Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 02:09, 3 March 2010 (→your comment was inappropriately placed: that does it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Note to self:images

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

Your extra credit bit on Catholic Church...

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 (Le Goff's a bit outdated and the work you're citing is somewhat of a cross between a popular history and a low level textbook.)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

Jean Lafitte

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Outline bump

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts:

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Murder of Imette St. Guillen

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

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

Opinion: Free State of Galveston

Hi,

If you don't mind my asking your advice again ...

I was wondering how much more work you think Free State of Galveston needs for FA. Basically from the standpoint of how educational the article is I am pretty happy with it so I don't have high motivation to spend a lot more time on it. But if the effort to get it to FA is straightforward I thought perhaps it might be worth the trouble. Not having gone through the process I'm not sure how to judge.

--Mcorazao (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to do a pre-FAC review for you (which, of course, means I'll recuse myself when/if it's eventually brought to FAC). It may take a few days...I'm in the middle of writing a new article and I need to finish it so I can nominate it for DYK. Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Some lists for you

Hi. Here are some list of unreferenced BLPs that you might be interested in.

• :Texas A&M articles - 15 articles
• WikiProject Texas articles -

Copy, advertise, move or do whatever you want with the lists. Rettetast (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Texan Revolution

There's a discussion page, but I'll just note this here so we can skip the edit war. You are quite right that many historians do refer to it as the Texas Revolution. Google and Google Book show both are used, and Texas is somewhat more common. However, given that there isn't any consensus, grammar should trump local usage. It's not the America Revolution, the Glory Revolution, the France Revolution. —LlywelynII (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You have been bold, but this is an extremely controversial change, and I'm going to revert all of the pages you've updated recently. The next step in the process is discuss, and I will open up a section at Talk:Texas Revolution. This may require an RfC. Karanacs (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

LlywelynII, you are wrong. "Texas Revolution" is the conventional form and you were wrong to have moved the page without a proper discussion. --Mcorazao (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Parysatis II

On February 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Parysatis II, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

La Reine Margot

I've started reading the above. I just bought the Oxford Classics edition, thinking it would be reliable. Of course, when I received it from amazon, I discovered that it was abridged! Apparently, it is based on the "famous English" translation and abridgment, but still, I would have liked the entire text! Awadewit (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope you like the book anyway - even an abridged version should be pretty long and involved ;) I enjoy the French authors of this time period more than their British counterparts, and this is my favorite of those. It's been a year or two since I read it - I may have to go find it when I get home :) Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm already confused! I'm trying to read without consulting the footnotes, as it was awfully troublesome to keep flipping to the back of the book (what is wrong with the bottom of the page!?). I may succumb to reading the "List of historical characters", though. It reminded me of some awful literature articles on Misplaced Pages. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a weakness for pre-1800 British and French royalty, so I was already fairly familiar with the history. I can see how it might be confusing if you don't have that background knowledge. Last time I read this novel I was inspired to pick up Leonie Frieda's biography of Catherine de Medici (a very well-written book), which confirmed a lot of the details. Karanacs (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Lady of Quality

I was just looking through the list of GANs and I saw you've nominated Lady of Quality, and it's been in the queue for almost four weeks. Emboldened by what I've learned from Awadewit over the past few months I was going to offer to review it, but when I glanced through I saw that there appears to be nothing on the book's reception, which seems like quite a major omission. Is there some valid reason for that? I'd be happy to review it, but without something on its reception it's hard to see that it meets the "covers its major topics" GA criterion. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking a preliminary look. I haven't been able to find anything about the reception. Even today, romances novels generally do not get reviewed, and 40 years ago it was even rarer. I actually found a source when I was writing the article on the author that states that her books were never reviewed in a serious newspaper. I will go add that to the article, now that I've thought about it. Or, if you think that the article can't be comprehensive without such a section, I can just withdraw the nomination. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, don't withdraw it. I did wonder whether the reason might be that Heyer's books weren't generally reviewed by the critics, so just making that clear would resolve that issue. I'll have a look through The Times archive to see if they've got anything to say in any event, and if I find anything I'll let you know. I'll sign up to do the review now, and hopefully get it done in the next day or so; you've had to wait too long already. Hopefully you'll be able to tolerate all my nit-picking suggestions, as I must be one of the most irritating of reviewers. I want everything to be just so, even in a GA! :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a very short section on publication and reception with some general info about Heyer's books. I would very much appreciate a search through the archives of The Times - I don't have good access to a lot of British sources. I'm also thrilled that you'll be taking on the review - your advice always helps make my articles better :) Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you may be surprised to learn that The Times published a review of Lady of Quality written by Philippa Toomey on 19 October 1972. It's short, but it's quite complimentary. It ends: "Some of it is very funny, the characters are affectionately drawn, and there is, this time, that "bat's squeak of sexuality", an ingredient hitherto claimed to be missing from Miss Heyer; though it can be heard by those whose ears are adjusted to the correct frequency. Lady of Quality is the same again. But did anyone ever complain about being given another pretty little present by Fabergé?" Here's the url, but I'm not certain you'll be able to access it from the US. If you can't, I can take a screen shot and email it to you. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I just sent you an email so you'll have my address. I would appreciate a scan, if you don't mind. I'll be working on the other things you've identified soon. Karanacs (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, it'll be on its way shortly. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC of Tropical Storm Marco 1990 - one of the opposes

Question. Is there way you can pry Tony1 to actually look at the replies I made to his oppose on Tropical Storm Marco (1990)'s FAC. I pinged him on his talk the day he made them. (see here) I never got any replies on the FAC, and definitely not on the thread in question. Its been almost ten days and nothing has changed. His oppose just sits there. Is there any actual way to pry him to review his review?Mitch32 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Sam Loxton/archive1

Hi there Karanacs. It's now the bottom FAC and I've expanded the politics section and explained by it shouldn't be expanded further, and so have some other folks, but haven't been able to elicit a reply from User_talk:Rebecca#Loxton_FAC. Thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Petlyakov Pe-8/archive1

The article just got a rewrite yesterday. I just asked the opposing reviewers to re-read it to see if their issues had been addressed. I was expecting until the 15th to get them to look at it again. Can you unarchive it to allow them a chance to review the changes?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's rare to have FACs unarchived, and we generally do not do that if there were outstanding opposes. You're welcome to bring this back in a few weeks when you are satisfied that the opposition has been addressed (and your other FAC has been promoted). Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC exception

I missed the bit about having to wait two weeks after a FAC has been archived to bring up another and I nominated Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/HMS Lion (1910)/archive1 yesterday. So I ask for an exception since some comments have already been made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. The rule is pretty new and hasn't been widely publicized yet. Karanacs (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC: Voyage of the Karluk

Just a note to say that due to computer breakdown my access will be very limited for a few days, and I may not be able to reply immediately to further issues raised by reviewers. There are no problems at the moment - 7 supports, no opposes - but I am waiting for an image review.

Later: Disregard this, I'm up and running with a borrowed computer. Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. It looks like the article is well-prepared, and hopefully you won't need to babysit very much. Karanacs (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You have email

Re Lady of Quality, just so that the conspuracy theorists don't get their knickers in a twist. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that last night - thank you very much! I hope to work on the article today or tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest twist

Please bring on the next stage of dispute resolution on Catholic Church. The latest sincere believer has taken to removing and disparaging File:Catholicpopulationsnew.png, claiming that it has no source. It is a map of the world's countries, tinted by percentage of Catholics; it claims a source - a list of percentage Catholics by country. Our good soul's complaint is that the original has no map; I have duly commented on the obvious (if it had a map, we could not use it without a waiver of copyright). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the time or mental energy at the moment to go to the next step of dispute resolution (you may have noticed I haven't been dropping by that page as frequently). If you or someone else wants to start it I'll present evidence, but I'm not going to be the point person right now. Karanacs (talk) 01:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Ben Paschal/archive1

I felt it was too early to archive, I was replying or fixing to each concern, and I had spoke to a couple of editors who said they were going to review the article by this thursday. Can I get a second chance please. Thanks Secret 19:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It had been up for about three weeks with no support, and that's usually the cutoff. Since you'd resolved the feedback you'd already gotten, it's fine if you want to nominate a different article quickly, but for this one you should wait a few weeks per the guidelines. Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

FAC delay

I noticed that you did not promote Inauguration of Barack Obama (FAC) today. What is it lacking in your opinion?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I promote next, I'd help out here, except for that big pink edit message ... "If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide all relevant links." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Tony1 has concerns, and one of your supports is from an involved reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is involved?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably Hunter Kahn, the GA reviewer (or Ruhrfisch, who PR'ed?) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, it is one of those, but I don't understand why? Neither one is really involved. Ruhrfisch made some minor edits prior to supporting, but in the grand scheme of the thousands of edits to get this to where it is neither has done much. Ruhrfisch has 9 of the 3445 edits and Hunter has 17, but none in the last 6 monts. Also, aren't GA and or PR reviewers suppose to give an opinion if they have one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Given Tony's concerns, and the fact that this is the 4th nomination for the article, I would like to see at least one more support from someone completely independent. Sandy, of course, may have different criteria when she goes through the list this weekend. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_candidates/The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion/archive3

Please advise on whether I should be allowed to renominate so soon. Thanks for your time. —Anonymous Dissident 01:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there was serious opposition at the previous FAC, I'd prefer it if you'd wait a bit. Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Every concern has been resolved. I wouldn't count Fuchs' lone oppose vote, which began with "Overall, a very good article its contributors should be proud of", as "serious opposition". Sorry to seem difficult, but could you elaborate on what you mean? —Anonymous Dissident 20:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Serious meaning "actionable". Sorry for the confusion! Karanacs (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay... How about tomorrow, March 1? —Anonymous Dissident 12:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

...March 2? —Anonymous Dissident 17:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your previous question. The general rule is 2 weeks. Karanacs (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic church

Hi, I lost interest in that article a day or two ago. I have already written to the other participants on one of the issues:

I should say that as an "outside observer" I find this discussion just unbelievable and surreal. This could not be happening.... I am not taking sides on the issue - I really do not care about this subtopic. But the types and tones of arguments presented by various sides is just amazing and makes me wonder if "any" progress can be made in this type of atmosphere. I would strongly suggest to all sides to calm down and be more focused, but I doubt it will work in this atmosphere.

My feeling is that current Misplaced Pages rules are inadequate for moderating heated talk page debates, and there is almost no way out except fatigue causing some participants to give up. I think I am going to stop watching this talk page for a while and just drop in very occasionally - reading this type of material is just non-productive.

Therefore, please remove me from the arbitration issues since I think that talk page is just a headache at best. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would probably be best if you left this note as a statement on the Arb request page, as it is actually very relevant to the case. If the case is accepted, then your name would mostly likely be removed - the arbitrators and clerks often shuffle that once they've read the statements. Please note that I did not include you based on any accusation of poor behavior, but solely because you had been active recently. Karanacs (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that. Thanks. But I REALLY think the wikirules are inadequate therein. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Your statement on the Catholic Church arbitration request

Please note that there is a 500 word limit on the request for arbitration page. That includes your initial statement and replies to others. Yours currently stands at close to 800. Please shorten it so it is below 500 words as soon as possible. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 13:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions are quite frequently allowed, and this case is much too complex to summarize in 500 words. (I've suggested that NancyHeise reduce her 1500 words to 800.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

500 words is ample. As this case is likely to attract a lot of commentators, it's especially important to enforce the word count. Should you require more words, you can create a page in your userspace and link to it on the main arbitration page. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr PDAs script had told me I was at 500 words, but I guess that was wrong. Thanks for the heads up - I'll fix it. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated sir - thank you for your cooperation. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the heads up. Its been a couple of months since I edited the article, so I'll have to read up on talk drama between users since then before I can give an opinion. - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft

Thank you for your work thus far on the above draft RFC. I think it's about time we move to the community discussion phase. The proponents for and against outlines can argue until they are blue in the face, but what we really need is disinterested community opinion on this. Thanks, –xeno 15:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See also my latest ping at #Outline bump above, in case you missed it.

I think User:Karanacs/Navigational pages RfC draft (the other rfc) is as clear/complete as I can make it. Getting more input/assistance there, from yourself and any other interested/informed/polite editors would be great. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the Navigational pages draft is going to be specific enough to be helpful. I did a bit of copyediting and am happy with the Outline RfC draft and would support moving this to WP-space somewhere and opening the RfC. What do you think? Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ian Meckiff FAC

Hi Karanacs, could you not shut this down for a while as Anon Diss and Laser brain have agreed to take a look at it. I am a bit surprised as I prepared normally like the other FACs and am trying tow ork through the issue YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

your comment was inappropriately placed

I was telling Tom, thank you and why. I didn't name names. There was no personal attack there but since you are bringing it up, yes, I think that your efforts to have me banned through an RFA and an Arbcom brought encouragement to those who most needed instruction in WP:civil. I told you first on my talk page, then Raul, and third after you opened the arbcom. I am hoping at some point you will see what you could maybe have done differently to be a better admin. If I had intended to heap criticism on you, I would have opened an RFC against you myself or an arbcom but I thought that would be mean. So I didn't. I just did what my religion tells me to do - "if you are angry with someone tell him his fault" - which I did. Your response was to open the RFC so I guess you did not take my kindness of telling you your fault to heart. I wish you had because that would have saved us a lot of time and energy and the page would have probably been further along by now. NancyHeise 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nancy, one wearies of reading your misrepresentations. First, Karanacs has not acted as an admin on the Catholic Church, nor has she acted as FAC delegate. She is another editor, just like you. The evidence for this is that, if ArbCom saw any indication that Karanacs had abused of either her position as FAC delegate or admin tools, they would be rushing to accept the case. Second, please cease the endless and pointless "us against them" mentality, which you also bring to every FAC and most talk page discussions. RFCs are not brought "against" anyone; they are brought as a routine part of Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution: please read that page, as there has been no indication that you ever have. It would be helpful if you would say "RFC on me" instead of "RFC against me". Third, wiki is not a "vote"; please try to read and understand that page as well. I'm growing tired of seeing your attacks on Karanacs' good faith, and may consider adding my input to the ArbCom if they don't cease. You appear to view yourself as a kind and gentle soul, but I see stubborn and willful intransigence, misrepresentation, misunderstanding, IDidntHearThat, failure to assume good faith or engage dispute resolution correctly, and failure to understand NPOV or consensus, that has poisoned the environment at Catholic Church and prevents anyone from engaging there to improve the article. Have you actually read any of Wiki's policies, or do you only pick from them what suits you, as seems to happen with article sourcing arguments at Catholic Church? You also have a very fundamental misunderstanding about the role of admins on Wiki; they are no different than any other editor, until/unless they use admin tools. Perhaps you don't understand that Arbs are asking for admins to get involved so that, for example, the next time someone like you attacks Karanacs' good faith, they can be blocked. That is what admins do. Please read some Wiki policies, learn your way around here, and understand how Wiki works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have also never called for you to be banned. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of dispute resolution, and I'm getting very tired of explaining it to you. For the last time, dispute resolution is for resolving disputes. Making snarky comments in an attempt to poison the well is absolutely not a way to resolve disputes - it instead has a chilling effect on discussion. When these types of comments are aimed at me (even when you don't go so far as to use my name), I'll continue to call them out, as I am an eternal optimist and hope that you will some day figure out either a) the difference between editing as an editor and editing as an admin and/or b) how to resolve a dispute the wiki-way. Karanacs (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, your entire thread is a personal attack followed by a threat. I know what dispute resolution is, I know that Karanacs completely skipped several steps before taking it to arbcom. Your assumption that I don't know Misplaced Pages policies such as WP:consensus and WP:NPOV is really surprising - I invite you to spell out for me what you think I have missed about those policies in my work on Catholic Church because it seems to me that neutral point of view for Karanacs is the one that excludes basic facts about the Church that just so happen to be positive. I think you are too quick to come to Karanac's defense. She is a human being, an editor and an admin. As all three, she should be able to bring herself to say something to those editors who come to the page spewing venom but she says nothing. Instead, her actions just encourage them because even though I do not engage in the venom spewing, she finds things to write up about me in an RFC and arbcom but somehow omits these other editors who really need help to learn how to be civil. Others have pointed out her bias, I am not alone on this. I thought I was being kind by not writing up an RFC or taking it to arbcom because - as human beings - people are capable of just telling someone when they have messed up. But it sounds like, according to you, on Misplaced Pages there is only one way to tell people and its RFC's and arbcoms. It should not have to go that far. I think that Misplaced Pages should have annual admin reviews on which everyone can have input because I think there are a lot of admins who use their position in inappropriate ways. That's been my experience on Catholic Church - I think that Misplaced Pages should know that and I should not be threatened with arbcom " I'm growing tired of seeing your attacks on Karanacs' good faith, and may consider adding my input to the ArbCom if they don't cease." for telling them I think that's an abuse of power as well. NancyHeise 01:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That does it. You still don't understand that adminship has nothing to do with it. WHAT admin power has Karanacs abused? Do you even know what admins do ? Do you read anything that is linked to you? I do believe you may have the worst case IDidn'tHearThat I have ever encountered. I'll be participating in the ArbCom now. You Just Won't Learn: not everyone who challenges sources, neutrality or article naming is "anti-Catholic" and you and Xandar (and from what I read, now possibly also PMA, but I haven't followed enough to know) have created a battleground on the article, are the only things standing in the way of article improvement, you continue calling for "votes", don't understand consensus, have exhibited classic ownership and failure to assume good faith, and the content issues at Catholic Church are all the result of these behavioral issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)