User talk:Karanacs

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

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

Archive 1 November 2006—May 2007 Archive 2 May 2007—August 2007 Archive 3 August 2007—December 2007 Archive 4 December 2007—February 2008 Archive 5 February 2008—March 2008 Archive 6 March 2008—May 2008 Archive 7 June 2008—July 2008 Archive 8 August 2008—October 2008 Archive 9 November 2008—December 2008 Archive 10 January — April 2009 Archive 11 May — September 2009 Archive 12 October — December 2009 Archive 13 January — February 2010

Note to self:images

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

Your extra credit bit on Catholic Church...

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 (Le Goff's a bit outdated and the work you're citing is somewhat of a cross between a popular history and a low level textbook.)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

Jean Lafitte

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outline bump

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts:

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy new year! If you could give this thread a re-read, in the next couple of weeks perhaps, and let me know some of your thoughts/suspicions/inklings/leanings/etc, that'd be great. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at creating a separate User:Karanacs/Navigational pages RfC draft, incorporating some of the above ideas, and the previous working notes. Hopefully that can provide the basis for some further dialogue. Let us know what you're thinking. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely missed the last bump on this - sorry! My talk page gets a lot of traffic sometimes and I don't always notice new messages in the middle. I've noticed that there has been action on this recently, and it's on my list of things to do! Karanacs (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I sent you an email on Friday (this notice just in case your emailuser directs to an irregularly checked gmail or similar ;) I do see that you're working hard on an arbcom case; perhaps the outlines can be your distraction and mental-cleanser from that? ;) Talk soon. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Murder of Imette St. Guillen

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

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

Catholic Church research

Because you have far more experience with featured articles than I do, it would be a better idea if you did this by yourself. I know that's a very daunting task, but I can't imagine anyone more qualified. Additionally, I'm concerned about my biases. I'm an atheist and my opinion of the Catholic Church is not very flattering. I was happy to involve myself with this article as far as fundamental Wikipedia policies were concerned. However, I don't think I should be involved with actually writing its content. Unlike Nancy, I recognize that my personal opinions might occasionally conflict with the aims of Wikipedia. I'm also fairly busy with work and school, although I always overcome those limitations if I have the will.

This is my advice for you, if you want it. Do whatever you think is necessary to improve that article. Do not worry about anyone else. Go full speed and overhaul everything as you see fit. After you're convinced it's ready, you can even try FAC for what would undoubtedly be your crowning achievement on Wikipedia. It's difficult to know who to trust with this article. To say nothing of the others, I don't even trust myself, so I know things will go well in your hands. Good luck.UBER ^(talk) 03:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

One other thing: you seemed concerned in my talk page that "bad things" would start happening to this article. I don't think you have anything to worry about. I've dealt with far worse on Wikipedia. If you think the fights over this article were tough, try Michael Jackson back in 2007, when apparently it was controversial to call him King of Pop in the lead. But I got that and a lot more done at that article (now featured) despite opposition from long-standing editors and administrators, who were all totally confused about what it means to have an encyclopedic article on one of the greatest entertainers of all time. Those who try to game Wikipedia for their myopic ends, and you know who I'm talking about, will always fail in the end. That's been one of my most important guiding principles through the years, no matter how intimidating the opposition.UBER ^(talk) 04:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Posted some comments here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Free State

Just FYI, if you decide you want to play with Free State of Galveston please feel free. I guess I have reached the limits of my abilities at this point.

--Mcorazao (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I was sorry to have to archive it, although the main reason was the lack of comments in general. I'll try my hand at a copyedit soon, but it may be wise to find someone else to help out too. Tony1 didn't approve of the prose on my last FAC either! Karanacs (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Ruhrfish helped big time in rewroking Free State. Ruhrfish recommended someone else do a final once over to check for any mistakes. If you still have an interest feel free to take a look. I guess I'll plan to put it up for FA again soon. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic sources

Which three or four books do you think most urgent? I should be able to look through one of them tomorrow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That depends on whether you would like to concentrate on history or the other sections. If it's history, I think one of us needs to read Norman's The Roman Catholic Church: An Illustrated History for a good overview. For the Early Christianity section, one of the books Harmekheru recommended here would probably be useful. I don't know if I'll be able to get Brent's most recent through ILL as my library won't/can't order any that are under a year old; I can order Norman, but likely won't have time to look through it before May. The structure/hiearchy/membership information needs severe revamping in the article but I'm not sure if we've even identified the right books to read yet. Honestly, I think there is soooo much reading that needs to be done in general to turn this into a decent article that you can probably pick whatever interests you and we'll work from there. Karanacs (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I'll take Brent. Even if he's not quite as wonderful as Harmakheru thinks, he should lead to the recent literature. Tomorrow, however, I'll see if I can check Bodenkotter on the web; I am curious whether the business about Rome being the capital of the Western Roman Empire was his, or whether this is another case of not reporting sources accurates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked Bokenkotter, and on page 36 his book says that Rome was the capital of the Roman Empire. He was speaking of the early days of Christianity, before the East/West split. I think Milan became capital of the Western Roman Empire in the late 3rd century, right? Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue PMA mentions (Rome being capital) was a bit of an editing mash. I think that paragraph of the article originally meant the early Church, and then stuff about Constantine was added, making the time frame less clear. Gimmetrow 17:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds likely. I'm working on a revamp of the Early Christianity section at User:Karanacs/Catholic Early. It relies way too much on Bokenkotter right now, because that is what I'm currently reading. Any help is welcome... Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Ravenna was the center of power after Constantine (according to Bauer). The draft looks good. I'm reading Bauer, Bokenkotter and McBrien at the moment. Notes are here and may, or may not, be helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

After Alaric made Milan (and Rome) unsafe. Milan was the center of power in the West from Diocletian to Honorius; that's why Saint Ambrose was in a position to excommunicate an Emperor - he was bishop of the capital. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Balancing FA with new editor recruitment

I just wanted to thank you for your efforts to explain a bit of Wikipedia's policy to User:JohnsoKr at Talk:Donner Party, but I was a bit dismayed that I was the only person to leave her a personal message at her user talk page and that you seemed more interested in getting to FA than the input of an expert. As she is new to Wikipedia, it is natural that she would not understand our rules - that this might derail a first FAC attempt is, perhaps, unfortunate, but the article could be stronger in the end, with her help. Besides, imagine how much Wikipedia would benefit from someone with expert knowledge contributing in this area! We should be doing everything we can to recruit editors like this. We were all newbies once - I remember the first time someone had to tell me to add sources to an article I wrote - do you? :) Awadewit (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see the confusion in my comments there - I use "FAC status" to mean "meets the FAC criteria" rather than "gets that gold star". I was quite concerned about the possibility of original research and, regardless of whether the article got promoted (I was a little suprised that it did already), the fact that it wouldn't meet that part of the criteria was problematic. I had previously welcomed Ms. Johnson on the talk page of the IP that she was using before she created an account, and since she had used that IP after I left the message I thought it would be silly to leave a very similar message on her new talk page. Thank you for taking the initiative to welcome her, and thank you also for your detailed comments on the article. There is obviously still room for improvement, but we are getting there. Karanacs (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for my misinterpretation! Awadewit (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize! I obviously need to pay more attention to what I'm typing, and I'm glad to get that nudge from someone I respect :) Karanacs (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject NINES and 18th Connect

I thought you might be interested in the above project. Like all things academic, it will move slowly. Awadewit (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Pull a Moni

Somebody better whack me before I pull a Moni ... I swear, you are Saint Karanacs!! I don't know how you've done it for so long ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You already pulled a Moni last time! I've got a thick skin, and my AGF-meter is pretty big. It's only recently that the AGF-meter has started getting full and my temper has started fraying. I'm Cajun - it's reaallllly important that I hold on to my temper or I could throw a hissy fit of such humongous proportions that Moni would ask for lessons ;) So instead I go get chocolate. I'm gaining weight :( Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

ah, chocolate ... so that's what I'm missing !! I can pull a pretty mean hissy fit in Spanish :) Hang in there, Karanacs ... don't want you to lose your sainthood! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cake works pretty well too. Even better is to pair the two - brownies! Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No baking here.. it's over 80 and I'm fighting a rear-guard action to avoid turning on the AC... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? Snow melted already where you are? You live in the tropics or something? [/me goes outside to build a snowman. ] :p Bishonen | talk 22:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC).

No, Midwest, we're just REALLY warm today for the season. I do NOT want to turn the AC on just yet, but .... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you'll need your thermal underwear on your trip to England. It's currently 48 here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Last time we went to Europe, ya'll had a heat wave ... 35C in Vienna and higher. I expect by the time we get there in a month and a half we'll bring the heat with us. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bah, that's nothing ... it was 42C when I was in Seville once ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What's a Moni? --Richard S (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You had to be there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How to proceed?

I'm ready to begin rewriting the Middle Ages section. The first sentence in the section is chronologically misplaced, as the conversion to Arianism occured in the 3rd century before the fall of Rome, so it seems that an entire re-draft is necessary. What would be best: to begin my own version in my sandbox using the sources I have at hand which can then be integrated with your draft, or add to your draft? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've created a rough draft here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the best idea. My plan is to present these on the talk page section by section. If we try to do too much at once I think it may be difficult to get consensus. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The only pressure is to get the books read and notes taken before library fines become too steep! Once the material is captured in a subpage it can be moved slowly to the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I turned in my Bokenkotter copy today, even though I had only gotten through the first 1100 years. My copy of MacCulloch's History of Christianity arrived yesterday, so I'm going to try to get through his coverage of the first 1000 years before going back to Bokenkotter. After that, I can either order Norman through ILL or get McManners' The Oxford illustrated history of Christianity from another branch of my library. Both will have to wait until May (going on vacation a week from Saturday, woohoo!). Any preference on which might be better (or that you don't have access to)? Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see on-line, McManners seems good. My local library doesn't have it, and our ILL is slow. Let me know if you get it, and I'll work at running down Norman. I'll be busy with work during the last two weeks of April into the beginning of May so my editing will slow down then. After that life gets crazy—children (?) home from college and out of high school, etc.—so am trying to do as much as possible now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, I'll get McManners when I come back then. I'd like to have something to present on the Early Christianity section in May. I think that (my version of) this section is pretty close anyway, I just don't want it to rely so heavily on Bokenkotter, and, of course, it needs to be shortened. The Middle Ages section will likely be much more complicated!! Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you both know that I have Bokenkotter, McManners, Duffy, and a bunch of others if you need backstopping later in the article creation process. Can't really get too involved as we leave for Texas (Scarborough ren faire and the hill country wildflowers) in a bit under two weeks, and then Europe at the end of May. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to get involved later that would be really, really helpful :) I'm only reading on the first 1000 years right now, and will have to get all those books and finish them up again later unless we get more help.... We're doing the opposite of you; Europe in two weeks and the hill country in May. The flowers just started getting pretty last weekend, so they should be gorgeous when you arrive. Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll spend my time reading and bringing myself up to speed now until I get too busy in May. The summer is starting to stack up too, so it's helpful having Ealdgyth as a backstop. Thanks! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft

User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Transhumanist    23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Book of interest

I thought you might be interested in this. Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That is really cool! Thank you for bringing it to my attention. Karanacs (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Open Boat

Hi. Did you notice my oppose in relation to OR?? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't. You must have commented as I was reading through the FAC (and I usually don't refresh once I've started my run-through). Can you please work with Maria to get those issues resolved? She's pretty good at following up with issues, but if you don't feel satisfied, let me know and I'll try to get involved too. Karanacs (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

This will be taken care of quickly. Because the oppose vote was not factored into the final FAC decision, may I move hamiltonstone's comments to the talk page? This would allow for further discussion, etc. María (habla conmigo) 12:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Karanacs (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Botification of closed FACs

Just in case you have not read the discussion at WT:FAC, since Gimmebot is not currently doing its job, I've stepped up to manually do its job. I've already gotten started on your latest pr/ar. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw that thread earlier today. MBK, you are awesome. Karanacs (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe it, I just edit conflicted with Gimmebot on my last one! -MBK₀₀₄ 02:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia.... ;0 Karanacs (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: In case I haven't told you lately...

Thanks! All that is applicable to you too, you know. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank-you for the barnstar! It was a pleasure to write; I'm glad you enjoyed it. Cam ^(Chat) 04:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination)

Hi, Karanacs. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (3rd nomination), you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church update

Hi Karanacs. Hope you had a wonderful time away! I'm leaving you an update so you don't have to trawl through history to see what's been done during your absence. The GA review is finished and I've started to work on some of the suggestions from the review. I've copyedited slightly, even with the knowledge that substantial changes may still be incorporated, using the logic that the article should be as clean as it can for now. I've also added a few images, per the GA comments, but stopped because it caused some discussion. Most notably, I've been working on reducing the file size: it still takes almost 30 seconds, sometimes longer, for the edit window to close, which makes the editing excruciatingly slow. Most of my recent edits have been to move in-text citation templates to the sources section. I found about 15 to 20 that were duplicates and I reformated and consolidated. If you have questions about what I've done, ping me. Also, I have Norman and a quick spot-check was disappointing. Each bit of the article sourced to Norman was problematic: either not in his text; only a small portion in his text; in one case in the text but lifted directly into the article. I've added cite tags to the parts not in the text, and rewritten the others. I'm not impressed with Norman, but we can discuss the reasons later. I have a busy week beginning tomorrow, and then anticipate a number of small trips during the summer, but I'll be around to help as much as I can. Again, welcome back! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the update!! I need to tackle my watchlist, and will keep the Catholic Church article to last. I spent a great part of the last week marvelling at the wonders of various Catholic churches (there are no words to describe the feeling of walking on floors that are over 1600 years old), which will hopefully be just the motivation I need to start working on this again in earnest. I am disappointed to hear that you have a poor opinion of Norman so far; I read an article in Newsweek during my flight that quoted him a great deal, and was hopeful that it would be a good source. I'll work my way through the talk page soon, and if all goes well, I'll be back at my books tomorrow! Good luck resolving your busy period. Karanacs (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! User:Erik is gone, Moni is still mostly MIA, Eubulides is gone, Ealdgyth is out. Malleus is up and down ... and it's been hard to hold FAC under 40, with such a lack of reviewers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm still a week behind on my watchlist. Funnily enough, I didn't miss WP even once while I was gone...but here I am again anyway. Thanks for the update. Karanacs (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you have a fabulous time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! We spit in the eye of the volcanic ash cloud and made it to our destination anyway, and I got to eat gelato every day :) Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you had gelato at Biboli in Firenze! (I got horrific food poisoning from a corner store when I lived in Italy-- wanted to die.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Lucky! I used to have a gelato place near my house, but it closed down :( Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I was in England at Christmas didn't miss Wikipedia while I was gone, so take your time. Savour the memories. Florence is one of the more gorgeous place I've visited, and I am envious of you. I've just cut out material that is duplicated in the History of the Catholic Church article, and I believe more can be cut to achieve a good summary, but expect some protests against the cuts. Am in the Reformation in my reading and believe that section needs a re-work, but will wait until the dust settles. Am trying to tie up loose ends before I disappear into work for the next week, but if I have time I'll write a review of my impression of Norman in my sandbox this afternoon. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Florence is one of my favorite places :) The trip was good for me, not only because I really needed a break (and new shoes), but also because it has put some of what I'm reading about the early church in better perspective. I've now caught up on my watchlist and have read through the Catholic Church talk page and archives, although I haven't read through the article to see what's been changed. I'll be digging back into McCulloch later today, and will check on your sandbox later. You have been incredibly productive - I probably won't be able to match that output level! Good luck with work. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to comment at the moment, but speaking of sources, have you found what I wrote about Norman in my sandbox? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not yet, I will go check that out. Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at all at the potential plagiarism issues (I caught a few, from other sources, a while back - I do not believe that Nancy truly understood what that meant, at least in the beginning of her work on this article). From your analysis, and the selected quotes, I don't think I would consider Norman a good source. Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Currently I'm reading about the Reformation, and when things slow down a bit for me next week, I'll begin making notes. I'm inclined to return Norman to the library. What's to be done about the close paraphrasing/plagiarism? Cite it to Norman while I have the book and then replace later? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Mission Santa Cruz de San Sabá

Great article. I promise not to rename it. ;) --Liveon001 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

University of Texas at Dallas

Karanacs! I haven't talked to you for a while. Hoping all is well for you. Currently I am attending UTD for grad school type stuff. I haven't been as active on WP as I would like. I have done some work cleaning up the University of Texas at Dallas, and I have nominated it for a peer review. Considering your considerable experience on the TAMU page, any suggestions would help. Thanks and gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi OldAg, I'm glad to hear you are doing well! I will try to get to the peer review, but I'm pretty swamped in real life and on-wiki right now so it may take me a little bit to get over there. Karanacs (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't going anywhere. Take your time. Thanks again for your help. Oldag07 (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Brainstorming

I bought this book the other day. Do you think that using it or its bibliography would help reduce the argument over sources at the Catholic Church article? It was an idea...:) Awadewit (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A very intriguing idea... Have you had a chance to look at it much? Is it written at the right level of detail or is it very vague? I'm not familiar with this series of books, but it seems worth looking at. Karanacs (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll read it over the next week and get back to you - the bibliography, at least, looks helpful. At first glance, the level of detail looked right. But that was 10 minutes in the bookstore. Hence the purchase. Awadewit (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam

Is there something needed prior to promotion? It has six supports, no opposes, and I've done all the changes requested.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt! Linky, linky !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry-- means pls provide the link so we can quickly have a look (per that giant message we both have on our talk pages :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It's best just to let Karanacs and SandyG get on with it, without hassling them to close an FAC. I have one myself with eight supports and no outstanding issues, but I'm in no hurry. It'll get closed when it gets closed. Who knows, someone may turn up out of the blue with some perfectly plausible objections to the article's promotion, so it shouldn't be closed too quickly no matter how many supports. Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the delegate may see something I don't, they have 50 articles to look after at a time, never hurts to ask when in doubt.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And growing all the time! (I remember when we could routinely keep the list under 25!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the support on Free State of Galveston. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for input on discussion regarding a FA recategorisation.

Hi Karanacs, Sandy has suggested that I ping you to ask for some input on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#International Space Station. I feel that International Space Station has been misclassified as a Physics and astronomy when it better suits the Engineering and technology category. Any input you could offer would be appreciated. Colds7ream (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Historiography of early Christianity

Sorry about the edit conflict. I just sat down to type up the notes about the Reformation (finally finished another book) and saw your post. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem - I think I merged the two versions without losing anything! I just got Owen Chadwick's A History of Christianity (I needed a break from MacCulloch), and I'm not too impressed so far. It definitely looks like a coffee table book, both in its dimensions and the sheer amount of art woven into it, and it is extremely general and includes a great deal of speculation. I'm going to read a few more chapters before I make up my mind, but right now I don't think I want to use it in Catholic Church. Karanacs (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's good to be doing this: we're finding that the quality of the sources isn't great, which to some extent may have caused such a problem on the page. I've finished Brian Moynahan's God's Bestseller about William Tyndale and the translation of the Bible to the vernacular. It's been a fascinating read, because it explains that in translating the Greek word that denotes church to the English word "congregation" Tyndale was guilty of heresy by denying the traditional narrative. Such a simple thing, and yet so many consequences. At least now I fully understand the undercurrents of the Reformation and if Moynahan's book isn't acceptable (am currently looking for reviews) I'll get one of the books noted in his bibliography. This is taking a long time, but I believe worthwhile. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you. I'll think I'll try to get this book written by (apparently) the best scholar in the field. Page 122 is interesting. If I disappear again, don't worry - I'll be reading. Ping me, if you need input. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not watching the RCC page, which is a great relief, but make sure you're not confusing Owen Chadwick's 1995 book with his brother Henry Chadwick's 3 volume Penguin History of the Church. This used to be a major source, and I am alarmed to see it is no longer listed in the references, which it should be. What happened there? Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of the citations were eliminated in the cutting. Truthkeeper and I are slowly reading books - those that had been listed, those that are currently listed, some that weren't used in the past. Owen Chadwick's book was heavily used in the article, and I don't have a high opinion on it. I haven't gotten to Henry's book yet - I may have to ILL it. The article talk page has slowed down, and is so far a much calmer environment. I hope you reconsider and start watching the page again, Johnbod - your perspective is valued. Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to find Henry Chadwick's history in used bookstores this weekend without success (actually couldn't find any histories of the CC which is interesting). I can put in another ILL for this, but it will be a week or more before I get it, if it's fine to wait that long.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I did a closer look at the article here, and it had not actually used Henry Chadwick's book; instead, it referenced a chapter he had written in John McManners (ed)'s Oxford History of <now I forget if this was Christianity or the Catholic Church>. I requested that from another branch of my library and should have it tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh good, then I won't worry. I'm still working on the reading about the reformation and counter-reformation, but would like to find a single book for that section, so I'll continue to focus there instead. Also, unfortunately keep getting pulled away to work on other articles. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have checked. In fact the Penguin History of the Church is 6 vols, only #I, "The Early Church" (to the rise of Islam, erratically), By Henry C. There are plenty at $1 + p&p on Abebooks etc. Vol II, Medieval, is by R. W. Southern, & vol III, Reformation, by Owen Chadwick (the general editor). Then 3 more - Cragg, Vidler & Stephen Neill (on missions). All are easily available in the same way & good solid sources, though originally from the 60s & slightly old. Obviously much more detail than single volume jobs, & these have no pictures. They cover the whole Christian Church; all authors are Protestant - or ? in Southern's case - but this gives good perspective. Not that I've ever read the last 3, or the whole of the first 3. Thanks, but I can't see myself back at the article for a long time. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Benet Academy FAC

Hello Karanacs. Thanks for providing feedback on the FAC for Benet Academy. I'm currently working on the edits you suggested; please feel free to provide additional comments in the meantime. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to all of your comments. Could you please take another look? Benny the mascot (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me; I'll be over there soon. Karanacs (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mission Santa Cruz de San Sabá

The DYK project (nominate) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Tosa

Hi Karanacs, thanks for taking the time to manually promote this. I don't know why the bot is down, but I just wanted you to know that your hard work is appreciated. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. Gimmetrow is going/gone on a wikibreak and won't be running his bot :( That means we're soliciting volunteers to help with the manual conversion - it's tedious. Congratulations on your promotion - it was a well-done article. Karanacs (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to ping me tomorrow; I'm off work, and because of MILHIST's A-class reviews, I know how to do update the article history. I'm just not as fast as MBK004 (talk · contribs). ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 18:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The close of an FAC/FAR has a few extra steps compared to an ACR. Also, I've already volunteered as soon as my finals are over next week. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm sure that you can do it five times faster. It doesn't look too bad (I peeked into Sandy's sandbox); if anyone needs me before MBK is done with finals, I'll try to get to them, otherwise NBD :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Masako Katsura/archive1

Hi Karanacs. Per WP:FAC "[i]f a nominated article is archived, and not promoted, none of the nominators may nominate or conominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate... Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemption." I am asking for dispensation to renominate immediately. Only one user provided substantive feedback, all of whose concerns were addressed promptly; that user had only struck out their comments a few days ago, with one open concern left we were discussing, which was just addressed yesterday. Other than that, the only comments were about FU images. I certainly see the point of the instruction "nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating" but I know of no open issues that a hiatus would help resolve.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Archive links

I agree with you that Archive links is a sockpuppet of someone, as is also clearl from this response [[4]]. But I do not think that it is User:Jacurek. User:Archive links edited in Poeticbents section, and Poeticbent has an habit of repeatedly altering his initial comments. So most likely just annother Poeticbent sock, but not Jacurek. Pantherskin (talk) 06:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

He's an undeclared sock of someone, either evading a ban or double-dipping at the AFD; either way, it's justification for a block. Karanacs (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pedro Romero de Terreros

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey..

Do you want me to loan you my Brown and some other stuff while I'm in Europe? I can ship them to you and you can ship them back when you're done or in mid-July, when I'll be home. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a really nice offer, E! I have a list of other books I was planning to get from my library and/or ILL this summer that will probably keep me pretty busy. This is a massive project with a massive amount of reading, and I don't anticipate being done any time soon. If I miraculously manage to get through the rest, I can ILL Brown, and then neither of us have to pay shipping charges. If you have any other recommendations for good sources, let me know and I'll add them to my list. Karanacs (talk) 16:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nominations

That's all I was asking! I left that Sandy person a message asking her/him/it? whether it will be a good idea to nominate an article again and I received no answer. I nominated ANOTHER article but I am being told that it does not meet the criteria so I will do peer review. Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

One last question and I will leave you alone: I am trying to start a Peer review to get this thing underway but it is giving me several options and none of them are compatible to it:

• Arts, Language and literature, Philosophy and religion, Everyday life, Social sciences and society, Geography, History, Engineering and technology, Natural sciences and mathematics, General topic or List

I can't find anywhere where it gives me guidance.Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ruhrfisch and User:Brianboulton are peer review experts - they can probably give you good advice. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you very much for the barn star :o)

I aim to keep reviewing but I do feel a crisis of confidence quite often, so it's excellent to know that other reviewers are there to form a consensus so I don't feel that it's all down to me. I started reviewing because an issue of Signpost said it would be good if someone would lend a hand, so there I am. Take care, bodnotbod (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are doing an excellent job at providing feedback to nominators. As a nominator, it's always nice to get a "support, great job", but you're often taking it a step beyond and letting them know exactly what you like about the article. I've also noticed that your critical comments are often pretty insightful. Keep up the great work! Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Copa Libertadores

I actually did took your advice and already done a PR receiving a good amount of feedback that helped me out. As for the GA nomination...I will be honest: I have used other FA as guidelines in order to improve the page. Give it a chance. See it yourself that this surpasses GA criteria (and after looking at other GA's, in actuality it surpasses it by a mile). Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it up for now and we'll see what the reviewers think. Karanacs (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about the "no nominations 2 weeks after an archived nomination" rule. The nom has been speedily closed for that reason, and because a reviewer has already said it didn't meet criteria. Please pursue a real Peer Review and/or GA to get feedback. Karanacs (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, the nominator closed the peer review after only three days. We can't be asking experienced FA writers to toe the line on the new rules, while someone else flaunts the rules requested by experienced reviewers. Not going there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what I get for trying to concentrate on a Friday! Karanacs (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

And me, for posting from airline gate, with limited patience :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You're a little too dedicated, Sandy! If you need me to take over at all, just drop me a line. I'll try to actually check my email this weekend. Karanacs (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You're a dear-- I need to read five articles when I land, think I can handle it. Don't worry! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:

My apologies for my comments on Sandy's talk page, though I thought that when little discussion has been generated, an FAC is restarted, not ended. The lead section aside, what other parts do you feel need improving to attain FA status? LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, we haven't had enough reviewers to go around, so we've generally been saving restarts for articles that had garnered supports but which had changed drastically during the FAC process (such as being split into subarticles). If there's simply a lack of supports, we ask that the nominator come back in a few weeks. I can't offer specific advice on your article, but it may help to have a Peer Review, or to contact the reviewers who did comment again and see if they can elaborate on what they think could be improved. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm usually urging nominators to give more detail on what an article is about, but in this case an excess of honesty on the obscurity of the album may have played against you, I'm afraid! Perhaps a little discreet boosterism next time. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church again

It's time for me to bail out from the article and the talk-page. I'm half-way through MacCulloch's Reformation and intend to finish and post notes in my sandbox. I've learned a lot, and felt we could get this done, but now have my doubts (though G.W. seems to be the editor the article needs.) Feel free to access my sandbox if any of it is of value to you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, Truthkeeper88. We've already made more progress in the last two months than was made on the history section in the 18 months before that. Good luck on your other projects, and I hope you stop in at Catholic Church every once in a while to keep your toes in. Karanacs (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep it watched, but realized last night that I don't have the patience. I understand that issues have to be resolved, but I tend to work by laying down a first draft, swinging through again and tweaking and so on until whatever I've worked on is finished. The tweaking/revision process usually takes much longer than the initial draft process. With the Catholic Church, however, each point has to be debated and debated, which, in my view, stalls progress and prevents the actual writing of the article. Plus, I don't think I'm thick-skinned enough for that talkpage. Best for me to work on my own, and feed you information if you need it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So that all the reading doesn't go to waste I've been working a bit on the Middle Ages draft in my sandbox. I don't think it's much better than before, but I've taken a few points from your Duffy sandbox. I think we should brainstorm (whenever you want) to determine which points need to be addressed for that time period. I've finished one book on the Reformation, but think it will be some time before we get there, so am waiting to start others. I guess this is an admission that I'd like to see the article finished, but I needed a small break to work on something more fun for a week or so. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Last week I was mostly off-wiki due to crazy work schedules, and I may drop off here and there over the next few weeks if they start moving deadlines again (aaarrggghhh). I've also been working on something more fun with another in mind. I'm almost through with The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity (working on 1800s-present and need to finish it so I can hand it back in), and I'm hoping by next week to have a proposal for the Late antiquity section (Constantine - 440s). I think it's probably best to go in chronological order, so that we can keep everyone a bit more focused. Once I get that proposal up, I need to read through my notes again and see which sources I need to go back to - in my first pass I think I stopped at about the 1200s in several of the books. We should have enough between us to develop a good outline of what should be included for the first 800 years of the Middle Ages. As much as it might not seem like it, we are actually making progress!! Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Madonna FAC

Hello Karanacs. Thanks for bringing to light some wonderful points in the FAC for Madonna. I am in teh process of revamping the article and almost done. I will let you know once I have addressed all the concerns. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

All concerns have been addressed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. Off topic, but I just came to know that you love books and authors, maybe the article on Ipsita Roy Chakraverti be interesting for you. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Karen. Its good to know that you are thinking of getting Brooks through FA, he's one of my favourite. I absolutely love "She's Every Woman" and the In Pieces album as a whole. Pitty I never went to any of his concerts. :( --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I went to one of Garth Brooks' last shows before he announced his retirement (waited in line pretty much all day to get those tickets) and it was wild. If he tours again, you should definitely go, although it will probably be a lot longer line ;) Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh you lucky lady. I wish I could go to more tours, but budget is restraining me. :( Anyways I asked User:IronGargoyle, who works with PD, about the Madonna image. He said that there's a 50/50 chance. I believe its best to remove it as the source doesnot provide a sureshot explanation whether it was released before 1978. What say you? --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That is probably the best option; if we can't be sure about the publication details, then we ought to err on the side of caution. Karanacs (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC query

Hi Karanacs, I noticed that you removed No Line on the Horizon from the FAC list as a promote and added it to the list of FAs. As the nominator and principal contributor to the article I was naturally delighted. However the article history has yet to update and I notice that the discussion [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Line on the Horizon/archive3|still appears to be open]. Is the bot simply being slow tonight, or is there some procedure I need to follow so that everything checks out? Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Somehow I missed that page (odd considering it's in the message at the top =S). Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: another image question - unpublished photos

It need not be printed in a book or periodical to be "published"; as long as the photographer (copyright holder) offered copies of it for sale or distributed them to the public (like free gifts), it has been "published".

However, this case looks more like a private family photo that is "unpublished" till now. The stated source gives no indication of the identity of the copyright holder or publication (where or when). If found, such an unpublished photo is copyrighted for 70 years pma or if his or identity cannot be ascertained, 95 years after first publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is earliest. Regardless the date of creation is such that none of these three durations would have elapsed by now. Jappalang (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much - that is along the lines of what I was thinking. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois) FAC

Hi Karanacs, I believe Tony and I have now responded to all of your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois)/archive1 - when you get a chance, any additional feedback would be appreciated. Thanks for all your comments, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check back in today. Karanacs (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, I think we are ready for another look. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Karen, still catching up-- is there anything else that you weighed in on that I need to look at? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The only other one I've reviewed that's open is Harris Theater, and I don't think it's ready for you to take a look yet. And mine that is open (Convention of 1833) isn't ready for delegate eyes either. Karanacs (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are getting close.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC of Indiana class battleship

Frankly I'm a little stunned: I had an edit conflict with an FAC closure to promote. Please review this. Doug (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume this means the promote was not in error. Doug (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lad, A Dog/archive1

I'm confused as to why this has failed? It received some support, all comments were addressed, as was the only complaint. How can I "take time to work on resolving issues" when all issues mentioned have already been solved? I don't see what was left that caused it to fail? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Anma. The FAC had been open for 2 weeks and did not have any declarations of support (bodnotbod was leaning there but hadn't changed his declaration after two weeks). Usually when there aren't any full supports after two weeks we archive. A few others had commented without leaving declarations or much useful feedback. This FAC seemed to have gotten distracted a bit with naming issues and image issues, and it will probably do better if it comes back again in a few weeks (often the reviewer pool changes slightly over time and more may be interested in this article). I would recommend that you ask User:SlimVirgin if she has any further suggestions for improvement, since she appears to have read the article all the way through. I know that it's really frustrating to have nominations archived primarily due to a lack of feedback, but generally things work better the second time through. Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay...meanwhile, I'm banned from FAC for two weeks again, right? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes...but it gives you time to either work on your next article or solicit some independent feedback on this one. And when you bring the article back, the response ought to be better! Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I think that will probably be the last one I bother with for awhile. They all seem to go the same way these days, not enough feedback and no one actually says "support" anymore, so they just end up failing even with mostly positive response, and I'm just really frustrated with all these new "rules" that have nothing to do with the actual articles. Really hate that I butchered the article's images out just to have it fail anyway. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a nice piece of work Anma, whether it's got that little gold star or not. But you've got some breathing space now to properly resolve that image issue before taking it back to FAC. Let me know when you do, as I'd very likely have supported its promotion this time round if I'd looked at it. Malleus Fatuorum 15:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Right now, though, I'm probably not going to do anything else with FACs for awhile. Just too stressful. And not really any good way to resolve the infobox image without spending a small fortune on a true first edition that actually has the cover (not that I wouldn't want one, but I'd have to up my insurance rider again LOL), or putting what, to me, would be a pointless image of the under cover which just has the title. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston

The user you reverted yesterday, moved the page again without discussion. I have opened a discussion here Regards --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Tsk

Now if you don't take that away again, I'll have to abandon this account. Yomangani^talk 15:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel so guilty! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we consider this given to you automatically? I've have done it long ago but I thought you already had autoreviewer rights. It's a crappy system, but I'd rather work with it (and desysop any idiot admin who takes this away) rather than have to jump through hoops. It's your call, though - if you really don't want it I'll remove the flag. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean I can't say "poop" on Wikipedia?[5] Kablammo (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Risker specified it had to be in less than 80% of your edits. Unless, of course, you are editing the article poop. ;) Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck is all this cocksucking shit all about? --Moni3 (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)