear and still concise. Karanacs (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
In my experience, "if it's not obvious it's not a speedy" is usually a criterion you can't go wrong with. If you're at all unsure just replace the speedy with {{prod}}; the end result is the same, and it gives five days to defend it if it's defensible. – iridescent16:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
And here is the actual blurb that we came up with for the main page [2]. It is all technically true but taken very out-of-context. You should read Talk:Ima Hogg. It's the most fun I've had on main page day. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on having (probably) the first ever RFA to include the phrase "dropping a Pringle onto a crab", too. – iridescent18:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Boredom does funny things to you. After the mind-numbing tedium of Hellingly Hospital Railway, coupled with what felt like every borderline-disruptive editor on Wikipedia deciding my talkpage was the appropriate place to chat, I'm not sure I can face "real" articles right now. – iridescent19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That was fun to read. Thank you all for the intelligent frivolity! :) «D. Trebbien (talk) 02:04 2008June 17 (UTC)
Oh...my...gosh...That was hilarious!!! I had no idea you that sense of humor! Count me in for the next April Fools day gag. Seriously, the Aggie Jokes could reach a new height if we managed to get A&M on the main page...I'm just saying... — BQZip01 —talk21:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church
The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.
Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. 92.40.7.43 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:DebbieMacomber.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:DebbieMacomber.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
RCC History
I have nowhere near enough expertise to say what should be left out, but I strongly welcome a move to hack the length of this section. --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly what I was planning to do, but I don't think we'll get buy-in to do that until we can show something else to put in its place. Karanacs (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I am still on the road but your proposal looks pretty good. It got rid of a lot of contentious text and would be a good start for further discussions. There are quotations from sources like Bokenkotter and Norman which reads more like apologetics, but I guess those will need to be discussed (as well as the issue of the origins of the Church). I also saw your summary of the opposers' issues. Great job! I will add my comments next. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I looked but couldn't quite figure out what redlinks you were removing. It is okay to have redlinks in the body of the article (that might prompt someone to create an article), but generally not a good idea in the footnotes. Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Literary Barnstar
Thank you for writing such a delightful, compelling, and informative article on Georgette Heyer. Providing her with such a detailed and well-written entry in Wikipedia will hopefully raise her status in the "Literary" world. We can hope, right? :) Awadewit (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! There is lots to do on the article. I'll leave a list at the talk page soon. I'd love to have more help on it. Karanacs (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
(since I don't want to create a section :P) Ok, it'll be some time before it's ready for copyediting finesse, methinks, but I'll give you a holler when SC4 needs it :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Let me know if you need help. I don't have any sources handy to help with writing the lead, but I'll happily copyedit, or, if you find a bunch of online sources and need help, I can look through those. Karanacs (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Very boring question about citations
Asking you as you seem like someone who'd know these things (SandyG, Tony or anyone else watching this, feel free to answer); is there a "correct" way to cite sections in a book where the pages aren't numbered? I'm thinking in particular here of Middleton Press, which is probably the leading publisher on transport history in the UK & Ireland (most UK railway, tram etc articles of ours above substub length cite at least one of their books). However, they maintain a peculiar (and irritating) tradition in all their books of numbered sections and un-numbered pages. Is the correct WP protocol in this situation to cite the section number(s) in question where normally one would cite the page, or to manually count the pages? It seems that the latter would be of no use to anyone actually wanting to check the source, even if it's technically the correct way according to the letter of the law of WP:CITE#FULL.
Up to now, I've generally ignored it when it's arisen, on the grounds that none of the articles I've worked on in this area are remotely close to FA level so the "page numbers" requirement can be safely ignored, as the books are well-indexed enough that anyone wanting to check the sources could find the relevant sections easily enough. However, a couple of articles I've recently written/co-written (Railway stations in Cromer and a currently sandbox-only expansion of Hellingly Hospital Railway) cite MP books repeatedly and I think in these cases it would be useful to "split" the references at this stage so it doesn't make it difficult should anyone else want to expand them further. Any thoughts? – iridescent22:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Butting in, but if they number the sections, I'd use "Section Blah" as the page number. That would seem to satisfy WP:V. It's kinda like quoting an article in an encyclopedia, if you give the section name, you usually don't need the page number. Ealdgyth - Talk22:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I had promised myself that I would help out for two weeks to see if it would get better. Between you and Awadewit I think I've about decided this is hopeless. I really don't want my head to explode - I might need it ;) Karanacs (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and ordered Saints and Sinners, A Concise History of the Catholic Church, The Geography of Religion, Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity and a couple of others that aren't being used as sources yet. I can't believe I did that.. ugh. (These are not the normal sort of book I order...). I could not bring myself to order the above book. I'm hoping to get to a university with JSTOR soon... I'll try to do some research tonight and tomorrow (assuming my boss doesn't have me doing fun things like washing foal butts again...) I might be able to get to TCU this week, maybe. Ealdgyth - Talk21:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I am really glad you are working so hard here. Just so you know where we got Story of Christianity - Xandar used it to replace Geography of Religion because one of you did not like National Geographic. This book cites things that we shouldn't have to cite anyway per WP:Cite because they are indisputable facts. Since Karanacs went a a tagging spree and made us cite every sentence there are 7 citations to this summary source by a university professor. I suggest ordering The Catholic Church Throughout the Ages also so you can go through the footnotes and bibliography that Awadewit says does not exist in this peer reviewed scholarly source by a notable church historian. I have replaced the Nat Geo cites. Story of Christianity has one cite to it that it happened to summarize best. Please see Johnbod's comment on the talk page suggesting that not all sources have to be high level scholarly works, that we can use some general historical summaries by univ professors also - especially for statements of basic indisputable facts. NancyHeise (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
So. Ealdgyth, what's wrong with Story of Christianity now? Didn't you like the picture on Amazon? I can't see any other logical reason for your sudden disdain of this work. Collins is a catholic history professor. Price is a protestant. It is published by DK one of the world's biggest producers of reference books. Really some of the rubbish that gets thrown around here is getting absolutely ludicrous. Xandar (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
After hearing about "university presses books" with "bibliographies and footnotes", it was a bit of a shock to see a non-university press published book being used. Karanacs asked my opinion on things, I weighed in. I'm sorry you consider my opinon, expressed on someone else's talk page to be "rubbish". Ealdgyth - Talk02:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
It is however a solid book from a major reference publisher and by respected authors, and ideal as a narrative overview of the entire period - especially when used for facts that are pretty much uncontested general knowledge anyway. The "rubbish" refered to my feelings on the casting of aspersions on books that have clearly not been read. Xandar (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, I'm pleased to let you know that I've closed your RfA as successful, and you're now an administrator! May I suggest you visit the Wikipedia:New admin school to get a few ideas on the best way to start using your shiny new buttons? If in doubt, feel free to give me a shout! Well done and all the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you...I've been making a mental list of who I can call on when I have a question and I will add you to it :) Karanacs (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand being an admin causes your talk page size to double. Let me assist with that. Editors are mean to me and hurt my feelings (they are such gentle ones, too). They won't accept my edits that say chewing gum assists with solving algebra equations in the Brittany Spears article. That is perfectly valid since I got it from the side of a McDonald's cup. Nor that if you would like to have a good time, you should call Kayla at 800 555 S-L-U-T. Other editors say when I tell them to take a leap off a short kite in traffic that it's an ADHOC attack. I contest that characterization of the noble defense of my opinions. Fix all the problems! --Moni3 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Moni, this is the best description yet of what an admin does. WAY better than WP:ADMIN :-). Oh, and congrats Karanacs. Welcome to the secret cabal. I'm assuming you've received via deleted edits the link to the "other Wikipedia" and your first Foundation paycheck? (Moni, you'll have to suffer the insufferable if you want to know if any of that last sentence was serious or joking....just another gentle prod :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer16:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Moni, I was going to try to be funny back but I can't top that. If I ever figure out who you are in real life I am dragging you to Thanksgiving dinner with my family-there are just no words for how fun that would be (for me). And Keeper, I just received the super-secret decoder ring and I suspect that the check's in the mail ;)Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, welcome to the world where everyone hates you... Thank you for being my first RFA nom ever to pass! If you aren't aware of it already, you may want to bookmark this, which is a good way to give yourself (and others) an idea of how you're abusing your new-found powers which areas you're active in (and far kinder to the server than WannabeKate). – iridescent17:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, Kayla's number has changed. It is now 900 555 S-L-U-T. :-) Other than that, I can't follow that either. Best of luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on the RFA. I know I voted "neutral" but still I want to congratulate you; it's a well-earned accomplishment. By the way, please feel free to have a look at my newest article and rip it apart. Congratulations again, and best wishes! Bwrs (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm back :-) Jbmurray got sucked in right away (got hit up for admin duties immediately), and I think he learned his lesson :-) I seriously hope you won't change the way you spend your Wiki time, since I've seen it happen too many times (we lose good writers and reviewers as they get distracted with admin duties). Keep writing and reviewing, and don't feel like you have to use those bloomin' tools everytime someone asks :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations, [your name here], and welcome to the post of Jimmy Wales/bureaucrat/administrator/target. I'm hopeful/certain that you will use your tools arbitrarily/thoughtfully and for the complete destruction/benefit of our community. What the hell have we/Well done. This message was brought to you by !botEyeSerenetalk08:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, i'm sorry, just a little angry, it's probably cause it's so hot outside & my air conditioning isn't on, you know how hot days affect your mood sometimes. Well, anyway, sorry about that. I understand anyone can edit, but i didn't see that the information about his children was listed above, but you are more than welcomed to add it to the more-appropriate "Personal life" section. I looked at the Garth Brooks page and I saw that sections were randomly put in places they shouldn't be, so I moved it around, and it looks better that way, although I need to eventually make an awards table for hime, like I did for Trisha Yearwood. Do you think the article looks at least a little better? Dottiewest1fan (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
On a somewhat related matter, IMHO, CumulusClouds is editing in a hostile/accusatory manner again. I would appreciate your feedback on what course of action you would recommend (consider this your first request as an admin...hey, at least I'll be first on something related to the first Aggie Admin). In the interests of avoiding canvassing allegations I would expressly request that you not comment on the pages in question, but recommend a best course of action:
You know I've only been an admin for like 20 seconds, right? Sockpuppetry is not an area I am familiar with so I'll be avoiding that if at all possible. I read through Talk:MQS and I think you did the right thing by looking for better sources to augment information in the article. I think the key here is to downgrade the rhetoric. Getting the results of the checkuser and the sockpuppet cases should help; if they clear Schmidt then give CC a chance to back off. If he doesn't then, open an RfC. If he is right and there is a sockpuppet issue then hopefully that can be resolved and editing can resume on the article. I think LaraLove would be a great resource, since she's been Michael Q. Schmidt's mentor and is a respected admin. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it's been a while since you got the mop, but I figured you and I were on the same page and you might guide me in the right direction. Always good to back up my actions with a review and couldn't agree more with your assessment. Glad to know I'm on the right track. Thanks.
You know, I'm getting a little tired of reading the hatchet job you're trying to give my reputation across the talk pages of people you think are sympathetic to your position. You could try giving it a rest for a change and actually wait for process to serve its course before you try to shop for allies. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, you keep making attacks against me on pages of people you think are sympathetic to you. Which is the greater evil here, that I notice these things or that you keep doing it? You have followed up my concerns twice now by accusing me of stalking, but you have not answered the greater question about why you continue to run me into the ground on other people's talk pages. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Cumulous Clouds, I did not take BQ's post as an attempt to run you into the ground. The two of you are having a dispute and he asked my opinion on what to do next. There is nothing wrong with doing that. Why don't the two of you avoid each other for a while and wait to see what the outcome of this sockpuppet case is? There is really no point in rehashing those arguments or holding grudges about it when checkuser will hopefully provide conclusive proof one way or the other. Taking a nice little break while the case is being investigated might be a good way to ratchet down the drama. Then you can refocus your energies on article content. Karanacs (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think "hostile/accusatory" can be viewed as anything but a personal attack. As far as this goes, I have been trying to maintain a separation between us, but BQZip01 has been waging a campaign against me on the talk pages of people he believes are friendly to his cause. You are right that checkuser will provide a definitive answer to this problem, but in the meantime I'm going to have to ask that BQZip01 stop his personal attacks. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, I'm sorry I ever asked you for any assistance. Clearly even any hint of an assessment of someone else's actions in order to provide context is offensive. If it isn't a problem, though, why else would I contact you? Furthermore, WP:ATTACK specifically states: "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks..." I provided context/assessment for my request and asked for a assistance. Please file a WP:AIV complaint if you so desire, but I will continue to ask advice for contentious situations from people I respect as I see fit. BTW, "waging a campaign against me on the talk pages of people"? I have only contacted Karanacs in such a manner...the worst "campaign" in history IMHO. — BQZip01 —talk23:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations Karanacs. Best of luck in your new duties (maybe you will be too busy now to ride me over the rails on the RCC article?) - I am joking with you - have fun as an admin, I know it was important to you. :) NancyHeise (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! As for seeing more of me at fac...maybe not for a while, I have a pretty intense job now. I hope to get another featured article nomination in by January-ish though. Savidan00:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! If I don't notice your next article when it comes to FAC be sure you to ping me and I'll take a look. Karanacs (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to pile-on; I'm sure you're getting sick of this now, but I wanted to add my own congrats to the others!! :D All the best, PeterSymonds(talk)13:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations from me too ! And also by the way, when an article is deleted, the talk page should normally be deleted as well, there is a link when you have deleted the page asking you if you want to delete the talk page, and an automatic summary is added. CenariumTalk20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello and congrats on your adminship. I noticed you removed a speedy tag from Valiant Swart. I have a small request that if you could please add a little more to the summaries so that we can follow why you think an article did not meet speedy criteria. Thanks GtstrickyTalk or C01:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I will try to leave more info in the future. In this case, the article had enough context to be a stub, and a quick google search showed that the band is well-known in South Africa; there should be enough reliable sources to expand the article. Karanacs (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Re:Thank You
I'm sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Congrats on getting the tools:-) As for me explaining why I supported you in detail, no problem:-) I believe when someone "votes" in a Rfa they should explain why they support, oppose, or are neutral on someone becoming an admin.--SJP (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
All joking aside, I will do what I can with this article, but there's so much that needs to be done, and I very much doubt that it can all be done in one day. The prose is dreadful, and I'm amazed that others seem to have found it acceptable.
I'm about ready to support this article's FA nomination now, just a few final things outstanding. I think it's worth a look now to see if you agree. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Re: Thanks
(copied over from my talk page:) It was a delight to take part in nominating you; congratulations on adminship! Take it easy now ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello! As per your suggestion in declining my speedy delete nomination of Opus Energy, I am taking the article to AfD. However, if I can be bold, I may request that you run a Google search of “Opus Energy” and “smart meter” -- you will see the notability is almost exclusive to the company’s press releases. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, I think it probably doesn't meet the notability criteria. I may be interpreting the speedy rules a bit conservatively, but as long as it makes a claim towards notability I don't think it should be deleted under that criteria. Maybe the creator will be able to find more sources; if not, the article will be deleted. Karanacs (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that you are being a bit too conservative (almost neocon, if you will). And a claim of notability is not evidence of notability -- the article had no independent sources to back its statements. I pegged it for speedy delete because I checked up on its first (I always do research first when I doubt -- I don't play whack-a-mole in my New Page Patrolling). I assume, however, will probably be gone within the week. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just going on the line to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable and that it is separate from WP:V and WP:RS. It's possible (unlikely, but possible), that the company could have been written up in publications that are not google indexed; thus a bit more time, in my opinion, is warranted, just in case. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Good to see you posting at FAC again! There has recently been a slight lack of feedback from reviewers. It also seems Elcobbola is back too. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)18:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I was on vacation for a little while, and I stopped posting for a week or so before that so I wouldn't leave any nominators hanging while I was gone. I'm trying to review one FAC a day right now to get back in the groove. Thanks for missing me ;) Karanacs (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've listed this article it on AFD because I don't think it meets WP:BIO. I thought you might want to know because you removed a speedy tag from it a week or so ago. ReykYO!04:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Main page requests moving along ...
We have a compromise I'm satisfied with. We've developed a more precise template for the current five-nomination system that could provide the infrastructure for more nominations in the future, if we're confident we can maintain it after trying it for awhile. You can see the discussion on the requests talk page, of course, but a sample of what we have in mind is here. Wrad (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
A spammer in the works
Hi there! Can you take a look at this account? The IP periodically checks in to insert a spam link into an article—that's all they've ever done. They've been warned, and appeared again today to insert a spam link into mystery shopper. I wonder if a block is in order? --Laser brain(talk)02:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know enough to block IP addresses yet (I would hate to be the admin who blocked all of North America from using WP ;)), so I filed a report for you at WP:AIV. I'll watch that and see what more experienced admins do so that maybe I can help next time. Karanacs (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The IP didn't receive a recent final warning, I'd suggest handing one out. Though, since it's the same domain from the final warning in May, I would've blocked had they been currently active. I'd suggest making a report to WT:WPSPAM to get eott.com blacklisted by one of the anti-spam bots. –xenocidic (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you commented at a previous FA review of the Michael Jackson article. Currently the article is at peer review and I will be renominating the article for FA at some point soon. I would really love to know what your opinion is of the articles quality now, either at the PR, the article talk page or even my talk page. The current PR hasn't drawn much attention so I'm in real need of feedback. I hope you can contribute an opinion to this article. Thank you, regards. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Obsessive Skin Pickers Anonymous
This is a bonafide twelve step program that has granted permission from AA WorldWide Services, Inc. to use its literature, steps and traditions modified to the Skin Picking addiction. This is a group and should be listed among the 12 step groups that are currently documented on Wikipedia. It was established in 2004. Stop deleting this wiki. I am moving for a deletion review.
The program is verifiable in the sense that it is documented on at least two different sites, and AA can verify that it has granted its permission to OSPA to apply the AA steps and literature to the OSPA program. AA sends permission directly to the program itself, when it grants permission. Where am I supposed to find a third party source that reports that OSPA has got AA's permission that does not use OSPA as a source?
I made no argument to the like that simply because the group exists it must have a wikipedia page. The point was that this group is a 12 step program. The objection was to my listing it among the 12-step programs on the "List of 12 Step Programs" already on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia page was an explanation of a program, as it exists in this context. It is not a "random" webpage that alludes to the program; these are sites that address helpful resources for dermatillomania; at the very least there should be a reference to this program at a related Wikipedia article. I highly doubt that all of the programs in the "List of 12 Step Programs" have legitimate third party documentation, other than Wikipedia, or third party sources that simply quote the literature they discuss. All information about twelve-step literature comes from literature inherent to the program. Over Eaters Anonymous did not have its own literature for many years, and used AA literature illegally during that time without asking permission to substitute 'over-eating' for 'alcohol,' whereas OSPA has asked for permission, and is a legitimate 12-step program. OSPA is a twelve-step program, which has been granted official permission from AA World Services for the use of its literature and steps, and therefore OSPA should be listed among the other groups in the "List of 12 Step Programs." The group comprises a formidable set of members, who exist offline and online.
Zandnotz (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)zandnotz
I am contacting you because someone (Scarpy) has twice deleted it from the list of programs, even though I have addressed the issue to the user.
Zandnotz (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)zandnotz
Mosaic Dallas
As the first Texan I can think of (Lara's away), at some point can you have a skim over Mosaic Dallas? I've just temporarily rescued this from deletion, but don't have any idea whether this actually is any kind of notable building or just a generic apartment block, and I haven't the time to trawl through the thousand-or-so press released and real estate adverts Googling the name dredges up. – ırıdescent23:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've never heard of this building, but I am not that familiar with Dallas landmarks. A search of the recent Dallas Morning News archives showed a couple of articles that appeared to be about the building's renovation and there are a few headlines in the pre-1985 archives that look to be about the building , but I don't have access to the full text of the articles. You might want to check with Wikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth. Karanacs (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If/when you ever get the chance, would you, or one of your talk page stalkers, mind having a look at Broadwater Farm? Against all my expectations, it has now been stable for a year, and I think it would benefit from someone in another country who's probably never heard of the area having a look at it. While I know (after failing twice at GA, for reasons I still don't quite understand) it's not going to be FA material, I still think it's crazy that this article is "officially" a worse article than this.
(Preemptive response to the issue people always raise about the images; yes, there are three images with forced image sizes. However, I think all three are necessary to the article, and WP:MOS#Image size specifically allows forced sizing in the case of images with extreme aspect ratios, as these are.)
On 7 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Texian Army, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, Karan. Just curious why you removed the tag from this article. I placed it based on the fact that he was born in Texas and graduated from Texas Tech. However, I'm not as familiar with the requirements of the project as you are. Let me know, so I can avoid the error in the future. Thanks! →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Wordbuilder, I removed it because he didn't seem to spend much of his adult years in Texas, and his accomplishments aren't really related to Texas, so I didn't think it was a great fit. That is my opinion, though, and I won't object if you want to add the template back. Karanacs (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. I'll keep that in mind for the future. I don't want to create extra work for you busy folks at WikiProject Texas. Thanks for letting me know. As always, thank you for your contributions. →Wordbuilder (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Stabilizing TFA/R
Hey, Karanacs; I'm glad to see you so involved there. Are you going to stay involved? I dug in to try to help stabilize it after all the brouhaha was beginning to get out of control, and I hope I've showed the way to more productive dialogue and processes. I'll unwatch after Raul's next mainpage assignments if I know you're in there helping; the page needs a steady hand. After the events of the last few days, I'm also going to be spending much less time around the Wiki (FAC doesn't need me 24/7), so you're always welcome to keep an eye out for withdrawals and other issues on my talk page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to try being involved there a bit; I'm a bit tired of the constant refrain that the TFA process is broken. I saw the hullabaloo from this weekend. I think everyone needs to take a few days to eat chocolate and soak in a spa and then hopefully it will have all blown over. You are appreciated; don't forget that! Karanacs (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I know I'm appreciated, but the accusation of "abuse of authority" violates everything I have ever stood for on Wiki (fairness, honesty, integrity, watchdog for abuse of power) and that isn't fixed by chocolate and the spa. I don't need this job if my reputation and integrity are going to be tarnished because someone disagreed with one decision I made out of nearly 1,000 FACs processed, so it looks like decision time about my involvement at FAC is approaching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No hasty decisions, please!! This is uncharacteristic of Awadewit, and I hope that the overly dramatic phrase was simply a symptom of her real-life stresses. Given the history on that article (premature nom recently) and the fact that other articles under the FA-Team umbrella have been prematurely nominated, you definitely had reason to be extra cautious on this. It will blow over. Karanacs (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Jeez, as Karanacs says, no hasty decisions, please. I'm in awe of the job you do at FAC, and I really can't imagine anyone doing it better, more honestly, or with more integrity. Please take time to think carefully about this SandyG; I really do believe that the FAC project needs your firm (but scrupulously fair) hand at the helm. Especially at moments like this one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I would never (I hope!) do anything unprofessional or unfair to Raul, who put his trust in me. But the reality is that this is the internet, and the words are there, in a permanent record; the accusation stands, as an affront to everything I represent on Wiki and have worked for, tarnishing a reputation I built over many years of hard work and dedication to AGF. Qp gave me good advice when I accepted the position; what remains to be seen is whether I can better follow his advice so that I won't be so much of a target. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I do understand your position, believe me. I've been accused of all sorts of things on wikipedia; some things I've done, and others I haven't; you get thanked for one thing, and then berated for another. The only way to maintain your sanity in this wikidreamworld, I think, is to "treat those two imposters just the same"; stick to your own standards and to what you believe in, regardless of what anyone else says or does. I'll say no more, because it's not fair on Karanacs to take over her talk page like this. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Back home..
Back home and mostly recovered from the trip. Have my hands on some new sources, should be able to go to the University of Illinois' library this week to pick up any journal articles I'm missing/want/need. Is there anything from JSTOR, etc. you were wanting? Ealdgyth - Talk21:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to follow-up. Have you seen my replies to your concerns on the Sebree FA review? If there is anything further that you would like me to improve, please let me know. Some of this is difficult because military biographies have a tendency to ignore personal lives and I don't want to draw on any primary sources to complete the article. (Using contemporary newspapers is far enough in the gray area.) If I can move your weak oppose to neutral at least, I'd like to do whatever I need to do that. JRP (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Karanacs. The article Texas A&M Hillel has been nominated for a merge. As I believe this subject's 88 year history is notable and well referenced, do you have any advice on how I might improve this article's references and/or expansion? Bhaktivinode (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right and the subject is notable enough for its own article (and very well verified!). I'm not familiar enough with Hillel organizations to really suggest what you might look for, and I don't know what other sources are available. You might try talking to EagleAg04 and see why he thought the article should be merged. He's a relatively new user and seems very open to discussing things he's done. Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Re-version
Re-version has been speedily deleted due to apparent copyright infringement. This is not the case. It seems the the apparent copyright infringement is caused by a site using the text from WP rather than the other way around. Can you reverse the deletion? Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that, I didn't notice the fine print that said the article was from wikipedia. It has now been restored. Karanacs (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I seek your help. User:Una Smith is being disruptive at this FAC. She even renamed the FA Scouting, which is linked to about 10,000 times, with no discussion (it got moved back). The biggest problems are that she is editing several BSA related articles and, honestly, she doesn't know what she's talking about. She's gone beyond FAC reviewer to arguing over content as an article contributor-some would call that a COI. I'd even had to say she's in WP:REDFLAG zone. Her replies at FAC last night were out of line IMHO. I was wondering if you, as a respected FAC reviewer could offer
advice on this situation and/or help improve the article. Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rlevse. There are some FA reviewers who like to contribute to the article to fix issues (even content issues) that they see, with varying results. That's usually not considered a COI. (Have you seen the multitude of FACs for Roman Catholic Church?) From the FAC perspective, I'd say keep her focused on the BSA article; the state of other articles does not concern this FAC (I'll leave a note to that effect). I'll also suggest that the wording disputes be taken to the article talk page. Remember, though, if you think a reviewer is being unreasonable it is perfectly okay to say "no, and this is why" and then ignore any further arguments. Sandy will take it all into account. That said, I haven't read the BSA article yet, but I'll try to get to that later today and add in my own two cents about it. Karanacs (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If you look at the FAC page in edit mode, it is there between John McCain and Leopard 2E, but is not transcluding. Karanacs (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll go look now. It could be a wayward noinclude tag (that happened yesterday), or it could be Una Smith messing with the name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I won't be any help with the research (surrounded by books right now for my own project), but I can do basic PR and copyedit types of things. Let me know when you are ready for that! Karanacs (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have... 8 of the major "books" cited along with scattered remnants of the rest. I just have two more sections to fix on his biography (by adding citations). I would have finished last night, but I got too emotionally while working on his death that... well, I couldn't really continue. I tend to work with these writers so much that their final moments really tend to depress me (Swift's, Smart's, Johnson's, Keats's, Shelley's, etc). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ack, sorry. I was working on a section and I could get Sandy's formatting but was unable to get yours in. I'll go back and fix it now. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I am so sorry. I totally missed Sandy's comment that the PR was open. Thank you for reminding me! I'll check it out tonight or tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't notice. :) We got the "bulk" down, now its time for fine tuning, rearranging, breaking off other pages, etc. There are still a lot more books that haven't even been referenced. I have 8 on my desk right now. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Unmerging "Behavioral Addiction" from "Addictive Behavior"
I understand the impulse to merge "Behavioral Addiction" into "Addictive Behavior", but I believe the former is a distinct subcategory of the latter. Perhaps subcategories are not permitted on Wiki. I honestly don't know.
In pursuit of clarifying the difference, I contacted the University of Washington's Addictive Behaviors Research Center. I received the following email today: "Addictive Behaviors is an all inclusive term to refer to any form of what is traditionally called addiction. It includes substance abuse and dependence, behaviors such as gambling, shopping, etc. and relationships that are addictive as in compulsive sex and love."-- George A. Parks, Ph.D. Associate Director Addictive Behaviors Research Center, Department of Psychology, University of Washington Seattle, WA.
Thus, "Addictive Behavior" refers to all categories of addiction, while "Behavioral Addiction" refers is one of those categories. Note that "Alcoholism" has its own article even though it is technically a subcategory of "Addictive Behavior". Your Editing is appreciated and any reply is most welcomed.
I merged it because the two articles were essentially the same. If you have different content that is more specific to Behavioral addiction, you may of course undo the redirect and recreate the other article. I'd suggest that you take this up on the talk page of the Addictive behavior article. It is not a subject matter I am familiar with, but someone there could probably discuss with you. Karanacs (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
FriendNDeed, I saw your note that you are new to wiki. This link will take you to the current form of the Behavioral Addiction article [4].
Sandy, I'm not sure what needs to be done here. The two articles had essentially the same content, to my untrained eyes [5] and [6]. Perhaps someone more familiar with the topic could help guide FriendNDeed on how to find good sources that will help to clarify the difference between the two topics? Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and suggestions. The resemblance between articles was my fault. I heavily revised the original "Addictive Behavior" before realizing a new article on "Behavioral Addiction" would be more appropriate. Out of respect for previous writers, I restored the original article and used my edits as the basis for a new article. Big mistake, because the resulting pages looked too similar, even though the subject matters are distinct. I will indeed draft and submit a new "Behavioral Addiction" article. Thanks for the references to free PubMed and other articles. FriendNdeed (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Template thanks
Thanks for going through the trouble of reviewing the template. I instituted 90% of your proposed changes and think that the temp is better. It's only one day old, and surely we will develop additional improvements in the future. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
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) 09:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Admin attn needed on a FAC
Not sure who can get to it first, but I left notes for Roger Davies and Nishkid64. Without the tools, I can't move over a redirect, so I can't fix it.[7]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Tony's workload is only at a 2 now; any chance that Tony and you can collaborate on the History of FA dispatch for July 21? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm hoping my own workload will drop below a 15 to something more reasonable this week. For now, I'll say yes, I'll help out with this one, but if something comes up later this week I may have to leave it to Tony. I'm planning to write up something on the TFA requests in a week or two, once we're sure that process is pretty stable again. Karanacs (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that instead, but want to see it through a couple of mainpage assignment cycles, to make sure it's stable. Maybe Laser brain's dispatch on July 28, then TFA after that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh...hmm. Here I am actually needing you as an admin... I take back all my very funny commentary when your RfA passed...
What's the chance I can get a partial page protection on To Kill a Mockingbird again? It was on the article until the main page day, and it has not been restored. How much IP wackiness needs to be presented in order for that to happen? It's much slower now than during the normal school year, but there will come a point when I will not be able to keep up with it all. --Moni3 (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Moni. Usually you need a lot of IP wackiness to get page protection, and I don't see that it is that high right now (of course, it looks like it just got unprotected). I'll watch the page - if you see crazy levels before I notice it just ping me here and I'll reprotect it. Karanacs (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the article covering the Battle of Coleto
Hello Karanacs. Firstly, I would like to congratulate you for your excellent work on improving articles concerned with the Texas Revolution. Thanks to you, many articles about that have been substantially improved.
I just wanted to inform you, since I have noticed you have made some changes to it, that I have not stopped my work on expanding the Battle of Coleto article. I have just been focusing on smaller Wikiprojects lately. In fact, like you, I have just submitted a self-nominated article for DYK consideration. I will get back to work on the Coleto article very soon. EasyPeasy21 (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your offer to help. I would be unwise to decline the assistance of someone who, judging from the sources used for articles you have significantly contributed to, has a deep knowledge of the Texas Revolution. I don't have a wide range of literature regarding it, so I would welcome any edits you make to the Coleto article. I will also try to help out with other Texas Revolution articles. btw, excellent work thus far on the Battle of the Alamo article. Do you plan to work on significantly improving the main Texas Revolution article, out of curiousity? EasyPeasy21 (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
My local librarians know me by name now ;) This is a fun hobby. I'd love to see Texas Revolution improved, but it scares me a bit because it is so big. Perhaps after the battle articles are all finished. I've already got a list of several books that would be useful for the Goliad Campaign. Perhaps when I get to them I can post my notes somewhere central and we can both work on incorporating the info? It will probably be months before I get to those - Alamo still has a long way to go (and I welcome any and all help with it or the others!). Karanacs (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
RfA thank you
Thank you!
Karanacs, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
BSA input needed
Your inputs at the BSA FAC have been very helpful in improving the article. Thanks. User:Gadget850 has addressed all your concerns except the origins section. Please review and update the FAC. As for the the origins, we're not sure how to do it without making it excessively long and giving it undue weight for the BSA article. There is a separate history article on the history of the BSA which is rather detailed. Could you also provide more input on what you're looking for? Either the FAC on BSA or Talk:Boy Scouts of America would be fine. Thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh my God. I'm a proper noun and everything, capitalization to boot! (Though "Queen of the Silver Dollar" is ringing through my head...tell me you know the song, or I will remove the "Country Music fan" userbox from your userpage.) --Moni3 (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Dave and Sugar did a better version. Download it. (How do I come off as a country music aficionado? I surprise myself.) And how does one not like Emmylou Harris? I'm not sure that's physically possible. That trio she did with Dolly and Linda Ronstadt was awesome. There's a video clip on youtube of Dolly and Bette Midler singing. Also awesome. --Moni3 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Battle of Goliad
On 18 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Goliad, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 19 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Presidio La Bahía, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Shannaswendson4x.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:
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 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use Image:Sherrilynkenyon.jpg
Replaceable fair use
Thanks for uploading Image:Sherrilynkenyon.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:
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 July2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"It's curious that the ignorance about the Everglades has persisted all these years"—Marjory Stoneman Douglas, 1987. Thank you, Karanacs, for helping in our small wiki-corner, to right that wrong. Your work on the FA Team, particularly the helpful comments during the FAC process, are very appreciated. Please accept this limited-edition barnstar as a token of my gratitude. --Moni3 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you. I'm none too happy with real life at the moment. My dad was very unexpectedly diagnosed with cancer Monday, so that means lots of praying, lots of time at the hospital, and lots of questions. We'll be fine, but good wishes are always much appreciated :) Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Karen, I juggled around the Dispatch dates to allow another week for your TFA/R (putting Elcobbola tutorial image into the 11th instead). Hang in there, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Sandy, for being concerned. I'm in a much better frame of mind this week :) Dad had surgery last week and is back at home now. He's got a series of tests scheduled to see if the cancer has spread and/or if he'll need further treatment for the original tumor. So far the doctors are "cautiously optimstic". The well wishes from you and the others who posted here have really meant a lot. Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Welcome news; I hope things will continue to progress favorably, and I'm very happy your family has gotten optimistic news. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I just talked to my dad, and his doctor told him that his cancer is "cured"! No more treatment, just regular checkups to make sure it doesn't come back. There may be a few more tests in the next few weeks, but we can stop worrying quite so much right now. THANK YOU to all of you for your prayers and good wishes. Karanacs (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it. The Dispatches are all linked at WT:FAC. All of them contain useful information about the various featured content processes, so it probably wouldn't be right to just highlight one of them.. Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at this article's FAC, which I've hopefully dealt with. I didn't at first agree with your comment about the table format, but on reflection I came around to your way of thinking, and the article probably reads better as a result. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
So do I, and even more whacky subjects like this one. I always hope that getting an article through FA/GA gives a guide to others writing on similar topics. I have a couple of other witch articles on the back burner, but the sources aren't so good, so they'll probably always be quite short, GAs at best. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, one other poster seemed to say that if a school gets Blue Ribbon, it is deserving of its own article, even if there is little else to say.
Jh12: "To be fair, only about 5,600 out of over 133,000 eligible schools have ever received the Blue Ribbon Award, recognizing less than 4% of all US schools over a quarter of a century. About 0.2 percent of all schools are selected each year. Each state averages about 5 recipients per year, and the number is even lower when considering primary and secondary schools separately. One may not agree with the selection process, but imho the Blue Ribbon is more notable than any other award covering the United States"
You said: "There is really no information in the elementary school article that is not already in the ISD article, and you have provided no reliable sources to justify having an individual article on the elementary schools. " - The U.S. Government is a reliable source. That one reference apparently is all I need to say "it is notable," if Jh12's POV is to be applied.
Okay, so you may not agree with this concept; if so, please re-start this discussion on the Wikiproject talk page and refer to the old discussion. This issue needs to be discussed on the project talk page, if you wish to pursue this matter further.
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It is alright to have a discussion of sorts on this page, but at the same time it is also helpful to have the input of other editors. A third, or fourth, or fifth opinion would be great. Anyhow, for most schools a merge to the district article is justified. The issue is that the Blue Ribbon award is so prestigious that the school ought to get its own article, even if there are no other notable historical/cultural aspects.
Spring Branch ISD has countless other elementary schools, so we could easily fill the page (or an offshoot named "Spring Branch ISD elementary schools") with details about the schools that do not have Blue Ribbon awards. If it was a small district (with only three or four schools) a merge would be in order even if the schools pass all of the notability guidelines. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello. You recently "object"ed to Candide becoming an FA at its FAC nom. I believe I have addressed all of your criticisms. When you get a chance, would you please re-evaluate the nomination? Thank you very much. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2008 (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.
){kind=link}
