Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:21, 18 November 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.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Note to self:images

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

Your extra credit bit on Catholic Church...

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 (Le Goff's a bit outdated and the work you're citing is somewhat of a cross between a popular history and a low level textbook.)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

Jean Lafitte

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

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

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

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

ArbCom clarification on Mattisse's Plan

Request opened by Moni3 here --Moni3 (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

RfC

Certified; I will have limited time this week; but you may want to add the incredible wording of the poll itself, especially since there was a comment that she's done this before. (Also Nancy is genuinely a single-purpose account; I looked up her edits when Xandar was canvassing for his views on naming policy, and 64% of her mainspace edits were on Catholic Church alone.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added the full text of the poll wording now, and moved the RfC to the approved section. I wouldn't necessarily describe Nancy as an SPA. She does concentrate on Catholic Church, but she has done a lot of work on other pages related to Roman Catholicism as well (bringing 2 to FA status). Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

And if she weren't so darned obstinate and contentious, Catholic Church would FA by now and the lion's share of the credit would belong to her. Let's not forget her good qualities while trying to pick the mote out of her eye. (and yeah I know that's not what the Scriptural passage says) --Richard (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Catholic Church would FA by now and the lion's share of the credit would belong to her." Absolutely true. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The lion's share of the credit will still belong to her, even if someone else picks up the baton now. Pmanderson's charge of SPA is just ridiculous. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed again that she will still deserve the lion's share of the credit. I'm not sure the suggestion that she's an SPA is so far off. Nor that it's necessarily a bad thing: she's been very focused. At the same time, the fact that she's branched out somewhat, both at FAC and to some other types of articles, is I think a good thing in that it should allow her to gain some sense of perspective. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can add is that if I were in Nancy's position, which I hope I never am, like her I would not take part in the RfC; I'd walk away from the article, wishing it well. If, after a decent interval, it still wasn't up to snuff and wasn't being worked on, then I'd consider getting involved again. But sometimes you just have to walk away. Even I know that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 02:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it will. The main question is whether the article can clear the last hurdle to reach featured article status; under the current atmosphere that could take years. Karanacs (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Certified. I read through pretty much the whole thing in detail, and couldn't think of anything I'd add. Thank you for doing such a clear and thorough job. Harmakheru (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I hope you don't think I derailed your RfC with Nancy. I do feel that RfCs are somewhat broken, as there is no real community forum except through them and they are overall incredibly problematic. It is strange how many of them just don't seem to take and have active participants but others are just swamped. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to submit their opinions at an RfC, and I see nothing problematic about the view you posted. Did you do something else I haven't noticed yet? Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, its just that the RfC is dead with little interest it seems. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• In case you hadn't seen this. Johnbod (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Saw it, thanks for your effort. Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Outline bump

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts: Rather than a "Support/Oppose" division, I was hoping an RfC would:

• cover the various available-solutions

and ask for:

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Michele W.D. Bio references

Hi I've worked very hard in trying to put together the correct references to show a reason for inclusion, I haven't put together a draft or listed any personal information at this time I'm just trying to see if I can get an o.k. to go ahead with creating the topic article and if it will probably pass this time for inclusion based upon on what I have so far. I will invite the other editors as we'll to take a look. I've created a discussion page for Michele W.D. in my sandbox where you can leave me a message.Tinkermen (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if you've had the chance to come look yet but another editor already created a new Bio for her again this weekend after I left you and the othere editors a note, I hadn't invited him to the discussion not sure why that happened? Also while your looking over weather I have enough references for inclusion could you take a minute and look at the new article topic I am creating for the book Divorce Busting, it's my first article, should I make it a STUB? Is it ok as it is or do I need to make some changes? ThanksTinkermen (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at the article that was created by the other user, and it looks like it meets policy, so is unlikely to be deleted. You can use some of the references you found to expand that article. Can you provide a link for me to see your sandbox copy of "Divorce Busting"? Then I'll try to take a look soon. Karanacs (talk) 19:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I moved it to namespace Divorce Busting (I wanted to try being bold "my first article" after being here 20 some odd days doing reference research) I'll continue to work on it as I learn more and make it better. I sent you an email hope that was o.k. Tinkermen (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist and for letting the Bio stay, I know there is still some finish work that needs to be completed there and I'll get back to it soon. I now understand alot more about guidelines and how you made your determinations from this experience. I read your comments this evening (DB) and I will take care of the citation issues soon to, Still so much to learn it looks like, but I'm having a lot of fun during the process. I like doing this stuff, probably hooked for life now as one of my many many past times. But being an electrician I will always need back up when it comes to the grammer and spelling. I can figure stuff out but putting it into words everyone care comprehend is another thing. lol Tinkermen (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm stok'd just made my first edit "MWD" related to removing a book title that had been changed ("Fire your shrink" title was changed to "change your life" at some point) both were listed on the page and I also removed the citation that was with it, Citations are tricky business this is going to take some time to fully grasp how to do, but now I have a page to work with. Adding I bet is alittle harder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkermen (talk • contribs) 07:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep rookie mistake there ^ I see, I'll just say "OPS" instead of sorry this time. I'd sure like to here the story behind the article Francois Savoie, looks like it made it in at some point, You must not have given up to I'm guessing. The Bio you worked on Georgette Heyer is the bar I can see for how a Bio should look and feel. I'm going to need a few more references, this could take a while. Tinkermen (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This place gets addictive really fast. I'm glad you are starting to have fun - once you get over the learning curve it gets even better :) The first article I created, Francois Savoie, was on a totally distant ancestor of mine (and also of approximately the entire Cajun population in the US), but he came nowhere close to meeting the notability guidelines (I had no idea then that there were notability guidelines). The editor who tagged it for deletion was nice to me and helped explain what I did wrong, so I decided to try again. That was just over 3 years ago. Now I try to return that initial favor :) I'm always willing to answer question, but sometimes I'm slow to respond if real-life or other wiki-work is taking up time (Tuesdays, for example, I spend at WP:FAC). Lots of people watch this page, though, so you can always start a new section at the bottom, leave a question, and hope someone else answers. Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the kind words about Georgette Heyer - that's one of the articles I am most proud of working on. Ima Hogg was the most fun. Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Over the weekend I started working on her Bio, wow this is so cool it's unlike anything I have ever done before, trying to piece together her life's story step by step sentence by sentence with 60 something plus references and news articles and all of the information I have learned about her over the last couple of weeks. It's actually very time comsuming having to look back for the correct info in the list of references and stories I have because I have to keep going back and forth reading all of them over and over. Missing key points of info I don't have but would like to add is a bummer to. When I get this some what going in my sandbox I will ask for a review, probably a week I figure at this rate. I'm going to try adding her other books into the story-timeline as best as I can. Tinkermen (talk) 07:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Imette St. Guillen

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

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

A question

Hi, Karanacs. I don't want to be a pest, but I noticed you archived the FAC for SMS Derfflinger due to lack of reviewers. I was in the process of working with one of the reviewers over his concerns about a particular section, and I wasn't expecting the FAC to be closed when it was (I realize it's been a month, but I didn't know if these things could be bent slightly or not). There are three editors supporting it and none opposing, and the less subjective criteria (i.e., images, links, etc.) have been addressed. Is there any chance you might reconsider your closing? I'm not trying to give you a hard time or anything, I just wasn't expecting the review to be closed as it was. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, obviously I see that the archiving has happened but the review page was still open when I went through it and gave my support earlier today; is the process too far gone for it to achieve promotion in this tranche? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an unusual situation. It is rare for a support to be entered after an FAC is closed but before the bot archive everything. I was already torn over this article; it had been up for a long time but was very close to promotion. Because there was some confusion among the reviewers about the close, I decided to rethink this one. I also had not seen Jackyd's latest note removing much of his concern, as I was working off an earlier version of the FAC page. I have now reversed my decision and promoted the article. (Note to anyone watching this conversation - this will not become a common occurrence. I repeat, this is an exception and it will not become a common occurrence.) Please let me know if you see any issues with the steps I took to manually change the status. Karanacs (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good (you beat the bot :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

oopsie, you didn't beat the bot, but it still looks good SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I pretended I was a bot. It's all part of my master plan to take over the world ;) Karanacs (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Then you can join the club that Maralia and I sponsor! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(out)I think I found an issue, since the article was a GA, nominally the bot would remove its listing at WP:GA and update the counters for that process accordingly. Since this was a manual promotion those steps were not completed. I'm sure it can be done manually, but the counts are a bit complicated for me to understand. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, even if it needs some tidying, your flexibility in this unusual instance makes you tops in my book, Karan (and tks Sandy for endorsing)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for looking this over again, Karanacs, I really appreciate you taking the time. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It is time-consuming to reverse the bot, so good for Karanacs for taking the effort! I asked Gimmetrow to look in, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I've done the appropriate GA steps now. Thank you, MBK004, for fixing some of my other mistakes. I am not a very good pseudo-bot yet. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Joey Hamilton FAC

Being relatively unfamiliar with the FAC process, can you explain your closure of the FAC. There were no opposes, which makes it weird to me that it was closed.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I now see it was closed due to lack of reviewers, which to me seems unfair since the article may or may not meet the criteria, but it wasn't given a chance to go through the process of FAC.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Giants27. Unfortunately, we cannot promote articles to FA status unless there is consensus that it meets all the criteria, and this nomination had received no supports after 3 weeks. This usually means one of these scenarios: a) FAC reviewers were busy and none/few of them read the article or b) reviewers read the article but did not feel that it fully met the criteria but did not feel strongly enough about it to leave a comment. If b), a lot of times a good copyedit can help engage the reviewers more. If a), sometimes just waiting a few weeks will help the article gain better notice. I do recommend that you have Giants2008 look at the article one more time, as he usually does a great job with sports-related articles. I know this is frustrating - rest assured that you have done all the right things, and hopefully next time it will go more smoothly. Karanacs (talk) 04:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough explanation, the close now makes more sense.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Free State of Galveston

FYI: I've done some significant revisions to Free State of Galveston. If you are interested in copyediting feel free. Or if you want to wait and see what the GA review has to say about it that is fine too.

Thanks again for all your help.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A question on sock puppetry

Is it sock puppetry to create a new user account solely for the purpose of anonymously accusing another user of sock puppetry? A strange question, perhaps, but that seems to be what is going on here: Harmakheru ✍ 00:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hee, hee. Right... a new definition of SPA... Sock Puppet Accusation! --Richard S (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of experience with the sockpuppet/alternate account rules. It's possible that this could be a violation because some of the prohibitions include "don't use alternate account to stir up controversy". It's also possible that this is an okay use - I'm just not clear. Without some clue of who the sockpuppeter might be (I have a guess but zero proof), checkusers can't run a search to see. It might be useful to bring this up at the administrators' noticeboard to get input from admins who actually work in the sockpuppet investigations. That would provide documentation of further problems related to Catholic Church and may give further clarification of whether this is an accepted use of an alternate account, but likely wouldn't result in sanctions for anyone. In the meantime, I'm going to ask at the user's talk page if they are an alternate account. Probably won't get anywhere, but worth a try. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Karen, I have some experience, think I can help. Harmakheru, if you feel the user meets WP:DUCK then report it at the spi noticeboard and ask for a checkuser, if necessary. ceranthor 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious that this account is not a new editor. The problem is a lack of evidence to indicate the main account. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI (plural)

• Bakshi
  • I closed 2 thru 8: I'll let you have this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Ode
• Brooks–Baxter
  • I closed 1 and 2: I'll let you have this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Slow going at FAC, after I took the morning off to pitch in at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

What an exciting weekend at FAC! Karanacs (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And then there's FAR :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 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) 19:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Upper Pine Bottom State Park FAC

Thanks for the heads up. After 3.5+ business days I have heard nothing back from the Pennsylvania Lumber Museum, so I put a copyvio tag on the high res scan on Commons here and uploaded a low res, fair use justified verison here at File:Pine Creek Log Raft.jpg. Do you want me to ask Awadewit to check this asap? Ruhrfisch _><>° 19:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

She'd already agreed on the FAC that a fair-use alternative would be okay. Thanks for going to such lengths to work out the copyright issues. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I might try asking the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission later, but don't want to hold up the FAC any longer. Ruhrfisch _><>° 19:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs TPS

I can't locate the old post where I once analyzed all posts at WT:FAC and determined that Mattisse was dominating the page. Do you have any recollection of where I put that analysis? I can't find it in my talk archives. I also can't find the post where she mixed up GrahamColm and Colin, while attacking one of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely remember both those posts, but I don't remember when or where. Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If they're not in my talk archives, they must be in WT:FAC archives, but I don't know how to go through that amount of volume to find them. And I really thought the percentage of WT:FAC posts was on my talk page, so I'm surprised I can't find it in my archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I found and diffed the talk page dominance-- it was one-quarter, not 40%. I haven't found the Graham/Colin mixup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That was on my talk: User talk:Maralia/Archive 6#Oh, trouble!. Maralia (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Maralia; I never would have remembered when or where to look for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Khrushchev

Your comment on my suggestion on what to do about Khrushchev at his FAC page would be welcome. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't get too involved with content issues. My general advice would be to examine individual sections to see if they could be spun off, rather than spinnong off half the article. For example, look at Ronald Reagan - it does an excellent job of summary style, with lots of main tags for sections. Eubulides helped quite a bit in restructuring Inner German Border - I might be worthwhile to solicit his opinion (or that of AuntieRuth55). On the other hand, if you can explain on the FAC page why the length is necessary and consensus is that the article length is okay (I don't think all the reviewers have checked back in on that yet), then we'll abide by that. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That is fine. I'll leave notes for the reviewers who have not yet weighed in. And I'll know better next time. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

A belated thank you

Huge apologies for my appallingly bad manners - I just got sidetracked by stuff and never stopped to express my thanks for your barnstar of over a week ago. It was much appreciated. Warm regards, Manning (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Nancy again

See my comments at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/NancyHeise#View_by_Septentrionalis; what's the next step? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm just about caught up with my watchlist and now see the latest at Catholic Church. RfCs generally run for 30 days, so this one should not be closed until Nov 26. After this, the next step is either mediation over a particular content issue or requesting an ArbCom case. I think this will end up at ArbCom sooner rather than later, but I don't have the time right now to gather evidence, and may not until after the new year. Karanacs (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that Nancy was blocked by SarekofVulcan just as I was filing an edit-warring report. I don't follow the article as close lately as I had been, but I'm going to start reporting edit-warring on both sides as I see it. There have been enough general warnings on the talk page that we should all know what the accepted behavior is. Maybe this will help the editing environment. Karanacs (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Cough

2 and a half supports, no actual opposes, and three people just put comments down today which were being addressed. I'm not sure why you closed it as I will just have to relist it immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been up a long time, and three different reviewers commented that the prose needed work. Please address that concern before renominating; I will remove the nomination if it goes back up in less than 2 weeks (per the nomination instructions). Karanacs (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'm delighted! I'm just a bit too busy right now to get my mind around writing a major article so doing some FAC work is keeping me happy! Amandajm (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm also very pleased about not-so-little Nikita. I won't bring an article of that size back again and will participate in any discussion and not that it was not meant to be a precedent if necessary. I don't imagine for a second that Fifelfoo will accept this as a precedent, either. With (two) articles on Chamberlain coming down the pike ... the number of serious candidates who are now running for ArbCom means that I would be surprised to win, but well, I don't run away from a fight, either! But point is, the flow of articles from me will probably not diminish. Considering Helen Douglas after Chamberlains, possibly with a view towards a featured topic on Nixon's early political career. OK, I'll go way and ramble in my articles. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)