Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ceranthor (talk | contribs) at 09:53, 26 August 2009 (→Still promoting tonight?: plz read). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Karanacs is busy in real life due to a new baby and may not respond swiftly to queries.Please excuse any responses that make no sense. They can likely be blamed on (your choice of) lack of sleep, spit-up on the keyboard, baby crying in my ear, or inability to think about anything but babies.

	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)

Map request

My apologies for not responding to you in a timely manner! I have a bad habit of reading a post on my talk page at work and then forgetting about it later when I get home... I would be delighted to take a look at creating a map for Fredonian Rebellion, but it may need to wait until next weekend - I've had little time to do anything but flip through my watchlist of late. There is no need to improve one of my favorite articles; you've been specifically targeting them for years.. :) Kuru 22:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you :) Karanacs (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Note

I don't want to make it seem like people shouldn't speak if they feel a situation warrants it. I just want people to know that it can lead to problems, especially when it is a group of people that say the same thing against one person who feels intimidated. In such situations, it would seem appropriate for only one or two people to speak up (i.e. don't use too much force). You want the other side to focus on your words and not be distracted by other matters, no? Anyway, the focus is on being objective instead of subjective, and perception is key. Once another side things that you are attacking them, the situation cannot be resolved until it is deescalated. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion probably belongs on the workshop page, but while I agree that it shouldn't seem that one is attacking the other side, I think your proposal is unworkable. If a lot of people genuinely feel that there is a problem with X's behavior or disagree with Y's policy interpretation, they need to speak up (calmly and neutrally), otherwise it seems like it's just A vs X, and X can ignore A because A is obviously in the minority. Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kareena Kapoor

Hi. I've recently been developing this article, very tough writing an article on a Bollywood actress and the amount of reliable sources on the subjects is pretty restrictive! i was wondering if you could have a look at the Kareena Kapoor and let me know if it is worth putting up for FAC. It possibly needs a further copyedit as do a lot of articles at FAC but let me know if you think it has any potential anyway. The content is similar to Preity Zinta article which is an FA, but I think it may need a final polish for grammar/MOS errors and a copyedit by fresh eyes? If you could raise my awareness of any issues now that you think would prevent it from being promoted I'd be deeply grateful if you could look into it. Best regards. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I will definitely take a look, hopefully by the end of the week. Karanacs (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I'll try to get one or two others to copyedit it in the meantime. Best.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi did you look at the article? Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

sorry, unexpected illness on Friday and then visiting family. I'll get to this no later than tomorrow - today if FAC promotions/archives don't take too long. Karanacs (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, hope you are better. Thanks Dr. Blofeld 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have good timing - I am actually halfway through the article right now. Comments to be posted shortly. Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. Good points on most. Rediff.com is one of the very few sites which meets our guidelines for Bollywood. It is used in the Preity Zinta article for instance. Very few sites on Bollywood related articles are reliable as you can imagine so finding sources was difficult but there shouldn't be any problems with them. I'm not Indian myself but I believe you have identified a number of culture differences which make some of the article seem redundant to us westerners such as the kissing scandal etc. You must have heard about the Shilpa Shetty Richard Gere incident? Also it is the norm for Bollywood actors to appear in stage shows and sing. Dr. Blofeld 18:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Rediff's been considered reliable for most things (I wouldn't trust it if it was the only site saying someone was an ax murderer, but for most stuff it's okay.) I have it on my "okay" list... somewhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well we don't regard it as the first port of call for sourcing but yes it is an adequate source. Karen, I and a few others have made some changes to the article and I believe that we have addressed most of your concerns. I did a lot of cutting down the unnecesarily long quotes and sentences earlier and changing the sentence structure a little to flow better. Part of the media section may seme like trivia but these things are also covered in the Preity Zinta and Angelina Jolie about polls. Actually I did a lot of work previously to cut down what was once a huge paragraph of polls so what we have now is a summary of the most notable. With some minor edits I think this is ready for FAC now. Can you see any difference? Dr. Blofeld 18:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued problems with unresponsive editor Indianwhite. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

WOW...

Hey dear Karanacs...

Amazing review on Kareena Kapoor. I'm really impressed with your way of paying attention to the smallest of deatails. Will be obviously addrssed, thanks. Shahid • 18:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FAC pr/ar

Hey, Karanacs, thanks for taking care of things so well on your own! Would you mind doing another week alone? I should be ready to read FAC by next weekend (June 5, 6, 7). All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad you are feeling up to websurfing! Take good care of yourself. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on the trivials, but not ready to read an entire page of FAC ... don't suppose too many others understand how taxing that is :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Karanacs, do you think it would be possible to do the FAC closures as early as possible today? The second round of the Misplaced Pages:WikiCup ends today, and we're just waiting for FAC closures so that any contestant that has an FAC pass today can claim it for round 2. Thanks if possible,  iMatthew :  Chat  12:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe her response would be that you should get out there and add comments so that she can better decide to promote or archive :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 13:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do I have to review them? I'm simply asking if you could do closures a bit early, as it would be helpful to us.  iMatthew :  Chat  14:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to do them right now...sorry, I've been offline for over 24 hours (more visitors!). Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got internet access back now so I should be able to contribute. Raul654 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Image question

Hey, Karanacs. Do you have the back image of File:PostcardTheodoreRooseveltSpeechAtTheAlamo.jpg? That would help to verify that the view number. The eBay site is no longer valid. Jappalang (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't. Someone else had uploaded the image, so I have to go by their description of what was on it. Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I see Noroton is still active. Might he have the image or other information to help? Alternatively, do you have access to A compilation of the messages and speeches of Theodore Roosevelt, 1901-1905 where it is claimed the picture was taken (i.e. can you confirm if the photo was published in there)? Jappalang (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The photo itself wasn't published in the book (I may need to make that more clear). A similar picture was published, showing about half of what is in the postcard (but, unfortunately, not the Alamo itself). I will contact the uploader and see if he has more info. I was worried that this one wouldn't fly. Karanacs (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Texans!

I read a malapropism in The Onion years ago that stuck with me for some reason. A fake editorial was lamenting the passing of Selena with the headline, "Selena, Queen of Texaco Music". I found that deliciously funny, not that Selena died (Mrs. Moni would certainly kill me; her adoration of Selena runs deep) but the Texaco part. At any rate, here on the Random Hour, Look what I did. And specifically, have you any images of West Texas landscape, perhaps with storms off in the distance? I recall an analogy between Orbison's music and growing storms in the distance coming nearer until it crashed over your head. I have to find that quote, but I'm gonna! --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Not more Selena! She used to live in the area where I live now, and one of my friends is lobbying me to create a museum in her honor; this comes up Every Single Time I see him (he's a real smart-aleck in general). Maybe my friend and Mrs. Moni can work on that project together ;) I'm impressed with the Roy rewrite! I've only been to West Texas once, and I don't think we took pictures - it's not the most photogenic location. You might want to ask at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Texas Tech University - the geography around Lubbock should be similar, and someone there could probably take a picture for you. Karanacs (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for coming out

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your participation. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson

I noticed you've taken the Jackie Robinson nomination off the FAC page, and the nomination has been archived. I just wanted to know, if possible, whether the the FA nomination was rejected because of the "fair-use" image issues, other issues, or combination thereof. That would dictate whether I decide to re-work and re-nominate or not. Thanks for your review. I know it was a lengthy one. BillTunell (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the nomination had gotten so long that it was turning off other reviewers, which would have made it impossible to gain consensus support. Generally, we don't restart a nomination unless all of the image issues have been ironed out, and since that was the sticking point in the long discussions I couldn't restart it either. I encourage you to work with image experts to try to satisfy the concerns about the fair use rationales, and then try again in a few weeks. Without the distraction of the images, the article should attract other reviews. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. From my experience with the Robinson article and my review of ten or tweleve other FAC archives, it appears to me that if the article has any non-free images, it will always receive opposition from some quarter or another. If it is possible to obtain FA status over these objections, I'd consider re-nominating. Otherwise I really don't have any interest in doing so. The process inevtiably seems to devolve into philosophical interpretations of what images are "significant" undrr NFCC criterion #8, which is an unresovlable discussion. Is there any discussion you know of by[REDACTED] bigwigs to clarify criterion #8 to avoid this sort of thing? Thanks again for your efforts. BillTunell (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

May I also suggest you not bold your replies? I found the large amount of bolding on the FAC page to be incredibly distracting. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Another nominator suggested I do that to distinguish nominator's comments from others. But if it's distracting I'll elimniate boldface from now on.BillTunell (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for kind words, I've been doing a bit at GA too, since I'm aware that reviewing slackens off in the (northern) summer. It's not altruism - the ulterior motive is that I've got a couple of GANs that I want to get moving through GA before going to FAC (: jimfbleak (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Woody Guthrie

I have nominated Woody Guthrie for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.—141.155.159.210 (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of "Nicholas Thompson" from Misplaced Pages English

Hi, I apologise if I'm not contacting you, Karanacs, in the appropriate manner. My name is Nicholas Thompson (NicholasSThompson on Misplaced Pages) and I just noticed lots of traffic to someone by that name on searches for Nicholas Thompson on Misplaced Pages English. Obviously I'm curious and apparently you were the editor who deleted the Nicholas Thompson entry. I know there is a Wired Magazine editor with the name... However, maybe there is someone else I should know about. Well, thanks if you can tell me what was deleted (I'm not too good with using Misplaced Pages but maybe you know a trick or can remember). Please email me at pingnick at indiatimes dot com or just respond here if that's what you usually do. Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasSThompson (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article you are referring to that I would have deleted. There is currently an article on a Nicholas Thompson (a golfer), and although it appears that was previously deleted in 2006, I didn't do so. If you have the actual article name that I deleted, I'd be happy to take a look and tell you what the article was about. Karanacs (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh - this is weird - Nicholas Thompson here again. This is odd... The traffic statistics website links to Nicholas "thompson" with a small "t" . Nice to see the golfer. I wonder who it says you deleted... Maybe someone way back in 2006? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.20.75 (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - the lower case "t" actually does go to a different article that I deleted last June. I took a quick look, and that article was a few sentences about a high school student. His biggest claim to fame was that he had a beautiful girlfriend - that is why the article got deleted. Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Gulfton, Houston

Are you busy at the moment? When you get the chance, please respond on the FAC page. Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC note

Karen, I'm not sure if I've ever mentioned ... I think the underscores cause a problem for GimmeBot, so I watch out for them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that...will make sure and watch it! Thanks Karanacs (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Still lazy baby, huh? Things so comfy inside there that he/she doesn't wanna come out and play? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, I still have about 5 weeks until due date, but last baby totally ignored her due date (she was born without the gene for patience), so I've never actually been this pregnant before. I can't say I like it much. I didn't know feet/ankles could get so big! Karanacs (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, could be worse. Keep in mind our mare that just foaled was two weeks OVER... so you're still not as bad as her. (And she got swelling on her belly she was so preggo). And since *I* went to the day before my due date, I know all about how big your ankles can get! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy Black Channel FAC

Hi, I believe me and various copy-editors have addressed your objection concerns. I would appreciate it if you revisited the article and responded. Thanks. Rafablu88 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's on my list to revisit. I'm fighting a head cold and wanted to get my brain working a little better before I reread it so I can be more fair. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you feel better. I think the Texas heat intensifies every summer, which doesn't help matters at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes :) I'm highly allergic to mold and I can't take my allergy medication until after baby arrives. That means, like clockwork for the last few months, I've gotten a cold approximately 1-2 weeks after a heavy rain. I'm going to buy stock in Kleenex. Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Similar good wishes from me. Hope you feel better soon and also take all the time you need. Rafablu88 (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC reivew request

Hey there! I'm preparing 2009 Orange Bowl for FAC as the final element needed for a Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games featured topic, and I was hoping you might have time to take a look at it before I submit it. I know you're busy both here and IRL, so it's no big deal if you can't get to it, but I know you're familiar with college football and would be a better reviewer than most. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll do my best to get to that soon. I enjoyed watching the game which will make reading the article more fun :) Karanacs (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes two of us! JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I hsven't gotten to this - real life interfered! I probably won't have time to review any articles for a few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a reply for you at User_talk:Buaidh#Outline_of_Texas. (eom)

FAC

Hi Karen, I don't know who's doing the promotion this weekend, but I'll just save time by posting a message here. An article I have at FAC currently has five supports, and I would like to point that out, since I tend to have a reputation for long FAC periods. :) ceranthor 12:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Loihi

Sorry if this seems buggy, but can you review this article? It needs some fresh eyes, and who better then someone who is a FA delagate :) ResMar 17:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Real life is keeping me pretty busy right now - I probably won't have time to review any articles for a few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1

There is apparently some confusion at Pinafore over whether or not the "!supporters" have reviewed the sources. What is the best way to alert you to the fact that sources have been reviewed? As I told Sandy, I do not say that an article is "well-researched" unless I have checked the sources and I do not make comments in my statement about the sources unless I have looked at them. Would it be best if in the future I said "I have looked at each source and they are all reliable"? I can't remember a time when I supported an article without looking at the sources, but I can start appending this statement to all of my support !votes to make it explicitly clear. Whatever would make it easier for you - please let me know. Awadewit (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I generally interpret a comment that an article is "well-researched" to mean that the reviewer checked the sources. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC withdrawal

I'm withdrawing United States Senate election in California, 1950 as a valid objection has been made that I can't remedy until next month, due to the need to view actual hard copies. I will renom in late July. I've also left a note on Sandy's talk page and proceeded with my next nomination, Matthew Boulton, so please one of you archive it when you get a chance.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I took care of the archiving. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb. Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. How's things? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• Within 15 days of this decision, Mattisse shall, in conjunction with one or more mentors or advisers, submit to this Committee for approval a plan to govern and guide her future editing with the continued assistance of those mentors or advisers. The plan shall seek to preserve Mattisse's valuable and rewarding contributions to Misplaced Pages while avoiding future disputes and the types of interactions that have been hurtful for herself and others. As a starting point in developing the plan, Mattisse and her mentors or advisors should consider the suggestions made by various users on the workshop page of this case, including but not limited to Mattisse's taking wikibreaks at times of stress, avoiding or limiting Mattisse's participation on certain pages, Mattisse's refraining from making any comments regarding the motivations or good faith of other users, and Mattisse's disengaging from interactions that become stressful or negative. The plan should also address how any lapses by Mattisse from the standards of behavior described in the plan shall be addressed. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan as required by this paragraph while the proposed decision was pending. See next paragraph.)
• User:Mattisse/Plan (version as of 24 June) is enacted as a baseline. Amendments to the plan may occur by consensus of the mentors, whereby the changes become provisional. At the discretion of the mentors, or if there are significant objections by the community, the provisional changes will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment.
• Should Mattisse fail to submit a satisfactory plan under remedy 1 within 15 days of this decision, she shall not edit Misplaced Pages until she does so, except with permission of this Committee. (Note: As reflected in the findings, Mattisse prepared a plan, as required by remedy 1, while the proposed decision was pending. See preceding paragraphs.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

User:Shappy/Amazing Race Misplaced Pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Incentive system for reviewers, again

WT:FAR. To be frank, I think there is 0% chance that the average detail of reviews will decrease. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Mary Higgins Clark

I have conducted a reassessment of this article and have some issues that need addressing, which can be found at Talk:Mary Higgins Clark/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

FAC today

Doing OK today? If you can't get through, I can go through after I get in late tonight ... just checking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost done reading through the articles to be promoted. I'll remove those from WP:FAC in a few minutes but will have to wait an hour or so before adding the articles to WP:FA (must pick up older child from day care). Karanacs (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK ... give a holler if you need help ... I'm out for the evening! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Silent Alarm FAC

Hi, the nomination hasn't gathered any more thoughts in days. I was wondering if you'd like to review. I know you're busy (congrats by the way :)), but you did such a good job in my last FAC that it'd be great if you had a go at this one, too.

I'm pretty sure that the article is more than suitable for FA and that could be the reason why people aren't commenting as it's a given that most reviewers will only point out negative things. I'd like to speed the process along in any way I can.

Thanks. Rafablu88 16:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not reviewing right now because I'm not sure I'll have the time for follow-up. If you haven't already, feel free to ping some of the other regular reviewers. For example, user:Laser brain and user:Steve do a great job at prose reviews. User:Dabomb87 sometimes reviews music-related articles, and user:Realist2 has experience brining music-related articles to FAC (although he might be a bit busy combatting vandalism on the Michael Jackson-related articles at the moment). Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Left-aligned images in the lead

A fairly exhaustive RfC at Joseph Priestley regarding its left-aligned lead image concluded over a week ago with (surprisingly) no consensus. While the supporters of the image's left-alignment are particularly talented, established, and prolific editors, I nevertheless want to make FA directors and delegates aware of the fact that there is no consensus on this issue. I only bring this to your attention as image alignment has been raised in subsequent FACs (e.g. John Calvin and John Knox) and some editors have potentially been misrepresenting the extent to which left-alignment is settled or stable consensus beyond their particular interpretation and substantial dissent from other editors (as indicated in the RfC). Madcoverboy (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Image opposition for Charles Carroll the Settler and Quark

Karanacs, I am not going to bother answering to some replies in those FACs because their tone do not deserve a decent reply. My opposition to those images still stand; the copyright status on those images are in doubt. I have done my utmost to state my opinions in the external links to them (Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions#300 year old paintings under copyright in US??! and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charmed-dia-w.png), but again I am not going to keep repeating the same points in them if others do not pay attention to the underlying arguments. This is a heads-up to help you decide if the opposition should be over-ruled or not. Jappalang (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson

I'm hoping you can give me some feedback on the reasons for the Jackie Robinson non-promotion. Is it an image issue, or any problems with the text? Thanks. BillTunell (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There were a few things that influenced my decision:

• there was only one support after being listed for one month
• Giants2008 had concerns about some of the sourcing and was offering prose massaging suggestions
• the images are still not sorted out.

I didn't think it likely that the article would gain consensus to promote at this point even if I left it open another week. Good luck with the article! Karanacs (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I know you are busy and want consensus if possible. But I don't know what additional work I can do on the article.

The image issue boils down to a Misplaced Pages policy interpretation on the "significance" criterion that I've been seeking input on since the last FA review. I don't mind losing that argument so much as having the process held up indefinitely because there is a difference of opinion.

user:Giants2008 hasn't logged back on to respond to my changes, which at this point are all responded to (whether to his satisfaction or not, I can't tell). I would have more time to get him to respond. I suspect that if he had any remaining quarrels, it would ultimately revolve around another interpretation of Wikipolicy -- i.e., whether under WP:reliable a backup citations have to meet the same criteria for reliability as the primary citation, or whether they can merely be helpful additional sources. Like the image significance issue above, I suspect this might ultimately need an administrative determination as well.

Is there any way to get a ruling on an FA criterion issue without consensus? I had feared after the last FA review that my efforts were a waste of time because of this Catch-22, and now I'm afraid I was right. BillTunell (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The Lucy poems

. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station FAC 3

Hi there, I notice that you recently closed International Space Station FAC 3 due to inactivity; however, if you read through it, you'll notice that last Friday I noted that I would be away for a week and requested it not be closed in the meantime; in addition, the editor who posted comments after that point stated he was willing to await my return. As a result, I'd be grateful if you could please reopen it, as, as you would have noticed had you read it, it's simply not inactive. Colds7ream (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The FAC page is—unfortunately—chronically backlogged and understaffed (in terms of reviewers). I don't think leaving an idle FAC up would have helped. Reviewers are often put off by lengthy FAC pages. I suggest you resolve the image, source and prose issues brought up by reviewers before re-submitting, as that will make the FAC process go smoother. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just my point; I'm working on these issues, just as I said I would - it's not an idle submission, it's active. Whilst I realise that the page is always overwhelmed, it's been my impression on each occasion we've put it up that people are absolutely desperate to close them at the first opportunity I can find; it doesn't exactly encourage folks to get involved, whether submitting or reviewing. Colds7ream (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, the FAC was open for more than a month. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but it was still being commented and acted upon, so the length of time it was open is surely irrelevant? Colds7ream (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, never mind - I'm going to be away for a bit again, so it'll only end up being reclosed. I'll address all remaining comments, contact the reviewers directly, and try yet again at some point in the future. Colds7ream (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Inauguration of Barack Obama FAC3

You were opposed to FAC1 and FAC2 of Inauguration of Barack Obama. FAC3 is getting long in the tooth and could use some decisive feedback. We hope we may have your support at this time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Being bullied by a nominator

Hi Karanacs: If you are "on duty" as Delegate, I just wanted to alert you to this, which relates to this. It's a bad precedent that bad-mouthing of a reviewer occur either on the FAC page or elsewhere. We'll lose reviewers easily that way. Tony (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC) :Hey Tony, I'm sorry that you were offended. Perhaps a better way of handling your hurt would have been to post on my talk page, or via email, and let us work things out. I don't think I would recommend the route you took, of posting on my talk page that you had "complained" to the two FA delegates, and also posting at length here. Did that make the process regarding this article better or fairer? Did that make me more likely to accept your comments as borne of a genuine desire to improve Misplaced Pages? My comment, which was on another editor's talk page, was born of frustration. Tony, what emotion sparked you to post what you did on the FAC page for the article, and on Karanac's talk page, and on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and then to tell me what you had done? Was that the right thing to do? Think about it please.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tony, I'm sorry that you were offended. Perhaps a better way of handling your hurt would have been to post on my talk page, or via email, and let us work things out. I don't think I would recommend the route you took, of posting on my talk page that you had "complained" to the two FA delegates, and also posting at length at FAC. Did that make the process regarding this article better or fairer? Did that make me more likely to accept your comments as borne of a genuine desire to improve Misplaced Pages? My comment, which was on another editor's talk page, was born of frustration. Tony, what emotion sparked you to post what you did on the FAC page for the article, and on Karanac's talk page, and on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and then to tell me what you had done? Was that the right thing to do? Think about it please.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been plastering this stock response everywhere. I'm surprised it appears here twice. Tony (talk) 03:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thought I'd do it in stereo!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Chotiner

You may remember you promoted Murray Chotiner despite doubts about whether a free picture might be available. Today, I came up dry with my last attempt. The Nixon Library has no federal government photographs of Chotiner. They checked not only the Nixon years, but also the time when Nixon was VP. The archivist, who is a Nixon expert, strongly suspects either Chotiner or Nixon told the White House photographers not to photograph him. However, all is not lost. I'm wondering about a FOIA request but need to research it. Uncertain what quality of photo it would get us though. The archivist also knows a guy who at one time considered writing a book on Chotiner and is going to put me in touch. But for now, it doesn't look good, but I'm not giving up. Thanks for your intervention at WT:FAC, by the by.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm continually impressed by the lengths you take to get pictures. I think your efforts thus far more than satisfy the requirements of trying to find a free image. Good luck with your current nomination, and maybe take a few extra seconds before posting to make sure that the comments won't be ill-received. Karanacs (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices episode on reviewing FACs

Karanacs, we at Wikivoices were thinking of doing a real-time review of an FAC candidate for an upcoming episode. The idea of the episode would be to demonstrate what all goes into a comprehensive review. We would like to have the nominator there as well. As this would result in a bunch of supports and/or opposes popping up simultaneously at the FAC page, we wanted to run this by you and Sandy first. Awadewit (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Stanford Memorial Church/archive2

I'm just curious why this was promoted at this time. I thought it was customary to wait for all of the images to be cleared first. We still don't have OTRS confirmation on the last image for that article. Awadewit (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

When the image issue is primarily a paperwork one, and I know that the nominator is actively working on resolving it (and is willing to yank the image if necessary), then I occasionally promote. I saw that Christine was working on getting the OTRS clearance, and I'll keep the image and article watchlisted for a few days to make sure that it gets resolved. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm one of those crossing the "t's" and dotting the "i's" types. Awadewit (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Update here. Awadewit (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This has still not been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Honest Abe

You once said here (actually the "FAC" section after that, but the link won't work) that you would be willing to help get Abraham Lincoln back up to FA status. I'm wondering if you are still interested in that. It's still 200 years after Lincoln's birth, though obviously 2009 only has a few months left. As I mentioned in that original talk page section, I have some relative expertise on American history and am pretty familiar with Lincoln. I have ready access to just about anything ever written about him via my university's library system. I'm not, however, experienced with the FA process, so I'd need some help there.

If you're still down to try and give the ole' rail splitter a spiffy Misplaced Pages article for his 200th birthday, just let me know, and if you're busy with other stuff now no worries. I'm not sure how long it takes to get things up to FA status these days, but obviously it would be cool to do it before the year runs out—maybe with the goal of getting it on the main page to mark the anniversary of the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, which Lincoln worked for but did not live to see put into effect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Lincoln deserves an FA-quality biography here, and I'd be happy to help out. The hardest part of doing a biography like this is the sheer amount of research. Everyone knows something about Lincoln, and this article will need to be near-perfect to make it through FAC. I'm in the middle of researching the Texas Revolution and wouldn't be able to help much with the research for Lincoln. If you are willing to read the books (bless you), then I'll provide whatever support I can. It would be up to you how involved you want me; at the most involved, you could post notes from your research and I would help write the article; at the least involved you could write the article and I would provide a thorough review at intervals to give advice on what to do next.

Bringing the article up to FA quality in four months would be a challenge. After the article is written, it usually takes 2-4 weeks to polish it (peer reviews, copyedits, image audits, MOS compliance). We need to allot an additional 3-4 weeks for the FAC nomination to run. That leaves about 8 weeks for research and writing. It might be better to target a main page date of April 15, the 145th anniversary of his death. That gives an additional few months to make sure that we've done justice to the topic. Let me know what you want to do, and I'll make this my priority. Karanacs (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's terrific news! Don't worry about the research aspect—I'm willing to do that. 19th century U.S. history is not my academic specialty (20th century U.S. stuff is my bailiwick), but I do know quite a bit about it and have taught it at the college level for several years (I'm a mere graduate student but I teach as well). I've also studied with a Lincoln Prize winning historian (from whom I unsurprisingly learned a lot about Lincoln, but who was also on my oral exam committee, so I might even be able to chide them into taking a look at the article once we finish it). Any research help would be appreciated, but that's the angle I assumed I would take the lead on, and I've already read three major books about Lincoln, in addition to many other books that deal to greater or lesser degrees with his presidency. Overall the research burden is considerably less for me than for someone who just knows a few things about Lincoln.

Your point about timing is well taken. Having not gone through the FA process I'm not familiar with the timeline, but it sounds like a 2010 finish date is more realistic. Obviously it's better to get it right than hit an arbitrary date. There are any number of days for which a main page appearance by Lincoln would be appropriate, so that's no thing.

Honestly I have not even read through the current version in its entirety, so it seems to me the best place to start is to consider what works and what doesn't in the version we have now. I'd like to have a good idea as to what needs improvement before hitting the books, and probably it makes sense to triage that in terms of major, middling, and minor issues. You could help a lot at the outset since you'll have a much better idea of how an FA should look at the end than I do.

In general I think I write well, but for a topic like this my prose might at times fall into academic (as opposed to encyclopedic) style so I'll need help keeping that in check—but that's down the road.

I don't know if, initially at least, it's best for us to communicate on the article talk page or to just converse on one of our talk pages, but I think the logical place to start is by evaluating the article as it stands now. If you're busy with other stuff right now there's no rush—I'm in a relative academic lull at the moment (though I might be taking on some writing work for the rest of August, won't know until next week) but can definitely devote a decent amount of time to this, on and off, in the months ahead. If you need a bit of time before getting into this, I'll start getting my hands on some obvious books I'll need and thinking about what definitely needs work in terms of the historical content. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I also was a bit taken aback that we will have no main page appearances by Lincoln this year. The main article is too much for me, but I've got Lincoln's second inaugural address on my improvement list and have gotten in a couple of sources and will look for more. The material is out there, but it is scattered. I wouldn't count on seeing it at FAC for a couple of months, I haven't started work yet, and have a couple of other projects going as well, but I am hoping to get it through, if I can find the sources, for a Lincoln article main page by the end of the year. --Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt let me know if and when you have a go at that article. A book by Mark Noll, currently cited in the article's fourth footnote, has an interesting take on the speech in the context of 19th century theological responses to American slavery. I'd be happy to work in something about that, if it made sense to do so, in a section on scholarly appraisals of the speech. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've ordered it. Though the bulk of my FAs are solo efforts, I am always very happy to colloborate.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Today's pr/ar

... many FACs were pending image reviews, which hadn't been done. I'm going out for the evening, so will look in when I'm home to see if more have been done and if it's worth it to run through then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Karanacs (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I was up til an ungodly hour trying to finish; I think we need to reverse this trend of having to ask for image reviews. Not sure how, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Media copyright questions can be a last resort. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But we can't track them down on every FAC. Is it time to promote without a review when no one does one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If the images look pretty straightforwatd, I wouldn't mind evaluating them myself. If there could be questions (especially for fair use images), I think we should continue to ask for a review. If that means the article waits until the next promotion time, that is fine with me. Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi Karanacs. I just noticed that you have enabled the autoreviewer tool for my account, and I would just like to thank you for entrusting me with such; I feel honoured and privileged. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you may not fully understand what autoreviewer means. It is no sense a "tool", it's just a convenience for the new page patrollers. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is more a feature rather than a tool, but I found that "tool" was the best word to use at the time. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

After seeing your contributions at FAC, Abraham, I have no doubt that you can be trusted to create new articles that don't need to be patrolled. Thanks for all your hard work! Karanacs (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My rollback

Thank you for turning this on. Err...How do I actually work it? Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikivoices FAC review

I wanted to invite you in particular to our recording, since you make promotion decisions. I thought you could help us explain the FA critieria. :) If you can come, please sign up here. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have other plans that day and won't be able to attend. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyway! Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rock and roll back

Karanacs, thank you for your faith in me, but I have to decline your offer. I feel pretty comfortable with my current situation (having autoreviewer is nice, many thanks) and do not think rollback is a necessary or advantageous tool to have. I found that manually looking through edits can sometimes reveal things that would not be obvious if I were on an "automated" mode. Many thanks again. Jappalang (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If you ever change your mind, let me know. Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen/archive1

Can I ask why my FAC was archived only five days after it was nominated. I was still working on addressing the concerns, but suddenly it was archived. One of the opposers even commented that it was possible to alleviate all concerns in time. Artichoker 01:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The article had already received two opposes, with special concern over sourcing. Sourcing issues often take longer to resolve. I encourage you to work with the reviewers who posted to address all of their issues, and when they are satisfied renominate the article (in 2-3 weeks). Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues are particularly difficult to overcome and its best to try to work through those off FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Texas A&M Revisions

Nice changes on the Texas A&M article. Great work. Hoping you are doing well. Best of luck. Oldag07 (talk) 13:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Responded to your call for more ideas on the tamu page. thoughts? Oldag07 (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sully statue pict

From: :Commons:Template:PD-US-no notice indicates that works published (in the case of a statue, "displayed without restrictions on access" is considered "published") between 1923 and 1977 are in the public domain unless they had a copyright notice. Please see discussion on Commons at commons:Commons talk:Licensing/Archive 20#question about PD-US-no notice.

Short version: I don't think we need a FUR for something that isn't copyrighted. — BQZip01 —  14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That discussion said the statue should not be signed to be not copyrighted. According to SIRIS, Coppini signed this one (see the link I left on the image page). Karanacs (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but (1) the copyright doesn't appear to have been renewed, ergo, it expired and (2) it was first published (publicly displayed) in 1919: a.k.a. pre-1923. Accordingly, it should be a public domain sculpture, right? — BQZip01 —  14:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I hate imagte policy <sigh>. I left a message with Jappalang - he knows much more about image policy than I do. Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We both want the proper tags and annotations on the image...I too hate such a muddled policy (Misplaced Pages is NOTHING compared to the military though...). I'll go with whatever you find out. :-) — BQZip01 —  15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a reason I didn't join the Corps or the military -- too many rules, too many early mornings ;) Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Karen, you and I may sometimes disagree, but disagreements like these amongst friends make the days more enjoyable...especially on those "early morning" days that end on the following early morning...19+ hour missions SUCK! :-) — BQZip01 —  15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your 19-hour missions and raise you an infant who thinks the day begins at 2:30 am. I'm hoping it is almost naptime.... Hopefully you'll get one too! Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll see your infant and raise you two toddlers with dual earaches who just crossed a few time zones and their bodies have no CLUE what time it is...aw hell, I fold. I can't compete with an infant. At least I can use rudimentary logic on my sons ("If you'll be quiet, I'll let you watch Thomas the Tank Engine") :-) — BQZip01 —  15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We bribe our toddler with Dora the Explorer. I'll have to try Thomas. Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have some sort of primitive physiologic response to repetitive sounds. Dora makes me want to die die die, the sooner the better. Thomas is much less irritating, if almost equally formulaic—at least I sometimes get the guilty pleasure of hearing George Carlin's voice. To maximize the bribery–pain ratio, I offer the Backyardigans: no catch phrases, and an incredible variety of musical styles. Maralia (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) At least I got to enjoy watching the old Blues Clues guy, he was kinda cute. Dora makes my teeth hurt. And being the mother of a son, I think I can recite the Thomas episodes in my sleep...Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Dora was bad enough, but when her cousin came along, that made things ten times worse. Kids TV shows these days are sanitized and sterilized to the point where there's no substance at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And then there's Spongebob Squarepants... Karanacs (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, the statue is in the public domain. It is "published" before 1923. As pointed out by Carl Lindberg, the permanent installation of public works of art before 1978 (without any stated restrictions of photography) constitutes publishing (commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States). Thus, unless there are signs that expressly prohibited photography since 1918, the only issue about copyright here would be that of the photographer's (User:BlueAg09). If the statue was erected post-1922, then copyright notices (and renewal) would come into play. For those erected on and after 1 March 1989, the statues are copyrighted automatically and we would then have to be concerned with sales and copies instead. Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!! I'll fix the image license. Karanacs (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Pavel Bure

Hi there. I submitted Pavel Bure's article for FAC and it was not promoted on a few days ago. I'm assuming it was not promoted due to a lack of consensus, but as you had the final say, I was wondering if you had any advice or suggestions for a better result in the future. The article was my first FAC attempt, so any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hockey articles sometimes have difficulty attracting reviewers; there don't seem to be a lot of hockey fans at FAC. I'd recommend that you ask a copyeditor to look over the article - sometimes the prose is okay enough that a reviewer doesn't want to oppose, but a little polishing could bring them up to a support from comments. Also, often the second time an article is nominated it will attract more eyes just because there is a different reviewer mix. Good luck - and welcome to FAC. I hope we see you there frequently :) Karanacs (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several hockey-loving editors who are familiar with FA: Resolute (talk · contribs), Maxim (talk · contribs), Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) and Risker (talk · contribs). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

James Nesbitt

Thank you very much for your help in getting this article to featured status! Bradley0110 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice?

Take a look. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb, you rock. I've borrowed what your wrote for Sandy and tweaked it to be a bit more Aggie. Thanks!!! Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Except for the Aggie part, that is. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

response and congrats on baby Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

New FACs Sol-gel and Transparent materials

I have been trying to cleanup those articles and would say they are not ready either for FA or even GA nomination (which they never had). User:Abce2 seems overly optimistic about the quality of those articles, but I suggest removing them from FAC administratively not to waste referees time. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that now. But it would have helped to contact me and tell me about this before hand.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 01:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Still promoting tonight?

I did the image review on oneboth of the FACs that you listed, if you want to still intend to promote them tonight, though it may take some time for me to do the other one. NW (Talk) 01:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Got a bit of a break there with Unification of Germany; the image review for that one is done too. NW (Talk) 01:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not ready for promotion, but if you have the time and inclination, do you want to do one on California's 12th congressional district election, 1946? It's at FAC. Companion piece to the Senate election article I had up a few weeks ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot has already run, so these will likely wait until Saturday. Thanks for jumping on them so quickly!!! Karanacs (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you explain to me why this was closed as "not promoted". There were two support votes and no opposes. Two editors raised some issues which I thought addressed with my edits in response. Is there something I'm missing here? Tiamut 09:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiamut, please read the information when you edit the talk page. There's a reason why it's there! :) ceranthor 09:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)