User talk:Karanacs/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Belarus FAC

I am glad that you check by on occasion see the progress made. However, if there is one thing I might not be able to do, it is to specify the time when people eat dinner. The only thing I have found was a travel guide that says eat before 20,00 hours or prepare for the dinner from hell. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm working a bit more on what you said, I hope I haven't missed anything else. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, about the template issue, it was reverted. I am not sure where this style method is from, but I noticed this also on Japan, an article about a country that is Featured. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back and changing the vote. I should have known about people going away for the holidays, but I am glad you are enjoying the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks! Though anyone can remove vandalism promptly with a high speed connection, Firefox, and WP:TWINKLE :) BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Not much edit warring going now - that means you did a great job in writing the article! I'm going to sign out in a few minutes - hopefully there won't be much vandalism overnight. BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too! BlueAg09 (Talk) 03:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. Not much edit warring going on right now. I think this one went smoother...then again, people are reading the article and what is written versus complaining, "Well, that can't be right. I'm an engineer. Those people are idiots who wrote this." All-in-all, it makes for a pleasant holiday season. Merry Christmas! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Gotta admire creativity at least. Hell, given my last experience, I wouldn't mind someone replacing the entire page with GO LONGHORNS!!! At least that is easy to revert and there needs to be little discussion. Anyway, back to watching the page! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Took the whorns an hour to start bitching...but as usual, no follow-through... — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

David Lovering

I've added citations after the quotes as you suggested (thanks for linking to that "When to cite" page; it's useful stuff). Could you perhaps reconsider your assessment of the article? Thanks for your review. CloudNine (talk) 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to revisit this FAC yet ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've now merged the sections (your only remaining request). Could you perhaps reconsider your assessment of the article? CloudNine (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

I assume I can say Merry Christmas to you. Have a happy new year. 2007 has been incredible for A&M wikipedia pages. I am hoping everything is going well for you. best of luck for next year Oldag07 (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Ian Svenonius FAC

First off, thanks for your comments at the Ian Svenonius FAC. I wanted to ask you if there was anything else I could do to earn your support vote for the article. Not that staying neutral is a bad thing, but I'd like to see everyone completely satisfied that the article is up to spec before/if it gets promoted. Either way, thanks for taking the time to help me improve the article. Drewcifer (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful FAC

Thank you for providing comments on how to to improve the article at the successful FA nomination of Vasa (ship). Happy holidays and all that!

Peter ^Isotalo 08:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thriving Cult

Thanks for the copyedits! Much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC).

• Just to keep you updated, I addressed all of your points from the FAC page, except for: Many, many sentences in the article read "So and so stated that...." Can you try to work on some of these to vary them a little? That will make the article read better. -- I will try to work on this one too, but I just wanted to let you know I addressed your other points. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Please see the FAC page. I believe I have addressed this last point of yours, I hope, to your satisfaction. Cirt (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Again, nice copyedits, thank you! Cirt (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
• Thank you for the kind words, much appreciated. Cirt (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Jim Bowie

I'm finding it hard to understand why your excellent Jim Bowie article hasn't already gathered enough support to sail through its FA nomination. Where are all those red-blooded Americans who remember the Alamo when you need them? :-)

Do you think it might be time to ask Tony if he'd be prepared to take another look and maybe support it now? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says that Bowie considered himself a colonel, and so outranked Travis, but it doesn't say what rank Travis held in the army. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring the New Kid

La Grande Merci, Madame! I noted that the Acadia article missing a bit of attribution, so I tried to add one. The code-usage of wikidom may come to me with time. My next project is to enter a biography for Nicolas Denys. This is complicated, seeing as how so many sources (including Denys' writings!) are contradictory. It will be a bit sparse, since I will just not talk about any fact not corroborated or outright contradicted. I'm looking at other biographies in the 'pedia for style. Again,my great thanks! I want to be just like you if I grow up! LTC David J. Cormier (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Denys article is in the Wikipedia. It is much easier to deal with someone whose life has a beginning, middle and end. Best of luck with the Bowie article! I don't envy you having to unentangle myth and innuendo. LTC David J. Cormier (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowie

Hi Karanacs; yes, I will gladly take a look. As I recall you've reviewed at least two or three of mine, and I need to return the favour, so feel free to nudge me again if you have something else up for FA that you would like me to look at. I will head over to it now, but if real life intervenes I may not get to post anything till tomorrow. Thanks for the note. Mike Christie (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Suleiman FAC

Hi, i've made some recent edits as requested, please review whether your suggestions have been met. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Campus of TAMU

First off, happy new year. next. I am trying to update the Campus of Texas A&M University page. I have a rough draft done, and I would like someone to look over it before I post it. Oldag07 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh

Well, I've decided to apply to join the dark side. As a user with whom I have interacted, I would appreciate your input on my nomination. This is not a request for support, though any support would be appreciated, but simply a request for feedback. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Z retired again

Z retired again. [1] I had suggested in AN that such be enforced by a one year block, but nobody answered the suggestion. -- SEWilco (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the Barnstar. I enjoy doing the tagging and assessments, so you'll probably see me on your watchlist in the coming weeks (on Texas and Food and Drink). I want to retire that back log of unassessed articles on TX this month, and then see what else can be done on the project. I am curious, which articles did you create that I tagged?

Again, thanks for the pat on the back! Jacksinterweb (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom FAC

Thanks for your review of this article some time ago. DrKiernan has done quite a thorough copyedit for this article (separate from the League of Copyeditors) and (after my response to his suggestions) was satisfied to support the nomination. I was wondering whether you could look over the article again and check whether your concerns have been fixed. Whenever you're free, no rush:) Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 23:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

1988 Atlantic hurricane season FAC

At the end of December you left comments on my FAC and i was wondering whether you'd be willing to see if i have met your suggestions as much as possible and whether you feel you are now able to support this nomination. Seddon69 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowie map

I think it might confuse people -- it is quite hard to read. I suggest leaving it for now, and let's get the article through FAC. I may be able to create a map for you -- take a look at User:Mike_Christie/Anglo-Saxon_research_resources#Maps for some maps I've created. If you think something like that could help, I'd be happy to put one together for you -- maybe one that duplicates the key information on the old map. Anyway, it can wait till after FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MaggieShaynePhoto.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:MaggieShaynePhoto.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) 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mary higgins clark.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mary higgins clark.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) 19:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Armenian Forgeries

The page which you have tagged for speedy deletion clearly does not belong in wikipedia, but speedy does not apply. I have removed your tag and replaced it with a {{prod}}, which will lead to automatic deletion in five days if no further action is taken. I will watch, and ask you to do so; if the prod tag is removed then the page can go to AfD. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not think that I was criticising you - I had no such intention. But if I delete as speedy an article which does not come under speedy criteria, the author has a cast-iron case for restoration regardless of the merits of the article. This way I hope to make it quick, clean and permanent. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with you on this one, hopefully someone will re-edit the article to make it match wikipedia standards. Arsenic99 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sherrilynkenyon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sherrilynkenyon.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) 21:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Armenian forgeries

Sorry about the Article deletion comment I made on Armenian Forgeries talk page. You're right about it. I later noticed that it didn't meet wikipedia policies and that it was indeed a lot of copying going on. However, I think the main reason for people to do this is because, the Armenian Genocide article is like on total lockdown by Armenophile wikipedians who delete anything that might hint that the Armenian genocide theory is not a proven event but a debated one that historians like Dr. Gunter Lewy (Ottoman History), Dr. Bernard Lewis (Islamic History), Dr. Stanford Shaw (Ottoman history), Dr. Justin McCarthy (demographic expert; Balkans expert), and Dr. Norman Stone (WWI historian) and many others all have disagreed about calling those events in the 1900s genocide. I remember when there were some people that did try and edit that main article but usually ended up failing in edit wars. I'm sure you've heard of the wikiality phrase, well this is one of the major cases of it. But thank you for pointing out that the article in question (Armenian forgeries) needed greater revision, or perhaps deletion. There are sources in that article that are extremely biased and I always wonder why great wikipedians don't ever notice it, perhaps its just too deep a subject for average wikipedians to tell who's biased and who isn't. Arsenic99 (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A note of thanks

Thank you, Karanacs, for your support during this unpleasant incident. I am deeply grateful, and hope to return from a week of travel with renewed energy and enthusiasm for Wiki. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Spanish Texas

I've reviewed Spanish Texas, and it's an excellent article! Just a few small quibbles in the prose, which I've detailed on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to give folks a chance to address them. Thanks for a great article! Ealdgyth | Talk 18:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your additions looked great, and I've promoted the article. If you didn't already know about this userbox...

This user has helped promote [2] good articles on Wikipedia.

or

This user helped promote Spanish Texas to good article status.

, there you go! Good work! Ealdgyth | Talk 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mashantucket Pequot

In your edits to the Mashantucket Pequot article, you removed the following: Since Foxwoods opening, the Mashantucket Pequot have used the casino's revenue to continue expanding their [[reservation]], which currently is about 1,800 acres (7 km²).{{fact}}

Was that deletion intentional or was it (as I am inclined to assume) just collateral damage in the process of improving adjacent text? --Orlady (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. When I added those fact tags a couple of days ago, I thought it possible that the tags would get the attention of someone with direct (local) knowledge of the situation and access to reliable non-Internet information sources. --Orlady (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability

I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Jim Bowie again

I was really pleased to see your Jim Bowie article finally get that little gold star. You put a lot of effort into what is now a really excellent piece of work, perhaps one of the best encyclopedia articles you'll find anywhere about the man. Great work! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Vampire is now featured!

I hereby award you the "(Poorly drawn) Vampire Barnstar", because as you may know, Vampire is now a Featured Article and I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to the article or its FAC in order to get this goal. You really helped! Spawn Man (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Council House Fight

Hi Karanacs (talk) ! I will look up the page number tomorrow, and put it in. Anderson is pretty adamant on issues of genicide towards the Native Americans - he claims millions were killed through disease, war, et al. I appreciate your help in identifying sections which need citation - you are an extremely skilled editor, and any article you work on is the better for it. Speaking of that, I posted some new articles recently that could benefit from your review - Isa-tai, Dohäsan, Satanta, and Koitsenko ANY editing help you could give would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! JohninMaryland (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 Hawaii Bowl FAC

Greetings. You recently reviewed the 2007 Hawaii Bowl. You wrote

The game recap section is full of very short paragraphs. Can they be better merged so that they flow?

Should I merge the paragraphs together or add more information to each paragraph? On another FA on a specific game, the person made each score a paragraph. Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, PGPirate 18:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Greetings. I merged some paragraphs together, so the article flows better. I don't know what is wrong with some of the references date. I have looked at them all. If you get a chance, could you possibly read over the article again and give your support:). If needed, please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, PGPirate 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hello, I was hoping, if you had time, that possibly you could copyedit/do your magic. I think it is almost FA. Thanks, PGPirate 03:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia dispatches

(Cross posted to User talk:Karanacs and User talk:Qp10qp)

See this. Sandy recommended you for that. Would that be something you are interested in? (Please reply there). Raul654 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC sig

Happens to me all the time :-) But I wish the nominators would leave your comments intact so I can make some sense of them. I've never understood that need to respond to every point, and it sure makes for a lot of reading on my end. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Texans

Hello Karanacs. Thanks. I'll take a look at those articles. Take care. Bhaktivinode (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan

Hi. I am new to Wikipedia and am having some trouble with some of the editors on the Nancy Reagan article. As you identified here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Nancy_Reagan/archive2 "Nancy Reagan is like royalty?????", also your comments regarding the layout no making sense), many of the items are written in a Non NPOV.

I have cited many sources and offered many solutions to minor details in the article to improve it's viewpoint (on the Nancy Reagan discussion page), but four editors in particular (Users: Happyme22, Wasted_Time_R, SandyGeorgia, and Tvoz) have consistently teamed together in support of each other's actions and edits in moving this article forward to FA status while giving little or no validity to any contrary opinions., despite multiple reasonable requests and many many reliable cited sources.

I have begun the appeal process but the same three editors acted in the same way, and I don't know how to move forward to make the changes necessary. Can you PLEASE PLEASE review my comments on the Nancy Reagan discussion page and PLEASE PLEASE help?

Thank you in advance so very much for your cooperation.

207.237.228.83 (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rabi David Stern

Hi! I'm just wondering the focus on the David E. Stern article. I don't dispute the general nature of your nobility question, but it seems like energies could be better spent. Synagogues and rabbis don't have general and school newspapers to validate their actions. Couldn't this been seen as references from the net leads to an inherent bias against certain subjects? What is "notable" is different in different communities. Within the Jewish world, he is notable. I know you are just editing for the benefit of Wikipedia. I just see this as pushing out smaller articles for no real reason other than the majority, not familiar with the topics, can. So, I'm just wondering why the focus here (and I presume eventually on the rest of the so-so notable, hard to validate using web resources, hard to quantify what is notable in the Reform Jewish religious world rabbis throughout Texas that have articles.) There are only a few people who spend their time writing useful articles on Reform Jewish subjects. I'd hate to see them - like me - discouraged when their efforts are declared "not notable" by others and shunted aside. I appreciate your time. JerseyRabbi (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Karanacs (talk) ! I could use your skills in editing my new article Robert Neighbors. He is famous in Texas history for being the first Indian Agent to actually learn the Comanche language and culture, and travel to the Comancheria while they were still free. He ended up being murdered for protecting them after some of them surrendered and were helpless on reservations. I would greatly appreciate your seeing if I moderated my language sufficiently - I tried! But the article needs your magic touch! Also, I am writing articles on the German-Indian Treaty, the Quaker Peace Policy, and the trial of Satanta and Big Tree for the Warren Wagon Train Raid - any thoughts on what I should call that article? Again, your help is always GREATLY appreciated. JohninMaryland (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie FAC

SandyGeorgia has suggested asking you to revisit. Thank you for your help. Kmzundel (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Roy Bean

Thanks for your work on Roy Bean. It looks much better! --Brownings (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC urgents

Thanks for keeping up with that; I hadn't noticed it. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the push; I should be able to pr/ar a lot of them tomorrow. Have you looked at the typewriter lately? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ralph Bakshi FAC

Hi, I responded to your comments on the FAC page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry, I forgot to save the edits. It's been cleaned up now. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC))

Thanks!

Hi Karanacs (talk) ! I really appreciate your help, and your kind words on the articles. Your help is enormously appreciated, because you really improve the articles. I am a good researcher and fair writer - you are an EXCELLENT writer in addition to being a good researcher yourself! I hope if you have a chance, you will look at the Neighbors Expedition article I posted today. You will love the fact that Indian champion Neighbors best friend was no other than champion Indian fighter "Rip" Ford of the Rangers, and Neighbors took him with him on his famous expedition to El Paso! Incredibly, Neighbors reported to the military - and he was the FIRST MAN TO MEASURE THE DISANCE! - that El Paso was 598 miles from Austin, and that is EXACTLY what it is measured at today! And we use the same road Neighbors recommended in 1849! The article could really benefit from your "magic touch," if you have a chance...Thanks again, and you will really enjoy the articles coming up on the first trial of Indian Chiefs, the Quaker Peace Policy, Old Owl, and more. Take care! JohninMaryland (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Thanks for the heads-up; I was following what had already been done, but will be happy to remove the graphics - PKM (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, you're a step ahead of me again !! Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs or Karen?

Hi -- I see from your talk page that your name is Karen; do you have a preference for what people call you? I'd naturally use Karen since I know that's your name, but I don't know you well enough to know if you'd rather people just used Karanacs. (I did see DrKiernan using "Karen" but then I thought perhaps you and he know each other well.) Thanks for the review on Aldfrith, by the way; I am still in your debt to the tune of several reviews, so please nudge me if you have something you'd like me to look at -- I don't always notice everything that's at FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Karen" it is then, with an occasional "Princess of the World" thrown in, perhaps when I'm asking for a favour. Thanks for the support at Aldfrith! Mike Christie (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Peake

No problem, but if you look at articles created by myself and User:PKM in particular, you will see our subject matter makes us committed to good galleries, and overcoming the unjustified prejudices against them that many WP editors have. Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Same here. I wasn't getting spirited myself (I think), but we knew that some people don't like galleries and went in predisposed to fight our ground. Actually, I don't agree with galleries for the big artists, because there's plenty of written material available to make the pictures sit well in the main text of the articles. But for minor artists like this, I regard the pictures (with their home gallery notes) as references for themselves.

I daresay it seems odd to do an article on such a lowly painter when there are so many great masters whose articles are inadequate, but this one (like John de Critz, Paul van Somer I, William Scrots, John Chamberlain (letter writer) and several others) came about from my urge to fill in the red links on the FARs of James I of England, Elizabeth I of England, and the FA of Anne of Denmark I worked on, which is a sort of trickle-down approach to filling in the encyclopedia. Many thanks for your careful reading and interest. qp10qp (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I'm actually very pleased someone was putting the no-gallery position very fully and reasonably, especially as we seem to have got a clear pro-gallery concensus, including some eminent editors. That's not to say most article galleries aren't pretty poor for the reasons you say - poor, unexplained selection, and under-captioning. Personally I have used galleries in my "big artist" articles, like Raphael and Rembrandt. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

	Thanks for your support and comments - Joseph Priestley House made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni Villani FAC

Look at it now. ;)--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

GIANTS WON THE SUPERBOWL. You still here? You contacted me on my talk page and I have since responded to your concerns on the FAC page for Villani's article. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

With a bit of humor, I have responded to your concerns once more on the FAC page after doing some major edits to the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome, Karanacs, and the League of Copyeditors thanks you for your service to this country. They would come to personally pin your coat with a shiny badge of honor for lending your support, but they're too busy hunting down Osama Bin Laden and his maniacal half-brother Dr. No in the Temple of Doom. I would do it in their stead, but I've got a class at 3:00. (XD Lol). Thanks for your advice and support; the Pentagon has decided not to kill you and erase your family's memory.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, you said that all the info of your previous long list of objections was moved to the talk page for Giovanni Villani, but I don't see it there. Did you move it someplace else?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Glossary of Texas Aggie terms

The Glossary of Texas Aggie terms is up for deletion. I have put a lot of time in the article, so i am very for keeping it. put please post your opinions on the issue. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Texas Aggie termsOldag07 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Preuss School FAC

Hey. You recently commented on the Preuss School FAC. It took me until today to respond, I had a pretty long week. At any rate, I have now done so and would like you to take a look. A few specific notes: For the numbers on late-buses I cited a reference from the school website as I had little other choice in the matter, however, looking at other school-FAs, I think it is reasonable to assume information like this from the school is reliable. As for Classic Cars for Classic Kids, I think the information may be somewhat detailed, but with references supporting it and to ensure avoidance of a stubby paragraph, I think it is fair weight. Now for the big complaint on the course requirements: I really can not find an online reference. I believe I still have a physical course guide, but do you think I should cite it? At any rate, thanks for helping out and sorry for clogging your talk page with this, but sans the FAC there is nothing else to be done. Warm regards, SorryGuy  Talk  20:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tyrone Wheatley FAC

Glad to see you are following along because I added something to the article today that I want you to give me feedback on. What do you think about the highlights?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The FAC was closed before I could get your response to my efforts. I would greatly appreciate it if you would comment on my progress on your interests so that I can prepare the article for renomination.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have renominated the article and hope I have addressed enough of your concerns that you can now support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 15:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team and first mission (MMM)

Dear Karanacs,

Many thanks for volunteering to join the FA-Team. We now have a first mission, to help the Murder, Madness and Mayhem WikiProject improve twelve articles towards featured article status. These articles are really interesting, and the person in charge of WP:MMM is enthusiastic about our support, so this mission should be a real pleasure. Please watchlist the mission page and the WikiProject page as well as some (or all) of the twelve articles. The students contributing to these articles are all new to Wikipedia, so please be ultra-friendly towards them.

The coordinator for this mission is Wrad (talk), who may suggest further ways in which you can help. I will provide back-up. In particular, it might be useful for you to indicate which of the twelve articles interest you most (or which ones you are watchlisting) on the mission page.

Thanks again for joining in. I think this will be a lot of fun for all of us, and hopefully we can make it fun for the students too and create a few more featured articles between now and April. Geometry guy 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Hey, good for doing up that second dispatch for the Signpost. As a week can pass quickly, I suppose we need some regular way of making sure somebody is writing something. Marskell (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Request

Would you mind giving this FAC a look: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/David Suzuki: The Autobiography? Any pointers would be great. --maclean 06:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple Pre-FAC help.

A few weeks ago, I brought 2007 Hawai'i Bowl to FAC. It did not pass, but I fixed everything that people said was wrong with it. I brought East Carolina University to GA status, but want to bring it to FA status. What do I need to change to achieve this? Lastly, I recently wrote the list East Carolina Pirates football seasons. I based it on Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons which is a FL. Whenever you have time, could you please look over these articles? Please respond on the respective talk pages or my talk page. Thanks, PGPirate 18:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Do you know anyone who can review the East Carolina Pirates football seasons and 2007 Hawai'i Bowl? Also, I would like to give a response about the "CFB FAC" group. I am wanting a group to be able to peer-review CFB articles, before they go to FAC. Not automatically support CFB articles, just because. Thanks again, PGPirate 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the look-over. If I have any questions/comments, I will let you know. Thanks, PGPirate 18:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I completed all the things you said. Should I go ahead with FAC? Or is there anything else I could do? Please respond on my talkpage. Thanks, PGPirate 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Pre-FAC thoughts

Hi Karanacs. You were kind enough to suggest helpful suggestions that ultimately got Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom through FAC last month. Another article I'm hoping to get to FA status is Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll, which, due to lack of general interest, is not receiving many suggestions at WP:PR. I was wondering if you could (whenever you're free) look over the article and give some thoughts that would help the FAC process. If not, I completely understand. Many thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 20:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Karanacs

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for reaching out. Your words mean a lot. Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Everglades National Park just got promoted. --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty's

Sorry, I was trying to indicate which comments I had worked on. Can you please update? Thanks for all your help. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Hall of Fame

Thanks for the review, I have responded to all of your concerns. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you are right... That's kind of embarassing. Anyway, I have now made (and saved) the fixes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Hello Karanacs (talk) ! I am back asking for your kind assistance. I am asking yourself and a couple of other editors who are extremely active and knowledgable in that era of Texas frontier history for help. I am in the process of finalizing an article on the first trial of Native Americans leaders for actions undertaken during their struggle against the whites. As you know, in 1871, after the Warren Wagon Train Raid, General Sherman ordered the trial of Satank Satanta and Big Tree, making them the first Native American Leaders to be so tried for raids. Sherman ordered the three Kiowa sub-chiefs taken to Jacksboro, Texas, to stand trial for murder, where Satanta and Big Tree were convicted, Satank having been killed on the way to the trial. My question is, what should I call the article? "The first trial of Native American leaders for resisting white settlement of their traditional lands?" "The Jacksboro Trial?" "Trial of Satanta and Big Tree? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated! JohninMaryland (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I have addressed all of your comments on the FA page but you have not crossed them out especially the huge section listing the refs that are not OK and that I eliminated. Also, I added third party refs to the ones you said could not stand alone. I also just finished addressing your last comments on WP:OR issues by adding third party sources and changing some wording or eliminating a sentence. NancyHeise (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Glorious First of June

Have your citation and other issues been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Categories

You should stop removing (sourced) Jewish categories. Being Jewish is an ethnicity, thus the guidelines you are citing apply to it about as much as Category:Italian-Americans or Category:English Americans. When unsourced, however, such content should indeed be removed. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree! You seem to be removing religious affiliations of politicians who self identify as well. Why? What am I missing? The guideline cited doesn't suggest that you are correct in doing so. What's next? Remove Latter Day Saints for Romney? Red Harvest (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you removing everyone from Category:American Methodists? You link to Wikipedia:Categorization of people as your reasoning, but it doesn't indicate support for removal of religious categories. In fact, it states "Currently, the Wikipedia also supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity." Am I missing something? - auburnpilot talk 00:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, unless you can provide some sound reason for all these removals I believe they should ALL be undone. Red Harvest (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The people's bios (Congressional, etc.) actually list the religion, and the religion is also listed in the template. Furthermore, the description for the actual category is "The people listed below have all been members of the Methodist churches of America." And yes, as politicians, their religion is relevant in considering their public life. The category is not judgemental, it is merely a list of members. So it looks to me and others that you have clearly misapplied the criteria and should undo them all. It is absurd to remove people from a category when the same religion is still listed elsewhere on the page! That was the case in all of the ones I checked. Red Harvest (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Glorious First of June

I have now replied to your comments on the FAC. Thankyou very much for your help here and I hope that the article has improved to the standard required for you to support (except the non-breaking spaces, which I am still working on, should be done soon). If there are any outstanding issues, new problems or further comments then please don't hesitate to contact me. All the best--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for your comments and support for the Glorious First of June article which has just passed FAC. Your input was much appreciated. --Jackyd101 (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization of people

Hey, Got a question. Wikipedia:Categorization of people says the following...

See also: Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality

Currently, Wikipedia also supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity. The placement of people in these categories may be problematic.

• This seems top be the exact opposite of your claim that this guideline endorses the removal of religous categories. DId I miss somehting?--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the section on Biographies of living people,

"Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question; The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. "

I've only been removing the tags from living people where the article doesn't discuss their religion beyond "so-and-so attends this church" (or just a mention in the infobox), because that has nothing to do with their notability and is really just trivia. Some articles make an effort to discuss how the religion is important to the person's life, and I've left those categories. Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• • OK... you just might want to be slightly more specific in your edit summaries... something like
    

"rm cat per Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Biographies of living people both criteria not met"--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I still don't find this a valid justification, nor do I believe it agrees with the guideline. Might as well start deleting their birthdays or location as not relevant. You don't go around deleting basic information by calling it "trivia." Red Harvest (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If the information doesn't meet the guideline for living people, then it should be deleted. Period. Karanacs (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It does meet the guideline. If you don't agree, then challenge it rather than deleting it. Or read the article and you might notice it mentioned in the body of the article that your are removing the category from. That is something I noticed in reviewing your edits. Red Harvest (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm sorry got hit twice in a row, and lost time in review of articles already closed. Will the idea of keeping the mainpage watched, so you know when I promote/archive, solve the problem? I don't know what else to suggest, since this is always a possibility no matter what system we use. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Roman Catholic Church]]

I noticed that you recently removed a biblical verse citation as it applied to the symbol of the keys used by the papacy. I am having a hard time understanding your edit, and was wondering if you could explain why you did that? Thanks. LonelyBeacon (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. I think the statement was accurate, but I cannot deny that there was a lack of reference. Thanks for the clarification. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

YOur copyedit of the last sentence in Middle ages does not say what the reference I put there says. Your copyedit makes it POV and inaccurate. Please remove your edit. NancyHeise (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides significantly altering the message that was in the reference, you eliminated the flow from one section of history to the next making it awkward instead. Please remove your edit. The message of the reference was that these abuses were a prelude to the Reformation, a direct cause of the Reformation. You completely eliminated that important link. NancyHeise (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what you want to remove or have already removed - please remember this passed GA and peer review:

"The late Middle Ages saw a decline in respect for the Church and papal authority because of these internal disagreements, clerical corruption like simony and nepotism, abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. The hypocrisy of some ordained men who lived luxurious lifestyles, who had mistresses and illegitimate children spawned a new age in Christianity that brought these abuses to task. This was the beginning of the Reformation.[21]"

This is what you want to replace it with that has not passed GA or peer review and does not help the paragraphs flow into one another:

"The Renaissance was a period of renewed interest in ancient and classical learning, and a re-examination of accepted beliefs. During the late Middle Ages, respect for the Church and papal authority had declined due to the Church's internal disagreements, clerical corruption and abuses of power, and perceived misuse of finances. Some ordained men were considered hypocrites, as they lived luxurious lifestyles or maintained mistresses and fathered illegitimate children."

Your version does not match the reference and removes the link between the corruption and the beginning of the Reformation. Your version has not been peer and GA approved. Your version makes the section longer which is what the other editors were worried about. NancyHeise (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NancyHeise"

You asked for my opinion. I gave you my opinion. I told you that your version does not flow, it does not match the reference, is longer, did not pass peer review or GA review. I am not owning the page. I am giving you honest feedback - you are not listening and I think you are violating WP:OWN. Especially when you are making changes that are not the consensus of editors. Your version remains on the page against my and the history of editors, GA reviewer and peer reviewers. NancyHeise (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MaggieShaynePhoto.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:MaggieShaynePhoto.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks! I addressed two out of the three points you raised, please see the FAC page for the other. Kind Regards, Mattyness (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

Review of Texas-Indian Wars

I think a situation is occuring in this article where an editor, with good intentions, is doing the very thing he wants to avoid, and slanting the article. Would you look at the discussion, and weigh in? I really trust your judgement...JohninMaryland (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I am the editor in question. Any review is welcome. I am not familiar with you, although I can see ample evidence that you have a lot of experience. I stumbled upon the Texas-Indian Wars article and decided to make improvements. My main concerns with the article are NPOV and length. I hope to see you there! Regards, Taquito1 (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to reiterate I believe Taquito1 (talk) is a good editor, trying to improve the article - as am I. I need your help, and others, to make sure I have not lost my "neutral pen!" Both of us welcome wider review. Thanks! JohninMaryland (talk) 10:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.