Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:50, 14 October 2009

	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)

Neutral opinion request

Hi,

I hope that you don't mind my pestering you. Oldag07 recommended that I talk to you.

I was seeking a neutral opinion on a history matter. I have recently expanded the article Galveston Bay Area. The expansion and the article itself have been the subject of significant controversy ever since which is still being sorted out. One particular topic that has garnered some question is the history section. Some editors have felt that

• The section should be abbreviated dramatically and most content moved to other articles or simply stricken, or
• There is not enough unique about the Bay Area history to merit a history section at all.

I, of course, disagree. I was just looking for another opinion to weigh in, hopefully somebody who has an interest in history. In other words, am I making something out of nothing or is this section informative and relevant to understanding the topic independent of History of Texas, History of Houston, and other articles?

Also, if you have other thoughts on the article as a whole feel free to weigh in the whole thing.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I read the history section of this article, and skimmed the rest. I am of ambivalent as to whether the article should exist at all (I saw the AfD and didn't participate because I couldn't make up my mind). I do believe that every article on a geographical location should have a history section. However I think the history section in this article, as written, is too broad. The history needs to focus more tightly on what happened in this area, and not what happened in the rest of the state. The section (and the rest of the article) also needs much, much better sourcing. A great deal of the article appears sourced to self-published websites. For the most part, this is inappropriate. We should instead be sourcing to independent coverage - books, newspapers, and journal articles. This is especially important in the history section - we must know what experts think of the history, not what the online map store says. Where there are citations currently, they appear to be cherry-picked (focusing on the Allen Ranch), leading the section to appear disjointed. I recommend looking for books or articles that give a broader view of the region. Furthermore, a large part of the section is unreferenced, which has led to errors. One glaring one that popped out at me - Texas did not declare indepdence in 1835, but on March 2, 1836. Finally, I question whether all of the cities that are listed are really considered part of the Galveston Bay area. I would not consider Anahuac and the events that happened there to be part of the Bay area. Good luck - writing a good history synopsis is hard work! Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Some questions, if you don't mind (don't feel obligated to respond):

* I agree about getting good sources. Part of the reason I was picking on you was hoping you might be able to point me to some good sources. Anything you are particularly aware of that I should look at?

* Regarding the Allen Ranch, can you tell me what you know? From my reading of multiple sources this was a key part of the history of the Bay Area in the 19th century. Texas City only got going around the turn of the century and Anahuac was always tiny. To my understanding the ranch and associated enterprises were a huge part of the economy of Pasadena, League City, and other area communities (certainly the city of Pasadena thinks of it as historically major). From what I've read the economies in the Bay Area only started to substantially diversify near the turn of the century as cattle ranching was dying and the oil boom kicked in.

* What "rest of the state" are you referring to? In general I intentionally avoided saying very much about anything that was going on the in the rest of the state. Granted there are some occassional mentions but only to the extent that, without these, the text would stop making any sense (well, unless you are already an expert in history). Do you have some specific items you would recommend removing?

* Regarding Anahuac, it depends on the source. One could argue that nobody thinks of Bellville as part of Greater Houston but, according to the OMB definition it is. Businesses in Anahuac do refer to their area as Bay Area to some degree and I have external references that say the same. It seems POV to exclude them even if arguably most definitions do not include them.

* Do you have any thoughts on specific elements that are missing or underemphasized? That is, are there any particular events or internal influences that you know of that need to be mentioned to balance the story?

* Thanks for the catch on the date mistake!

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice your reply until just now! I don't have a lot of knowledge of the history of the Bay Area; my interest and research has been centered on the Texas Revolution period (and earlier), and there weren't many people living along the coast in that time. This was primarily because the laws of Spain and Mexico wouldn't allow it (and that would be a good thing to mention - it is cited in the article Juan Davis Bradburn). Sources that I've used that have potential for this article:

• the Southwest Historical Quarterly. All of its issues are online: .
• For very early history (France vs Spain in the 17th and 18th centuries), you might check out Weddle, Robert S. (1991), The French Thorn: Rival Explorers in the Spanish Sea, 1682–1762, College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, ISBN 0890964807. It covers much of the Gulf Coast and there might be interesting snippets for you. When I read it I was focused more on the broader picture so I don't have notes on the particular details.
• You might want to mention part of the Long expedition - Long took up residence on one of the barrier islands after his failed first attempt. Information about this and Lafitte and the other pirate operations along the bay was well described in Davis, William C. (2005), The Pirates Laffite: the treacherous world of the corsairs of the Gulf, Austin, Texas: Harcourt Books, ISBN 9780151004034
• There are a number of very good reference works on the Texas Revolution. Stephen Hardin's Texian Iliad – A Military History of the Texas Revolution is an excellt overview of the military events, with a chapter on the Battle of San Jacinto. I have not read any of the books that deal specifically with this battle, so I am not sure if any of those would have appropriate details for you.
• You may want to read books on the history of Galveston island. Those may help you to identify other sources that would have a broader viewpoint.
• The Handbook of Texas (available online) also usually has a list of references at the bottom of each article. Some of these are not appropriate for WP, as they are primary sources, but often you can identify a few good books, or authors, to search on.
• You might want to actually read the Henson book I used for Juan Davis Bradburn. It contains some good information about 1830s-era customs posts that were established in or very near Galveston island. For space and scope reasons, I couldn't include that in the Bradburn article.

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Further thoughts - if the majority of reliable sources don't include certain areas (like Anahuac) as part of the Galveston Bay area, then the article should place very little emphasis on them. I would just have a sentence that says something like "Occasionally, cities such as Anahuac, .... are listed as part of the Galveston Bay area, but their inclusion is not widely accepted." This lets the reader know that sometimes those cities might be lumped in, but it spares you from having to focus on them or their history. Karanacs (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

For all you do...

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Everything you do, so quietly and so competently, is much appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ealdgyth! This really brightened my day :) Karanacs (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Karen, just a note to say thank you for promoting Stanley Green. :) SlimVirgin 14:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading that article - thanks for improving it! Karanacs (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Your "specialized reviewers" addition

Hi Karanacs: Hope you're well. At last, I've been hoping that point about specialising would be emphasised. But why not for "Opposes" too, even though it's not usually a problem? This might provide explicit balance in the instructions and encourage potential reviewers (you can choose what to review in a nomination). A lot of editors are under the impression they have to be skilled in all of the criteria. Tony (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tony. You bring up a really good point. I didn't add anything to the oppose section because we don't need any additional information from the opposers (as you say, its usually not a problem to discern which criteria are the problem). Do you have any suggestions on what could be added to the oppose section? My brain has stopped being creative. Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC urgent

What goes on User:Deckiller/FAC urgents? Is it possible to add Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally the urgents list has articles that are near the bottom of the FAC list and don't have a lot of comments. Feel free to add Crown Fountain, as it is the next article from those already listed on the urgents list. Karanacs (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ode on Indolence FAC

Since trying to deal with Fowler on terms of language or grammar proves to not only be a waste of time, I have pointed out here that I will not be led into the same games as before. You can see from the responses that his claims are either completely trivial or have no merit, especially when he starts trying to nitpick over definitions which do not have the weight that he claims. I hope it would not be necessary to have to call up a WT:FAC discussion on the individual, as per his stunt at the Samuel Johnson early life FAC only verified that he is falsifying many issues merely to stir up problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We'll give the comments the weight they deserve. You've responded appropriately; given the bad blood between the two of you I'd advise that you refrain from responding to any potentially provoking replies. Karanacs (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made two responses to Dabomb's questioning, but that is fine. I will continue to work on SlimVirgin's concerns, as they seem to be about where the sources are lacking in terms of explaining some Keats concepts that are assumed (and without Misplaced Pages having anything more than a stub on the concept, sigh!). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I have applied many corrections. The only thing I did not change is on the dating. I hope my explanation makes sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Slim Virgin has expressed an opinion about the lead which seems to conflict with a statement you made. I would like some sort of consensus before proceeding one way or another. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There have been a few more changes to the page since you've last looked at it. Could you take a glance when you have a chance? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Milhist!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around!  Roger Davies 02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Galveston_Bay_Area#Sources_.26_OR

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Galveston_Bay_Area#Sources_.26_OR. Thank you. Nsaum75 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Thanks for the help. BTW, do I assume correctly that you do not approve of directly using tertiary sources like TSHAOnline as references. For comparison, the history in the Houston article (FA rated) uses TSHAOnline, the Houston Chronicle, and UH's The Daily Cougar, all tertiary sources in this context, and they even use primary sources like NASA.

Also, what are your thoughts on primary sources? In general most articles I see on modern cities and other geographical areas make heavy use of primary sources for contemporary issues (although they use secondary and tertiary sources for the histories). It's usually impossible to find solid secondary and tertiary sources that cover all the things you would need to talk about in these articles.

Anyway, I'll be digging through your source suggestions.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I probably bring some of this grief on myself. :-) I tend to like to seek out valuable topics that, for one reason or another, the average person tends not to know a lot about (or else thinks he/she knows more than he/she really does). The downside of doing that is such topics tend to be magnets for criticism because editors feel inherently suspicious. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Regarding Anahuac, I'm on the fence on this one. I added a statement similar to what you suggested but for the moment I am still including it as part of the area. Maybe I should take a straw poll but since right now there seems to be such ugly feelings about the article I kind of don't want to. My general perspective is that the least biased way to define the Bay Area is simply to use coast itself as the primary source of definition and then summarize what difference sources say, but focus discussion on the areas that are most talked about in the sources. This seems the most NPOV to me. C.f. though most people would not think of Martinique as part of France it is legally part of the country. The France article says almost nothing about it but it does at least acknowledge it. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, I disapprove of primary sources, and I heavily disapprove of self-published sources. Occasionally, they are unavoidable, but for the most part alternative sources can be found. You are right that most city articles do heavily rely on these sources, and these articles very often are torn apart when they come to WP:FAC because of that. As for the TSHAOnline, I think it is a perfectly appropriate source for some subjects, but not for others. To take examples for the articles I've worked on - I would consider it a poor source for the Battle of the Alamo because there are so many books written about the subject; it is, however, perfectly appropriate to use for a much more narrow subject such as the Battle of Lipantitlan, which has not been the focus of much scholarly work. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Time Article

I found an interesting article in Time that you might find interesting on Misplaced Pages. Hoping you are doing well. I know it is kind awkward, but I am not exactly sure who to discuss it with other than other Wikipedians. Enjoy. Oldag07 (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for all the help you have done with the Galveston Bay article. Oldag07 (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

(TPS'ing): The problem is that people think the fact that Misplaced Pages is no longer growing at an absurd rate means it's dying. It doesn't. It just means we're maturing and becoming more of a community. Meh... –Juliancolton |  19:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Oldag, I did find that very interesting. It's especially amusing to me because I joined in 2007 (when the world started coming to end, according to them) and have created dozens of articles since then. They have some good points about the bureaucracy and difficulty attracting specialized reviewers, though. Karanacs (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think of the plateau of new editors to be somewhat like Darwinian explanations that flood and famine are population control. I see less stupid and less frequent vandalism. In 2007 the To Kill a Mockingbird article changed so quickly every day I could not keep track of it and most edits were kinda crappy changes. I would rather work with ten editors who understood the necessity of reliable sources and good writing (or were willing to learn it quick) than 300 who had no clue and no plan to improve. --Moni3 (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

FIFY .. We joined in 2007. . . And we have been kicking *** ever since. :-) Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is a good reminder to all of us experienced editors not to bite the newcomers Oldag07 (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Email

Ottava Rima (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have since fixed many problems - OR and similar things. I did take pleasure from having to completely rewrite a page and reread 8 sources just to fix something that was correct to the sources for a long time. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I just sent you another email. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't checked my email in days and may not have time tonight either (stupid project due two days ago and still not done). Karanacs (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. I was mostly pointing out my long history of collaborations as I have various pages, FA, GA, and DYK, in which Ive collaborated with over 50 different users. Many of them including people who I do not get along with, including Haiduc. At the Nicolo Giraud page, I was able to settle an edit war that was happening there between him and dozens of users that spanned multiple pages. I asked you to reread the beginning evidence so that you would see that the matter has nothing to do with actual work on the articles, as there is no desire to collaborate, and little proof that they want to do anything but destroy. The inexistance of the Persian Empire page because it has constantly been edit warred out of existence even though three straw polls and attempts to determine consensus have clearly stated that the page should exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that most of the time you get along with others editors really well. Every once in a while (on the full moons?) that doesn't appear as easy for you. I suspect some of that is due to your expertise in certain subjects; especially in the case of this RSN incident (what i've gathered anyway), it's a good test for how to handle expert/non-expert interactions. Given the EE case currently at arbcom, I'll be very interested to see the outcome of some of your other allegations. Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you notice from the evidence I supplied, there is little reason to believe that what happened at RSN was done out of good faith or appropriately. The same people appearing and cheerleadering and causing problems verifies that. I already pointed out that I had an FA on the same exact issue and that I knew which sources were credible and which were not. There was no reason to claim that the guy had any clue about Oscar Wilde, yet people were. The connections of the people combined with the ridiculousness of the claims makes it impossible to claim that they were merely mistaken or acting out of good faith. As I have shown, this has occurred on multiple pages, and that they are destroying articles to further a fight instead of actually trying to improve anything. I can show you pages and pages of abuse that was thrown out at that time, especially from Dbachmann and Folantin in which they claim that all I do is spam articles and try to collect awards. There is little to believe that these actions are for the best of the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dartford Grammar School

have reverted this to the 9 September version which I think is the last clean version

Ehrenkater (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was in the process of doing so and you beat me to it! Karanacs (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

Concerning this image The Fall of the Alamo by Robert Jenkins Onderdonk, I added the date 1903 - it is a. important and informative b. disrespectful to the artist to omit that basic detail, per MoS of paintings and artists images. otherwise I have supported the article...Modernist (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't require the year completed, it simply lists it as "details people might want to know". I checked Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Visual_arts/Art_Manual_of_Style#Image_captions, and they say date completed is optional. When I first added the picture I considered including the date in the caption, but I don't really believe that information is useful for understanding the context of this work; all paintings of the battle were completed long after the battle was over. The information is included on the image description page. Can you elaborate on why you think the date completed is important and informative? Karanacs (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The image of Davy Crockett's last stand waving his rifle as a club recalls Fess Parker as Crockett in the Disney version, I thought to myself - hmmm I wonder if the painting was made after the Disney version or did the Disney people see this painting. The 1903 date helps answer part of those questions...:)Modernist (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That never even crossed my mind. You've convinced me :) I'll readd the date. Thank you so much for all your help with the article. Karanacs (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs , my memory served me well, towards the end he's swinging his gun :)...Modernist (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

Sorry about that... I think the current name is best now. --Rockstone (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Marshalsea/archive1

I tried to uncollapse my oppose here, but Slim Virgin has continued to collapse it. I tried to deal with this on my talk page, but apparently to no avail. Perhaps you could intervene. Awadewit (talk) 00:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have collapsed all the sections, Awadewit, because the page is very confusing otherwise (thanks in large measure to all your posts). I don't appreciate you edit warring with me on that page and on the article. Your oppose is noted, and I don't see what else is required. You have turned this into an exceptionally unpleasant experience for me, to the point where all the pleasure I got from writing this article over the last couple of years has disappeared.

I fully accept that was not your intention, but I ask that you try to see your approach through the eyes of the person whose work you're criticizing. Most of your opinions about the article are just your own, very personal, preferences, and should not be expressed as anything else. I can't say any more about this at the moment, because I'm angry about it, and will doubtless say something I later regret. Suffice to say, I think this situation sums up what is wrong with the FA process. SlimVirgin 00:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, I'm going to take that page off my watchlist for now. I feel that Awadewit's behavior there has bordered on abusive, and I really can't cope with it. Getting a star for an article is not worth this. SlimVirgin 00:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I haven't read any of the FAC commentary yet so I cannot offer any opinion on it. I will say that that the nominator absolutely does not have to agree with or implement all of a reviewer's suggestions. If the nominator feels the suggestions are out of line, a simple note should be left on the FAC page with an explanation of why. It doesn't have to degenerate into arguing (not saying that's what happened as I haven't read the commentary yet). Sandy and I read all the comments and don't just count supports and opposes. +

That said, I've undone the collapsing and left a note of explanation on the FAC page. Awadewit was following previous FAC precedent in uncollapsing them - there are really good reasons why we don't allow it. If you have any questions, Slim, please let me know. Karanacs (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just saw your latest remark, Slim. Please take a day or two to calm down. If you still feel like you don't want to continue with the process after that, let me know and I'll archive the nomination. Sometimes a bit of distance helps. Karanacs (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I do want the process to continue, Karanacs, but without me taking part. I have addressed the concerns I'm willing to address, so I'm actually not needed there anymore, unless more objections arrive.

I have seen you and Sandy both say things like "don't sweat the small stuff," making clear that the points raised by reviewers won't necessarily be persuasive. I understand that. Nevertheless, that doesn't help the writer who's being subjected to them. Ignore them, and we look uncooperative. Try to fix them, and we're destined to spend many, many, many hours trying to address all the issues, some of them clearly inappropriate. I don't want to count the number of hours I've spent since I put up this FA trying to fix things that didn't need fixing.

The FA process has turned into a nightmare, and something needs to happen to turn it back to the collaborative process it used to be. I don't mind admitting that I am sitting here in tears, because I loved working on that article and was proud of it, but the review of it has turned into a Chinese water torture. SlimVirgin 01:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Shojo Beat/archive1

Hi. Since this nomination appears to have failed purely for lack of reviewing, except for one person who did a ton of review, am I allowed to immediately renominate it since all issues that were brought up were very quickly addressed and no one actually opposed, only failed to say support after the issues were taken care of? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I recommend you still wait a little bit. The list is so long right now that the nomination may very well be overlooked again. You might also ask the reviewers if there is anything else they recommend to get their support. At least for me, sometimes I don't feel strongly enough about certain things to oppose or list them out, but if they were fixed I would support. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks. Will wait a bit and try again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Overman Committee/archive1

I am not sure why you decided to archive and fail Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Overman Committee/archive1 simply because there was a backlog. I had resolved all issues, there was one support, and furthermore no opposes. And there are still other nominations on WP:FAC that have been sitting there longer than mine! 01:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus for promotion after three weeks (no opposes does not mean no promotion). The ones that were sitting longer are likely going to be promoted - I ran out of time Tuesday to finish processing them. Bring it back in a few weeks and maybe it will get more eyes. Karanacs (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is it fair to remove an a nomination because of a lack of input? The article has no faults. Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This was essentially closed as no consensus due to lack of input. There were not enough reviewers of the article for me to judge whether it should have been promoted, so it was archived. Karanacs (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So what do you expect me to do? Come back in 4,5 weeks and watch it get no input again? It's not the most interesting topic. Bsimmons666 (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd advise you to check out WP:PRV for review volunteers who are interested in similar topics; look also in WP:FA for editors who have written featured articles in similar subjects to check it out. When you do re-submit to FAC, consider nominating one or more other FACs; there's always the off chance that another nominator might return the favor, and this will keep the FAC backlog down, allowing the reviews to be spread less thinly. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you (plural) are sometimes too quick to archive some of the "one support, no opposes" FACs that lurk near the bottom. I appreciate that they clog the list, but some of them like the aviation and literature articles really do need specialist knowledge, and need to wait until the nominator has fished people out to have a look

This is my situation exactly. Just wanted to throw that out there. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

MHL/Admin

As you're an admin and a member of Milhist, you may wish to add your name here. Thanks,  Roger Davies 14:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Texas A&M will be featured on the main page of Misplaced Pages on 30 September! Thanks for all your hard work!

I would appreciate your assistance with keeping the article clean from vandalism. If you choose to help with that endeavor, you should know a few things.

I've had experience on with three articles I was involved in featured on the main page, so I'd like to pass along some "lessons learned". First, this article will be the most visible article on Misplaced Pages for 24 hours starting at about 7 PM on the night of the 29th. It will attract vandals; given that it is football season, it will likely attract some of those comments as well. If they are simple vandalism, just revert it, paste a notice on their user/IP talk page, and leave it alone. If it continues and it is clearly vandalism from the same source, I stongly advise you to not re-engage with them. Simply report it (see below) and an administrator will fix it. Understand and be knowledgeable about WP:3RR (the only block I have ever received was for a violation of this), so don't get caught in this trap. Second, admins will likely not protect the article during its stead on the main page as it is supposed to be a prime example of what Misplaced Pages has to offer (both good and bad). Third, encourage engagement by people on the talk page to discuss issues with the article.

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for repeated re-adding of material Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism for repeated vandalism Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard for general problems. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents for incidents.

Gig 'em! — BQZip01 —  18:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

First Roumanian-American FAC

Hi Karanacs. Thanks again for your helpful and encouraging comments. I've done a thorough overhaul of the article, based on your comments, and hope you will be able to provide further feedback. Cheers. Jayjg 19:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look on Monday. I'm excited to read it :) Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Peer review: Free State of Galveston

Hello again,

I recently created a new article Free State of Galveston. I put out a peer review request and, since you are a history buff, I thought you might be interested.

Anyway, if you are, feel free to take a look.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite. I will take a look this week. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a bit behind this week due to real-life deadlines and a crisis of conscience over the latest drama. I'll still try to get to this over the weekend or Monday. Karanacs (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC style

Hi Karen, I reposted my suggestion at the FAC page. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Proposal_for_a_featured_article_style. SlimVirgin 02:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Simon B. Buckner

Thanks for moving the FAC discussion on Simon B. Buckner after the page was moved from Simon B. Buckner, Sr. I am concerned, however, that I no longer see the nomination listed among the candidates at WP:FAC. Could this be a result of the page move? I also noticed that there is a stray period at the end of the discussion page name (i.e. Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Simon Bolivar Buckner./archive1). Would this have any effect? I don't think the discussion has closed, but I could be wrong. Acdixon 18:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I promoted the article yesterday (congratulations! - it was an extremely well-written and informative article), and I suspect that the bot did not work on it because of the stray period. My apologies - I completely missed that. I'll move the FAC to the correct name and the bot should do the closing process stuff this weekend. Karanacs (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, both for the help and for your kind comments. Just wanted to get this wrapped up before I leave for vacation next week. Acdixon 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WALL-E review

Can you review WALL-E for me Karanacs? Secret Saturdays (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I love that movie. I can't guarantee I'll be able to do a review, as I'm one of the delegates and it's also my responsibility to close some FACs. If it gets down toward the bottom of the list I will definitely take a look as a reviewer. Karanacs (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 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) 00:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statement

I know I am CoI from actually editing the page or really having anything to do with it, but your statement at the Catholic Church page bothered me - "idea that the Catholic Church views women as inferior". As an individual who knows Catholic dogma and works in it enough that I am unable to edit any pages relating to the Church because of my position, I find it a little troubling that you would say such a thing. It is historically ironic that the same people who make the claim above tended to be those who state that the Church worshiped Mary. You cite quite a bit, but ignore that the Catholic Church were the first ones to stand up against divorce that was skewed horribly against women, that they allowed women some kind of power, and that there were female saints along with male saints which verified the sacredness of the females. The role of the Magnificat and the Hail Mary are also ignored because of a skewed approach to the sources. They also overturned many superstitions and rituals among Jews and Gentiles that were horribly skewed against women. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ottava. I have no intention of getting into my personal beliefs (although I will repeat what I've told NancyHeise before - I was raised jointly in the Catholic and Methodist churches, married in a Catholic mass, have attended mass at St. Peter's Basilica, and every member of my extended family is either Catholic, Methodist, or Greek Orthodox, which gives me an interesting perspecive on religion), as neither mine nor yours are relevant. There are a significant number of scholars of the medieval period who blame the church's attitudes about women for the way society treated them (in many cases, essentially making women property). There are a signfiicant number of scholars who feel that the church's stance against divorce is actively harming women today. I've seen scholarly research about the church's canonization of women that point out the small number of female saints and attribute some of the elevations to political motives. I've seen a lot of scholarly research about the church's attitudes towards women being responsibile for the witchcraft scares (and the executions of thousands of women) in the 17th and 18th centuries. It does not matter whether or not we believe these scholars; the key point is that this is not a fringe viewpoint, and as such it must be at least mentioned in the article. We cannot quote sources we agree with and ignore those we dislike. Karanacs (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I can point out thousands of scholars that claim the opposite of most of your statements. And the "witchcraft" scares always dealt with -males- first and foremost, and the most amount of people that were burned for heresy and witchcraft were males. Need I have to dwell, or would a simple nod to groups like the Knights Templar and their destruction be enough to establish this. The view point is not fringe, but it is also not mainstream nor common. For years, it was taught by Protestants that Catholics believed that 1. the world was flat and 2. the world had an edge, even though Catholics followed the Ptolemaic model of a round earth. This is an encyclopedia article and should deal with facts, not propaganda on sides in order to further an agenda. I worry greatly when someone starts throwing out broad claims that were used in many, many propaganda pamphlets. After all, Jews have been claimed to do all sorts of things from being in league with the devil to robbing poor beggars. Should we include that as fact on an article about Judaism? I would hope not. But as I said, my job keeps me unable to have anything to do directly with that page so I can't really do anything about what goes on there. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if you forgot - my occupation involves me combating anti-Catholic propaganda by groups such as the Watchtower and other entities that go around spreading lies about the Church. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a very large difference between propaganda pamphlets and the writings of modern historians and social scientists. Karanacs (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The statements about Columbus and the flat earth were held in most text books until the 80s. There is no difference between propaganda pamphlets and bias in "historians" works. The claims about the treatment of women is speculation and always will be speculation. Speculation allows for the introduction of bias. No one here lived back then. No one here could document ever facet of society. The only thing that can be known are inferred. And Karanacs, I am honestly surprised that you make it seem like historians would be objective. Look at Irish history sometime, or Israeli history, or any other controversial area. Look at the difference between Marxist theory based historians and non. Look at the difference between Feminist based historians and non. Bias is extremely rampant in academia and always will be. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, historians have biases (we can also look at Catholic historians vs non-Catholic historians). However, on this project we are not to judge the "truth" of their work but instead survey what the prevailing opinions are, and make sure that those prevailing opinions are included. Karanacs (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But then that gets into the issue of Weight. In terms of Coverage, claims about there being a Catholic bias against women are balanced by defenses against such claims, and both are an extreme minority of reports and information on the Church. This would be appropriate for a page devoted to claims of bias against women by the Church, but on the main page of the Church it really seems to be giving way too much to the claims with little statement that they are well defended against by the Church. NPOV and Weight are very key here. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, NPOV is extremely important; it means that we cannot completely ignore viewpoints we disagree with. Your own bias is showing here. Karanacs (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, the view point would also need to be pointed out as a view point with there existing an equally opposite view point, and elaboration would fail WP:WEIGHT. And, Karanacs, I began by stating that I am far too biased to edit the page or have any direct input on it. I am just here to express frustration on what appears to be a completely one sided matter that ignores thousands of defenders that claim that the criticism is rubbish. I would prefer Misplaced Pages to not pick a side as the article seems to be doing. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have some ideas for how to present the cultural influence section much more neutrally. I'll let my thoughts percolate for another few hours and post a proposal on the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

An Epic directed by David O. Selznik with a cast of thousands!!!

		The Epic Barnstar
		For Battle of Alamo and the 18 months it took to construct it. The larger topics take on a different level of courage and fortitude. I imagine in topics of Texas, this is one of the biggest. Well done! Moni3 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And sorry for my deplorable review. I'm embarrassed. --Moni3 (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! And I appreciate any review, even if it is only on a few sentences or a few sections. Any little bit can help the article improve. Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the best section header I have ever seen. Awadewit (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Do I have to keep arguing this ideological point? The AFD consensus was that these forks are not new concepts or OR at all. Else using a general biog on JFK to write about his election campaign would be OR, as far as I can see. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles have survived AfD; I'm not giving much weight to those objections. Karanacs (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

4 Minutes

Thanks for promoting "4 Minutes" to FA. You will see more quality articles from me, in the coming days. :) --Legolas 04:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! It's always nice to see nominators come back for another try :) Karanacs (talk) 13:08, 7 October 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)

Marshalsea

Thank you. :) SlimVirgin 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto ! (Glad I didn't have to sort through it when I'm still trying to catch up from travel :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant to review it thoroughly last week, but real-life deadlines mean that one and a few others got left for a bit longer than they might othewise have been. Hopefully next week real-life will go back to being nice and calm :) Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe for you it will :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 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)

Peer review for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

Hi Karen,
first of all I want to congratulate you on your new born baby, you must be exhausted!
Anyway, a former featured article for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie, one archive User:SandyGeorgia did not promote and you didn't for the second achieve.
I know you are probably very busy between your offspring(s) in addition to Misplaced Pages articles, but if you get the chance would you mind doing a quick scan through the film article and fixing up on a few things that you could spot, and make any request over at WP:Peer review where I recently posted the article there.
Also, I put the Peer review tag on the talk page and I think I did something wrong, I was wondering if you could fix it while you are at it too.
Thanx and enjoy the weekend!
ATC 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, ATC, for your kind wishes :) Unfortunately, right now my list of to-dos is pretty long and I'm behind on reviewing. I don't think I will be able to review this. You might check the list of movie-related featured articles and see if any of the authors of those would be able to review for you. Karanacs (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanx anyway though. I will look there. Enjoy the long week ahead! ATC 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Madonna BLP

Hi Karancs. Do you really have a dog that thinks like a person? That's awesome! i don't know whether you remember me, but you recently helped promote the article "4 Minutes" to FA. I saw that you love being involved in the BLP wikiproject. Hence I thought of asking your expertise on the Madonna BLP. I believe it has reached the potential to be a FA in Misplaced Pages and is the best example of how a biography can be structured, devoid of the personal life tabloids and fancrufts. Would you take a look and iterate any misgivings that you see? Kindly --Legolas 10:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, right now my list of to-dos is pretty long and I'm behind on reviewing. I don't think I will be able to review this. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh. No problemo! 04:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Re User_talk:Mattisse

Hi, Karanacs. Since we should not further clutter up User_talk:Mattisse, I thought it better to respond here. Unitanode has, as far I can see, had no interaction with Mattisse until the last couple of weeks or so, and then only at Mattisse's monitoring page and now at her Talk page. That's interesting. Unitanode's recent comment at User_talk:Mattisse was too vague to serve any constructive purpose. I pointed that out and supported Mattisse's suggestion that further discussion of Mattisse's conduct should be placed at the monitoring page. In short, I was trying to stop the bickering that was already going on. --Philcha (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter whether the user commenting on Mattisse's behavior has any history of interaction with her or not; in fact, a user without such history should be taken more seriously by Mattisse, as she would have no reason to believe that user was part of any conspiracy against her. You, on the other hand, have a history of supporting Mattisse and attacking the motives of any user who posts about her conduct (and you have done so here, in a more subtle manner). I am disappointed in your mentorship tactics. Karanacs (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Philcha, Mattisse's mentorship would probably be of greater benefit to her and to Wiki if you would resign. If you're not willing to do that, then please at least stop bothering other well intentioned, busy and perceptive editors with your unique way of viewing situations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, your comment is extremely unhelpful especially when the person in question has been a very close and old friend of a handful of people Mattisse has had problems with, and that user has been very active against John Carter during and after an RfC filed against one of the parties of the same group. The individual is not neutral and is inflaming the situation. Karanacs, as witness to many of the events, should have known it and I am confused as to why she did not point it out. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If someone is bringing forth a valid complaint, then I don't care WHO they are or what their background is. If the objective of this mentorship is to help Mattisse learn how to self-regulate, then all complaints should be evaluated on their content, not on the contributor. Focusing instead on the complainant is a great way to perpetuate the battleground mentality and confuse Mattisse further. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If that "valid" complaint is in conjunction with a later negative pattern that seeks to cause stress, then that "valid" complaint would better be served by a neutral party. The kindness of a devil can cause the most harm is a very true expression. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrapping Mattisse in a bubble of friendly editors is not productive. Attacking the messenger is not a valid form of dispute resolution and sends the wrong message. Karanacs (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse is -not- my friend. She has done nothing but attack me for over a year and criticize my articles. I am not some friendly editor of hers, and she has put forth statements that makes it rather obvious that she feels that I am mean and I don't treat her properly. So, please take that into consideration when I make this comments. Furthermore, having people who long histories of being negative are just as bad as having people who have long histories of being positive. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• How have I become a focus of these discussions? My first interaction with Mattisse was, if memory serves, when I noticed a post she made on SV's talkpage. How does this make me an "old friend" of SlimVirgin, Bishonen, Giano, or whoever else? I concur with SG's suggestion above regarding Philcha continuing as a "mentor" or Mattisse. UnitAnode 21:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your name was not mentioned, but your responding in such a manner does reveal that perhaps your intentions should be held to scrutiny along with your relationship. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Unitanode, you might as well give up. It's like talking to a brick wall right now. Karanacs (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is, a bit. I've reviewed both the reports I've made there, and all interactions I've ever had with Mattisse, and I just don't get the bad-faith assumptions that Carter, Philcha, and Ottava Rima have been making about me. (Actually, I get Ottava's a bit, since I actively opposed an inappropriate RFC/U he opened. The others, I really don't understand.) UnitAnode 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Philcha's done this to everyone who has questioned Mattisse's behavior. I read through the conversations again and I don't understand John Carter at the moment; he is usually one of the more level-headed mentors and I can't quite figure out where the misinterpretation is coming from. Ottava is .... Ottava. Don't let it get to you. It's probably best to disengage right now. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is that he's believing Mattisse' angry accusations that my moving the clutter on that main page to the talkpage (per what I thought was her request) was somehow disruptive and had ulterior motives. I also challenged his bringing up Giano's name, which I thought wasn't helpful, so maybe that has something to do with it. Who knows? I think it's more than a little ironic that the move I made that was so excoriated by Mattisse, Carter, and Philcha has now been reinstated. Good luck, there. I've completely disengaged from posting to that page, as it seems a bit of a lion's den right now. And I just noticed that Moni had to protect the page. Wow. UnitAnode 15:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)