User talk:Karanacs/Archive 6

Dispatches concern

Here's my concern about running WP:FAT at Dispatches: I'd like to allow time to let the dust settle and measure long-term success. My concern (which I hope proves inaccurate) is that a whole lot of Wiki's best editors were diverted away from long-standing efforts, editors and Projects on Wiki to help a couple of students and a couple of articles to FAC, and I'm not convinced any of those students will stay on Wiki after the class ends, returning to Wiki the benefit of the attention they received from many of Wiki's finest editors. Was the effort well expended or could it have been better used in other ways? Could those same editors have made a better impact by contributing to the many long-standing committed-to-Wiki projects and editors who always seek to bring articles to FAC and need help? MANY articles at FAC are worthy of the kind of attention that one FAC got, and they are from editors who bring FACs over and over and are committed long-term to Wiki, and won't be gone after they get their class grade. Only time will tell if my concern will be proven wrong, but there are many article and editors and Projects that come to FAC often and in need of the kind of help FAT could provide, so I'm not yet convinced that Wiki overall benefitted from the amount of resources that went into a couple of editors and a couple of articles from one educational project, while so many other long-standing editors and projects -- who bring many FACs -- could have benefitted from those resources. How many of those students will still be here two months from now, and how many articles will they write? Before we write this up as a success on a Dispatch, I'd like to see how many of those students are still around a few months from now, contributing to Wiki based on all they learned from some of Wiki's best resources. I hope my suspicions are wrong, I hope several of those editors are still here in a few months making worthy contributions to Wiki, but I'm concerned they may be gone after they get their class grade, and we may find that FAT could have reaped greater rewards from working with editors who've had a long-standing commitment to Wiki. The Indian editors, for example, bring many FACs and are in desperate need of copyedit help. There are so many articles and Projects that FAT could benefit; time will tell if working with a group of students from one class pans out over the long term, or if they leave once they get their grade. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Whew. Ok, we're on the same page, then. Sorry for the verbosity, I didn't want to appear overly negative, but do think we need to evaluate this from the vantage point of some distance :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. Of course, I have a selfish motivation :-) I'm the one who gets regularly beaten up on my talk page by editors who are desperate for attention to their FACs, yet I have to archive them with almost no input, feedback or comment, so it's frustrating to see so much effort from so many of Wiki's finest go into one FAC, when so many FACs from long-standing contributors go ignored. I'd love to see the wealth spread equally, so I can get beat up less on my talk page for archiving FACs with little feedback :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I try to time archiving for when I have time to deal with the fallout, but something always comes up to foil the plan :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting thread...but any thread that matches my opinions is interesting :-) I haven't said anything before but I'm in total agreement. I see no evidence that we've gained any new editors from MMM and we may be trapping ourselves into the role of 'teaching assistants'. As to a useful FAC that the FA-Team could support, I think bringing one of the hopeless 'in-universe' articles that the 12-year-old set like to write and bring it all the way to FA as an exemplar would be doing a real service to Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm brave enough to tackle the 12-year-olds! Karanacs (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not...I just smile and walk on by! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I can think of a ton of better ways to spend my time than on any more 12-yos than I'm already consumed with on Nat and Alex Wolff; the Indian Project always needs help, those poor wrestlers want to get something featured but don't know what reliable sources are, etc. ... there are so many projects that want help and want to get articles featured ... but, I'm also not yet ready to say the students won't pan out, who knows? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We did get user:jbmurray to review Awadewit's article at FAC. Maybe he'll like it and decide to come back regularly! Karanacs (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We have got to recruit more reviewers; I mean, what is with FAC nominators complaining about reviewers when they don't do reviews themselves? How do they think their articles get featured; by magic? <grumble, grumble ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Little storks delivering the little stars? I don't know. I agree with more reviewers, but I really can't review more. Just doing the sources is cutting into my article writing time... how am I going to catch up with Hink this way? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Same here....I've set myself a pretty ambitious goal to clean up Texas Revolution-related articles (starting with Battle of the Alamo) and I've got to have research time in addition to reviewing time. I've been trying to follow Sandy's example and beg a lot for help... Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How 'ya gonna catch up with Hink? Ask him to spend time reviewing !! Remind people that you have to give some to get some, and FAC isn't a one-way street and the stork doesn't deliver stars. And keep begging with barnstars :-) Did we do enough/say enough at WP:FCDW/April 7, 2008, or can we put in a bigger plug somehow? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Just found this discussion, and I hope y'all don't mind if I add a comment. I can't speak for any of the other FA team members, but one of the reasons I'm enjoying WP:MMM is that I don't think the model of individual FA-capable editors is scaling well, and I don't think it's likely to. I would like to find a way to help other editors become FA-capable; even more than that, I'd like to find a way to make other editors FA-team capable. In other words, the best possible outcome would not be if three users from MMM go on to write an FA or two; it would be if once they are confident at FA they start mentoring other users, perhaps via the FA-team. We have to get some geometric growth into the picture somehow.

Is it working? I don't know, though I think there's a decent chance two or three of the students will stay on as editors after the semester ends. But this is the FA team's first try at a mission, and I expect we'll do a post-mortem (and we can also learn from jbmurray's planned post-mortem). I hope we can learn a lot and improve our results.

As for article-writing -- well, Awadewit and qp10qp (at least) both have articles at FAC right now, and I had planned to take a break around now anyway (I think I may have had enough of Anglo-Saxon kings). So I don't know that there's a big diminution in input. And even if all twelve MMM articles only reached GA, if you take a look at the content these students are adding, the improvement has been phenomenal -- and I think it's far outpaced the content that would have been added by the FA-team on our own if we'd never helped them.

I'm not predicting success, but I think even if every students leaves and never returns, we've got some great content from the effort; and I think there's a decent chance some will stay. We'll just have to wait and see. Mike Christie (talk) 03:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't take part in the FAT effort, at least in part for the selfish reason that I wanted to work on articles in which I had a passing interest, but I did carry out a parallel experiment. It was on a smaller scale of course, with the Cheshire WikiProject, to help an editor get an article that had twice failed GA through the GA hoops. It was successful in that Middlewich is now a GA, but it has had no effect at all on the project, or that particular editor's subsequent contributions. So to that extent I'd say it was a failure. I'm beginning to think that many editors are motivated to write about one or two things, like the town they live, or a book they've been asked to review, but rather few are motivated to continue once that's been done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect you're right. Sorta sums up why I'd rather see our best editors engage across the board at FAC and FAR, where we really really need them. But I'm encouraged that several of the students have now indicated they plan to stay on, so the jury is still out. What some don't seem to realize is that our FAs are only as good as our FA reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that is the case for a lot of people, but I think if we can find the right WikiProjects we will have success. For example, I started out in WP:WikiProject Texas A&M; five or six of us collaborated to figure out how to do our first FA; since then 2 of us have brought additional articles to FA and are regular (or semi-regular) reviewers. We need to make sure we have a broad enough group of editors that we might be able to convince one or two to continue on. Realistically, sometimes we'll fail, unless we manage to perfect the Wiki mind-control tool. Karanacs (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's to do with "mind control", rather it's to do with understanding the motivations that contributing editors have. It's no secret that being an FA/GA reviewer is no fun, and can too often lead to abuse. Yet we all want as many articles as possible to be of at least some minimum standard (I'm trying to tread carefully around the GA issue here). What encouragement is there for any editor to become a reviewer? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. We know where the market is, we know who wants to write FAs—they're at FAC, begging and hoping for reviews, bringing their articles back over and over. And I'm archiving them right and left because no one is reviewing their FACs, and it's not fun to get the fallout afterwards. On that note, I think I'll go take a relaxing herbal bubbly bath now. I wish our good editors would be motivated to work at FAC with people who want to succeed, but need the help. LOCE flopped, 1FAPQ died out, all of these Projects seem to flame out after a couple of successes, while the market continues right under our noses, at FAC, with almost there articles that just need a little help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. FAC is where the FAT effort could usefully concentrate its efforts. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would do more reviews, but ... an FA review is a lot of work and I can only do so many before my eyes burn out. I'm still trying to do a GA review a day also (Hey, can't complain about the project unless I contribute!) so that leaves just too little time to review. There are a lot of folks who nominate a LOT to FAC who never take the time to even glance at others candidates. This sorta leaves the slack up to others, which leads to burnout on the reviewers... That bath sounds great, I got to have the accontant tell me the news about my taxes today... blech! (sorry, Karanacs for stealing your page). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(grrrr ... our accountant wants to delay ours until after 4/15 with an extension, which just leaves it hanging over my head longer ... should stop being the nice guys here.) Good grief, we can't ask for any more reviews out of you and Karanacs ! Some have suggested in the past that we should require frequent nominators to also review, but a good FA writer isn't necessarily a good reviewer, and quid pro quo could be a problem. I do wish we could raise awareness among frequent nominators that someone has to review their articles if they're to pass, since the stork doesn't do it. Did the review summary/award thing I did for February help? Is it something I should do next month (when I don't have to worry about taxes)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't stop folks from bugging me to support or oppose when they take care of the source issues I raise. It's gotten to be frequent enough that I set up some boilerplate language that I can paste over on their talk pages, explaining what I'm doing and why I can't review everything. (Eeww.. shoot the accountant. No need to have that hanging over your head!) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel like I've arrived now; my talk page has been hijacked! ;) I have to deliberately limit the number of articles I review now because they all decide to fix things at the same time and then I can't keep up. If I was running the world, I'd ban people who are deliberately combative with reviewers (after being warned) from FAC for a few months. Of course, that's a judgement issue and we don't want to discourage the writers, either, so it will never happen (but I can dream). I'm also unsure where to draw the line sometimes - nominators keep wanting to suck us into identifying every single problem in the article and proposing solutions, and some of the articles are just in too bad a shape to do that. If I'm ever as clueless as some of these nominators about the articles that I write, one of you please bop me over the head to wake me up!!!! Karanacs (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's make a pact, you do that to me if I ever do that, and I promise to return the favor (in the unlikely event that either of us does this). Ealdgyth - Talk 01:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Deal! Unless we both lose our minds at the same time, and then Sandy is going to have to bop both of us. Karanacs (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Emery Molyneux: FA review

Hi, SandyGeorgia has asked about the status of the Emery Molyneux FA review. When you're free, could you see if all your concerns have been addressed? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 21:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Wulfie

Thanks for the CE on Wulfstan! It's appreciated. (I almost missed it in my watchlist spam!) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I will freely admit I don't like intellectual history so I may have skimped on it. THe bits in the body about the sermons came from someone else. I'll get to work on that when I get past my morning FAC list. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, think I got most of it. Take a look? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You awake over here? I think I'm done with Wulfstan. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Willie Gillis GAC

I hope I have addressed your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered a new formatting technique and I was wondering what you think of my last edit--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 06:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

FA reviewers

I don't know where to put this, so I'll do it here. I saw your comments here and I'd like to help. Just point me where to go and I'll head that direction. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdraws

Thanks, Karanacs; I didn't trouble you because I feel like you're doing enough already, and I don't want to overwhelm you and lose you as a reviewer, but see the instructions at Roger Davies page. Since he's an admin, it's good to have him on this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only handle so many open FACs at once, so I should be able to help out sometimes with this kind of thing when I am looking for another task to do. Karanacs (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time worrying about burnout :-) Please don't try to do too much; we need you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you worry too much about our burnout, you'll burn yourself out! I take my little breaks from FAC reviewing every once in a while; after a brief bit doing something else I'm ready to come back. Karanacs (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Rongorongo

Okay, Karanacs, will do.

You mentioned you didn't get through decipherment. The last section, now at Decipherment of rongorongo#Pozdniakov, has few in-line citations. However, it is entirely based on the two cited papers, both of which are available in full at the links in the ref section, and was not a problem in peer review. In such a case, what would be the appropriate level of citation?

Thanks, kwami (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Heyer

Completed the review. I've put it on hold. It is quite good but could be copy edited again. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Newsroom

Just to make sure you're following, [1]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to the Dispatch tonight, but since they've been two to three days late every single issue since we started FCDW, I'm not too worried. Now I Must Get Off Wiki And On Quicken !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

We haven't actually submitted our taxes yet either. Tonight! Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Accountants are great for that. Even better than the older method of "nag the spouse until they do the taxes". Ealdgyth - Talk 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I got a triple dose this year: nag the spouse to nag his company accountant (who is late) to complete the forms to give to our personal accountant, who has already said he's behind and will file a delay, so it will still be hanging over my head for the next three months !! <grrrrrr on men>. (And having just survived it, I don't wish construction on my worst enemy.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going with the nag the spouse route. He's done the paperwork, he just won't submit it until the very last minute (I think he is hoping that the government will lose its collective mind and decide we don't need to submit them after all). Here's hoping we all get ours filed by tomorrow at midnight :) Karanacs (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

El Senor Presidente

Thanks for the word of warning about the vandals. I am actually can't wipe the grin off my face about having a feature article. That little star in the top corner of our article is amazing! I cannt believe that the page didn't even exist before this january.... and now it is a feature article!!! I honestly dont think we would have done so well at FAC without the help of yourself, Andewitt, and Mike Christie...as well as Eyescerene in developing the article and helping us reach GA and Wassupwestcoast for his enthusiasm and faith in the article. Without you guys, we would not have made it to FA... so thank you very much for watching out for us up to FA nomination, during and now afterwards. Thanks is not enough, but its all that i have!--Mfreud (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wulfie again, and some more whining

I'm not sure on when to take Wulfie to FAC. I have a couple of books that are supposed to be shipping out to me soon that should make things a bit more expansive. Right now he feels short. And I really want to take Easy Jet next, if you have time to glance over it, it would be great. I have this buring ambition to get the first horse FA. Now, for the whine, what do folks on Wikipedia have against printed sources? It's like they are allergic to them. They will source things to the most out there websites, before they pick up a simple almanac to source a fact (can you tell I"m checking Virginia?) ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

<gets on soapbox>I've been working with the FA-Team to help college students get literature articles up to GA or FA, and I was absolutely amazed to see that they had no idea what was a reliable source. Most of them started out using random web pages; we nagged until they finally got real books. One of the users said that when she asked the college librarian to help her find sources, the librarian told her to check the Wikipedia article and just use the sources listed there (of course, that user had written the WP article)!!! Kids need to learn how to judge whether information is reliable on Wiki or in real life, and adults should already know that.</gets off soapbox>

I'll be glad to take a look at Easy Jet, but it might not be until Monday, depending on when I can get that Dispatch finished. My grandfather raised thoroughbreds for racing locally, and even though I haven't ridden in probably 15 years, I still love everything about horses. This will be a pleasure to read :) Karanacs (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi friend

Hey Karanacs, now I know you don't usually check Wikipedia on weekends, but I'm still going to leave you this message anyway and you'll get it when you get it. First of all, thanks again for all the help you've been in helping us transform this article into something pretty. To me at least you've been quite the mentor. I'm asking for you to have another look-over with your expert glasses to see what else we need for FAC (when you get the chance of course :)). Thanks! Lincolnchan98 (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NeXT

I have added citations for almost all of the things you highlighted (just one or two to finish). Please reply back on that page ASAP (Strike out what is done, if you can) Thanks for all your help, I am surprised there were so many missing citations! — Wackymacs (talk)

Thanks for the barnstar, I really was not expecting it! :-) — Wackymacs (talk) 07:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed the last two issues (and the rest of Eagldyth's, too.) Unless there is anything else, I'm done. — Wackymacs (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy Jet

Why would I dislike it! Gah, I know I write like an academic, anything to improve it is a godsend! Go, go, go!!! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the best copyeditor in the world though, so it won't hurt my feelings if you revert any of it! Karanacs (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything you did looks great, thanks a ton. I'll deal with the very proper concerns you raised when I get to the hotel tomorrow, just too tired and busy tonight. it'll make fun unwinding stuff while at a horse show. Thank you again! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've addressed most of your concerns ... hopefully without making a complete hash of anything else. I know you're not around on weekends, but that's fine, I'm on the road! Let me know what you think and then I'll hopefully be able to get it up at FAC when I get home! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw

Very nice :-) Maybe also include a link to WP:FAC/ar when you mention the bot? I'm always trying to spread the work about how the botification works, since so few people seem to read/understand it. Thanks for the help, as always ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing my FAC, I didn't know how to do this so I thought I would just leave it. Thanks. SimpsonsFan08 ^{talk contribs} 08:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pierce Brosnan

Please strike comments. Ultra! 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

I would advise you to go back to the Michael Jackson FA review. You havent read the article correctly. A biography has been used multiple times. Cheers. Realist2 (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again see MJ FA, i would appreciate if you kept an eye on it. I want to resolve your issues. Realist2 (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the FA the only issue you have remaining is the page numbers. I will sort this out asap. Realist2 (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive page numbered it all, ive done your list so look forward to you adding, stricking as resolved or even endorsing FA. Cheers and i thankyou for your input to date. Realist2 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input, i would be glad to hear more from you anytime. Great advise about the page numbering. Looking at it now i agree it looks much better. Good call. Realist2 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/NeXT

Hello again. All issues have been fixed. Please see the FAC page. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A modest proposal

I notice you're seeking copyediting assistance for Georgette Heyer. How about a quid pro quo deal? – Scartol • Tok 12:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent trade to me, if you wouldn't mind a delay of a few days. I've been out of town this weekend and have a full schedule the next few days. I should definitely be able to get to Emmy Noether by the end of the week though. Karanacs (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I did indeed forget to watch this page, but there's no rush on the review. It'll probably be a few days before I can get to Ms. Heyer anyway. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've finished my copyedit; comments are on the talk page. Your turn on Emmy Noether! =) Thanks in advance for your help. – Scartol • Tok 02:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! Emmy was next on my list :) Karanacs (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Allen Morris (historian)

Thanks. In the middle of Ossian B. Hart, so it might be a while. Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hello - It's me again. Can you review Paul Rand for me? It is currently at GA standard, but I want to get it featured after the peer review is done. When you have the time, please leave comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Paul Rand/archive1. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

AN

I have reported you to the AN due to your bad faith at my editor review. Editorofthewiki 20:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ho, hum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the defense, Sandy. This is the same attitude that comes up at FAC a lot - I think people forget that if they solicit feedback, they run the risk of receiving negative feedback too. This is the first time that I know of that I've been mentioned at AN/I; another milestone (however unwanted) for me! Karanacs (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Since it's run its course, my advice is to not respond there, as it will only reignite. I remember my first, and I know where it ended (at ArbCom, years later); may you have better luck :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I figured it was better to just let it drop. I still appreciate the support :) Karanacs (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been there too. Sandy's advice is spot on, ignore it and walk away.--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad to see you back to reviewing articles; seems like we've all been nothing but busy busy busy ever since Ima, and FAC suffers without those good reviews. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to be up to my old pace of reviewing for a while yet (dratted real life intruding), but it's nice to dip my toes back in :) Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article José Enrique de la Peña, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

Hi there, you havent commented on the michael jackson article in a while, its improved further since your last look. I would appreciate any further thoughts you have. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 05:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, ive resolved your issues, please strick what your are satisfied with off, add more, or feel free to endorse. The FA list has kinda got stupidly long so cutting off whats done will be very helpful to me so that i can see what remains. Cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 02:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ive done more of your list, please respond to question where appropriate and strick out all thats done. Cheers. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your issue with copy edit and structure, im getting help with the copy editing, thats not something i can do myself, i need more assistance from you on structure. I dont think having the person issues come first will work as there are so many. Mariah csrey is FA and that has career first. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, thats a question i left for you at the FA, would it be ok to intergrate?, but you said you wouldnt go over and take a look. It might pass this time around, there are more who suport than oppose. So can i intergrate then?Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, ill intergrate, some things like physical appearance and finances need their own sections imo though. Ill go intergrate what i can. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, all is intergrated bar physical appearance and finances. Take a look, what do you think, do you want those two sections moved around. Reply at my page . Cheers. By the way, an admin has promised to copy edit it tomorrow. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Empires

Hi, I've replied to your comments. Thanks for taking the time to review. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI; [2]. Also replies on my talk page, but just in case you're not watching it... dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Mayhem!!

		Barnstar of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem
		On behalf of Murder, Madness, and Mayhem, this barnstar is to thank you for your hard work and patience in motivating, mentoring, and moulding the work of student editors, and helping them to achieve excellence in research and writing. For your work on so many pages across the project, your constant encouragement, advice, and splendid editorial contributions. Thank you so much! On behalf of the entire class of UBC's SPAN312. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I really enjoyed the work, and I'll treasure this one :) Karanacs (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And it was marvellous to be collaborating with you.  :) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

An apology

I would like to apologize for [3] after someone has closed the thread. I hope my revert is enough in this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Strike, sorry. I accidentally put you as the one who closed. I switched my apologies. I wanted to apologize for reverting your edit, but I see that my later undo didn't actually revert you. I am confused by that, but... yeah. Hmmm. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I accidentally posted after it was closed too. No worries. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha. Best not to leave an excuse, yes? :) And I think what one of my problems is that I have a mathematical based mind and language set, so my verbal reasoning are based on "if then" clauses. People seem unwilling to appreciate the abstract nature of the rhetoric. It could be the result of a good education that ruined me. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That explains it ;) I work with engineers, so I'm lucky enough to be able to adapt to both the scientific and non-scientific ways of communicating points. Other people aren't accustomed to this method, though, and get offended. I think you're becoming a good FAC reviewer, so I don't want you to get scared off or run off, but I'd like to keep the other FAC reviewers (and nominators) around too! You make good arguments - make them in a way that can't be interpreted as condescending and you may find it easier to sway others to your way of looking at things. Karanacs (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I enjoy working with people. Normally, I try to stick with "comments" unless I am really persuaded one way or another, or if there are not enough people to really hold a consensus and I reexamine an article with a greater sense of detail to see if it should move on or not. But so, as one person pointed out, the reason why my computer froze twice from the Hillary Clinton article is that, when all is said and done, the complete format was over 400k, and my computer just didn't like that. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to: "a deliberate misinterpretation of policy (or a refusal to understand policy) is disruptive editing". Only Sandy and Raul have the ability to determine if my opposition matches a policy or not. It is not your right nor should it be for you to determine if my complaint is appropriate. If you respect the process, you would strike your comment, as it recognizes that the appropriate measure to settling disagreements over someone opposing your FAC is to go to ANI and threaten admin intervention. Furthermore, the rules are not as black and white as you claim, so you cannot claim any "misinterpretation", let alone a "deliberate" one. Your words are inflammatory and unnecessary. Please remove them in respect to the FA process. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read: Wikipedia:When_to_cite. "When in doubt". I put forth doubt. Also: "Data and statistics – Data and statistics need sources." There are many dates and claims about popularity or function that fall under this. There are also "Opinions – Opinions should be cited and attributed in the text.". Furthermore: "The right to challenge – Any editor has the right to challenge unsourced material by opening a discussion on the talk page or by tagging it." Also, the only thing that you could argue is "the source need not be cited after every single sentence unless the material is particularly contentious. Editors should exercise caution when rearranging cited material to ensure that the text-source relationship isn't broken." But since the second part could happen, multiple sentences without citation should probably be sourced.

Please respect the above. Your comments have shown that you have not, and that is troublesome. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue at AN/I is not who is right or wrong in this policy dispute. The issue is whether your pattern of editing at FAC is disruptive. Several editors have claimed that it is. Over numerous FACs you have chosen to argue, many times in a tone bordering on inappropriate, a point based on a misinterpretation of policy despite the fact that consensus on the meaning of those policies was overwhelmingly (if not unanimously) opposite of your interpretation. Yes, Sandy and Raul will determine whether your oppose is actionable, but I think the fear of Awadewit and Wasted Time R is that your method of arguing your points is scaring off other people who could be reviewing their FACs. When consensus is against you, it is time to stop arguing that point on the FAC and start arguing on the applicable policy page if you feel that strongly about it. Karanacs (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Warrant for Genocide

Sorry for my slip up - the above is the correct Standard work --Ludvikus (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Article for peer review

Hello Karanacs. Sometime ago just after Huldrych Zwingli made it to FA, you mentioned on Sandy's talk page that you were willing to take a look at it. Well, I have been putting some effort into Thomas Cranmer and I was wondering if I could ask you to take a look at that? Thanks in advance for your help. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just had a look at your copy-editing. Outstanding! I learned a lot just looking at your changes. I disagreed with one, though. "Sent off" to school tells me boarding school. "Sent" to school is just the verb that matches school. No big deal, that was the only change that seemed to alter meaning in any way I could see.

If you'd care to let me know if you do any more copy-editing, I'd love to observe the changes. Purely a learning thing for me. Cheers. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the compliment! I don't consider myself a great writer (user:Awadewit and User:Tony1 are absolutely excellent), but for some reason it's always easier for me to copyedit someone else's writing than make my own sound good. Feel free to revert any of my changes - I don't have an in-depth knowledge of Cranmer, and even any prose changes won't hurt my feelings ;) Karanacs (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hubert Walter

While you're dealing with Archbishops... if you could look at him at tell me what I'm missing/leaving out/assuming more knowledge of the reader than I should? I think he's my next FAC after I get back from Texas. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, hopefully today, if not then Thursday (I've got to go on a 24-hr business trip tomorrow, ugh). Which part of Texas are you visiting/working in? Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No rush, I'm going to be in Texas until the 11th of May. We're going down for a horse show, then some photo shoots, and then Scarborough Renaissance Faire. All up near Fort Worth. Hubert's really it that I feel is "ready" for FAC. I should be able to work some while I'm on the road, so hopefully I can get Stigand up to snuff, I just had a very useful PR from Ruhrfish that is going to take some expansion/working on before he's ready to CE. Go Man Go is probably close too, but I don't wanna do another horse just yet. Better get a boring bishop through first! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Bishops are cool - all that power and sometimes really juicy scandals ;) Enjoy Scarborough Faire -I've never been but heard its a lot of fun. If you're going to be gone that long I may push back a review until later in the week then. I'd promised Scartol I'd do an in-depth look at one of his articles too and I should do that first. Karanacs (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

Hi, this is Limetolime. I've been reading through your comments, and I deeply thank you for them. I do have a few problems though. First off, many of your comments were simply personal preferences, such as the numbers required to being written out.

The numbers is part of WP:MOSNUM. Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

I am currently copyediting the article, please re-read it when I'm finished. Thanks, Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 00:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm done!

Well, I finally got to reading the entire article, and found that there were definitely things that needed to be fixed. If you would still like to, please read the article and leave your response at my talk page. If your response is good, I plan to resubmit the article at WP:FAC soon. Have a nice day, Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 01:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work at FAC during April

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		To Karanacs, For your exceptional reviews of at least 27 Featured article candidates during the month of April, the FAC community and I thank you for being one of the top reviewers this month (as usual) and for your careful and thorough reviews that help assure that only Wiki's finest work is recognized on the Main Page.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey! You're not supposed to thank the person who's trying to thank you :-) But thanks!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You deserve recognition in the FAC-love fest too! Karanacs (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Wiggles

Hey Karanacs, I can relate to having toddlers and not being able to access WP at certain times of the week. It's after 11pm PST now, everyone's in bed, and here I am. ;) This lifestyle is why it's taken me so bloody long to finally address your comments before the FAC of The Wiggles closed. I just finished, so when you're able to, would you mind taking a look at the article, and giving me your opinion about its readiness to go through the process again (for the fourth time!)? Thanks! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack Kemp FAC

Would you be so kind as to either strikethrough or

Hide Karanacs

resolved content

Also, if my extensive re-editing has moved you to the fence or over it please update your stance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. I could not muster enough consensus and the article is now at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Kemp/archive1. Feel free to come and comment.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Noether

First, let me thank you in advance for your review of Emmy Noether. I don't want to jump the gun, but I'm a little hesitant about this edit, only because the first part is about math, but Noether's theorem is about symmetry in physics. I think they ought to remain separate. I'll stop picking nits now. =) – Scartol • Tok 15:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to revert or change back anything. I'm no expert in math or physics and it's highly likely I'm not going to understand it as well as you. It won't hurt my feelings if you revert anything or everything I do! Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just wanted to check and avoid stepping on toes. =) Thanks again for giving it a look. – Scartol • Tok 15:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Karan! WillowW has been adding info on the Galois theory and invariant theory sections of Emmy Noether, and I wondered – in light of your comment at peer review – if you'd care to have a look. Hopefully it now provides the kind of context and user-friendliness it needs? – Scartol • Tok 21:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fields Store is not a misspelling

This http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/FF/hrf49.html says "Fields Store" - and the school is Fields Store elementary. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Next time I'll rate stubs I create as stubs :) - Anyhow the Handbook of Texas article uses "Fields Store" or "Field's Store" (the former is more commonly used, and the school uses the former name) - I have not seen "Field Store" WhisperToMe (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

hawkwood fac

Thanks so much for giving the article a read through and for offering constructive criticism. I have rewritten the section in light of your comments. I hope you find it an improvement. Savidan 04:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe I've done as you suggested. Savidan 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Texas page

I got addicted to wikipedia again. I think I have done what I set out to accomplish, improve the Texas page. I figured i'd ask around for some fresh eyes to go over it. I am going to take a break for a month or so, so take your time. After that I am thinking about getting it to GA or maybe even FA standards. CyaOldag07 (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You've been busy

		The Working Woman's Barnstar
		I present this to you for your hard work in assessing articles for WikiProject Texas. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Macintosh Classic/archive1

Please review Macintosh Classic when you have the time. No worries if you can't do it soon. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

May 19 Dispatch

Karanacs, can I interest you in shepharding the GA issue, at Wikipedia:FCDW/May 19, 2008? It will be our first GA Dispatch, so should broadly define the process (see the DYK Dispatch), discuss the 2:1 ratio milestone, include mention of the icon issue, and anything else important (key people, etc.) I left a diff showing the date/time the 2:1 ratio was met on G guy's talk page a while back. I'd like to leave you this one to you and G guy. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this is enough information for two dispatches? Since we've been having difficulty getting volunteers to write, it might be wise to split it up: one dispatch to explain the process and mention key people, and one to talk about the 2:1 ratio milestone, the icon issue, and maybe talk about anticipated trends (will GA ever reach 3:1 ratio?). Karanacs (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Will leave everything related to GA to your best judgment :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs, are you going to work up the GA Dispatch with Geometry guy? (Did I already ask you this? Not feeling well today ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aeneas Mackintosh

This article has been promoted FA, and I'd like to thank you for your review comments and support at FAC. Enjoy your weekend! Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't my image

Thought it was a good illustration of the pageantry. You obviously didn't. Why? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree it wasn't uploaded properly. Thought I fixed that. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edit to RCC

I think you accidentally blanked something in your last edit to the RCC article. You left a sentence saying Historians note that for centuries Protestant propaganda and popular literature rs. Not sure what "rs" means ;)-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I have no idea what I did there. Karanacs (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

2007 Texas Longhorn football team

Hey there! Considering your absolute love for UT, (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) I was wondering if you'd be willing to look over 2007 Texas Longhorn football team. It's a collaboration I'm working on with Johntex, and we're trying to get it ready for FAC. It's been a lot of work so far, but I think it's really shaping up. Unfortunately, we've had to make a lot of cuts, so if there's anything that doesn't make sense, let me know -- it's probably because I cut out something I shouldn't have.

As always, I appreciate your help. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm reallllllly far behind now in reviewing articles that have been requested. I'll put this on my list, and <sigh> even try to be NPOV about the review, but it may be a week or more before I have a chance. Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it. I'll ask some other folks to take a look at it, and you can get around to it when/if you want to. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Hours of service

Hello, I have responded to your concerns and your response at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hours of service is requested. Thanks for taking the time to review the article! --ErgoSum88 (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow's dispatch

See also my talk page and Jbmurray's. I've finally restructured to reflect my original impetus, with the inspiration of your improvements. I don't know if you will have time to look over what I've done. Sandy has expressed a concern that it talks to much about FA, but I think by its (2:1 milestone) nature, it was always going to have a comparative aspect, and we have both contributed comparisons to the prose. I think a pure GA dispatch would be good in the future, but at the moment, there are just too many questions flying around about GA, and a pure GA piece would be too difficult to write (and get right). The main thing (in my view) is to ensure that the comparisons promote a sense of common purpose and mutual understanding. Geometry guy 21:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it reads pretty well now. I'm sorry I didn't provide any more help (my garden was calling), but it looks like you've wrestled it into a pretty good shape. I think a history of GA dispatch might be a good idea, with a pure GA piece to come later when the process calms down a bit. Karanacs (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for the copyedit. If you have time to look again tomorrow morning, please do. I'll try to do so myself, and Jbm and Sandy will probably take another look. Geometry guy 01:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Karanacs, I'll ask Gimmetrow to give you rollback in case Jb doesn't get to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. I'm in no particular hurry, the latest vandal I ran across just aggravated me. Karanacs (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

At first I didn't "get it", but it really is a timesaver (I guess you know it's only to be used on vandals, when in doubt, use regular revert or undo). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ma'am. I read the directions twice before I asked for it. I thought it was a dumb idea when it was first announced, but now that I'm watching more vandal-targeted pages I can see it's usefulness. Karanacs (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you see that G guy granted you rollback? Have fun :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am feeling quite special right now! I asked and had two different people offer to help within minutes, and then problem fixed :) (You really don't need to be an admin, Sandy, now that you have so many of them to do your evil bidding!) Karanacs (talk) 02:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If only all admin decisions were this easy: saw in on Jbm's talk page, thought... yup. Geometry guy 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I should also add the standard pep talk: rollback provides no specific edit summary so only use it for reverting clear instances of vandalism. For less clear instances and all other cases use "undo" instead with an explanatory edit summary. Also beware that rollback reverts not just the last edit, but all consecutive edits by the last editor, so make sure they are all vandalism. But you know all this, I'm sure, and mistakes can be fixed. I also use rollback for reverting my own edits, as these can sometimes amount to vandalism by incompetance. Geometry guy 03:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AggieRingCase.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AggieRingCase.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AggieSoftball.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AggieSoftball.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aggie Band.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Aggie Band.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Orange Box FAC

Many thanks for your responses. I've responded to some of your reliable source concerns - Joystiq, Kotaku and Shacknews do get questioned from time to time. If you need more information, I'll try to bring up the relevant debates. Other than that, the german sources were used to demonstrate the censorship used. They're used in the German WP from what I understand, but it's no big deal if the content is removed. Other than that, I'll try to perform a full copyedit over the next few days and drop you a talk note when it's complete. Many thanks for taking the time to review the article, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to respond to your further sourcing requests and hope I've managed to address them. I'm going to be focusing on the copyedit now, where some sources may drop out. If they do I'll keep you updated. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hubert Walter

I think I've made some progress on the concerns you noted. Let me know if things are still opaque to you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to change the subject, but how does Hubbie look? I'm debating just putting him up at FAC this weekend, but want someone to help me with my nerves first! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he's ready for FAC. Others will probably have some prose suggestions, but it reads fairly well, is organized well, and appears comprehensive (at least to me, although what I know about him comes from the article). Go for it! Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For the wonderful job of fixing my spelling, dealing with my purple prose, and all around helpfulness with Hubert Walter. Never fear, I shall pester you again.... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Dorothy the Dinosaur (and me) have given you this beautiful rose in appreciation for your assistance in getting The Wiggles to FA-status. Yoo hoo! and Good on ya, mate! --Figureskatingfan (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Assata Shakur

In the (failed) FAC you commented that the other seemed biased towards Shakur because of a lack of coverage of the prosecutions case. I have since re-written the sections in question. I have also added some additional information on her other trials, although these were obviously not subject to the same type of media coverage. Some of them I could only find informatoin on in Shakur's autobiography, so I tried to limit the information to the summary given by her lawyer in that book (which I found more objective). Please take another look at the article when you get a chance and leave some comments on the talk page if you think there are any outstanding issues. Savidan 20:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any remaining comments about the article? Savidan 23:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, using some creative search terms (if I do say so myself), I have been able to fill in substantially move information about Shakur's other trials, as you originally requested at fac. If you get a chance, please let me know how you think the article stands vis-a-vis your past objections. Savidan 07:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natalee Holloway

We finally found somebody who wasn't too busy to give us a hand, and Miranda (talk · contribs) gave us the independent copyedit you suggested. Hopefully this has addressed your 1a related concerns. When you get a chance, please check back in with us and let us know the status of your oppose. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 13:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Zavala, Texas

On 28 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zavala, Texas, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

ImmortalGoddezz has suggested that you'd make a good admin, and having looked through your history I agree. Because you tend to do a-few-edits-here-and-there, you haven't "come to notice" as much as some others, but (unless there's a skeleton in your closet I haven't spotted), there's no good reason for you not to be one. You've a good mix of service in most areas across Wikipedia (with the one exception of AfD, but given your prod/speedy history I don't see any concerns that you don't understand deletion policy); your work at FAC shows that you're willing to take on tedious, thankless tasks that generally result only in abuse; you've got a proven history of collaborating with others. And the fact that I can see two conversations on this talkpage with one of our most disruptive editors, in both of which you've somehow managed to remain civil, is surely a good sign...

Besides, it would no doubt make Lara happy to have someone else sharing the role of lightning-rod for every Texan with a grudge. At the moment, the RFA pendulum has swung about as far as it ever gets towards the "content-oriented" admins as opposed to policy-wonks, so you should sail through (although last time I said that things didn't turn out as planned). If you'd be interested, let me know and I'd be glad to draw up a nom. — iridescent 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly surprised and flattered by this! I've never actively aspired to be an administrator. I am first and foremost a content editor, but I can't deny that the tools would be helpful occasionally in some of my regular tasks (such as helping User:SandyGeorgia with FAC stuff, or in dealing with vandals on some of the pages I watchlist). I have doubts that I would be a very active user of the administrative tools, although when I'm bored I often look for quick ways to be useful, and the admin arena would certainly broaden the pool of ways to help. As for skeletons in my closet, I doubt there are many FAC reviewers who don't have at least several people mad at them, and I know that user:Editorofthewiki was upset with me recently (there's a link somewhere on this page to an AN/I discussion he started-the first and so far only one I've been mentioned in). I don't delete conversations from my talk page/archives (at least not intentionally), so any dirty laundry I have is there for anyone to see. If you saw no big issues there or with the potential for infrequent use of the tools, then I'd be willing to put my name forward; if not, then I'll still feel flattered you asked :) Karanacs (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll write up a nomination for you (probably won't be for a couple of days); once that's done you can transclude it into WP:RFA if/when you think it's necessary. I can't imagine "doesn't need the tools" will be a problem; mine sailed through way-back-when under virtually identical circumstances. Then again, I have been known to get these predictions wildly wrong. — iridescent 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I really am flattered (have I mentioned that? ;)). I'll be out of town with limited computer access from June 7-14, so there's no need for you to hurry. I appreciate your help! Karanacs (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

FLC

I've left comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texan survivors of the Battle of the Alamo. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The FA-Team

Hi. There has been some discussion of how to improve the FA-Team's functioning. It's be grand if you could comment on the new suggested structure, and perhaps also look at our current proposals. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)