User talk:Karanacs

	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.

Todo list

• Currently at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vision In White/archive1
• Next up: Battle of Agua Dulce or Welcome to Temptation
• FLC push: List of Alamo defenders‎
• Write Battle of Refugio, Battle of Coleto, Goliad Massacre, Goliad Campaign
• Review Battle of the Alamo and create comprehensive list of what needs to be done on the talk page (back to the library!)
• Create articles for books that received the Romance Writers of America's RITA Award.
• Tornel Decree

Ping me if you need me

Ping me if you want me. Petty stuff has resulted in a threat that I believe is personal and meant for you. Regardless of why or how, it may have always been personal. Something is not right here. Indeed, other voices are needed.— Maile (talk) 14:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not too worried. We have a user who is seemingly obsessed with ONE sentence in an FA-quality, 6k+ word article and is blowing up the talk page of the article. At least he's not edit-warring :) I agree that something isn't right, but I can't quite put my finger on what. All we can do is keep plugging away. You're reading Fowler's SA book, and I am about to start either Tucker's or Calore's. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I've gone as far as I meant to in Fowler's book. That one chapter is all that's relevant to the article. If you want me to read more of the book, let me know. I still have it — Maile (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right - for this particular article, I assume there's nothing else relevant in the book. Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 25, 2015

Made a couple of minor tweaks, feel free to revert if that doesn't work for you. - Dank (push to talk) 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I also made a slight tweak to your tweak, Dank. It sounded like Houston was asleep when the Battle of San Jacinto broke out. Other than that, and I'm the one who wrote the original blurb, I'm fine with what you changed. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, Dank. Your latest tweak makes it a much better sentence all around. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, heck, Dank, I just realized that you made it "Texian army of English-speaking settlers". Tejanos (Mexicans born in Texas) under the command of Juan Seguin were also in the Texian army and fought at San Jacinto. I tweaked it again. Tag! You're it! — Maile (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• And a P.S., Karanacs. Don't know if you've seen this version, but it's Official Trailer on You Tube. Just guessing, but it looks like they're kicking off the series with the Travis letter from the Alamo. The trailer makes it look like Travis sent out a gazillion copies and everybody is reading their own copy...including Santa Anna. No one who died in the Alamo is listed on Texas Rising at IMDb. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's today: Texas Revolution, precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of San Jacinto

Whenever you resurface again. BTW, hope you got through the serious Texas weather this past week. If you ever get around to the Battle of San Jacinto, I think today must be the first I looked at it. Spurred by reading the old talk page threads I was archiving that questioned why Houston was retreating, and why the Mexican army weren't warned at San Jacinto. Much of it is not sourced. It's otherwise evident you're not the one who wrote it. Most of the article is not about the battle itself. Won't bog you down with details, but ping me when you're ready on this one. — Maile (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm around and checking my watchlist, just didn't have the urge to write lately. I have actually never looked at the San Jacinto article. I'd love to have it ready to be featured for the 180th anniversary next year, but I'm not even sure what other books will need to be read before then. I've got 3 Alamo books on my desk at the moment, and then I can expand my list. I will go ahead and add the page to my watchlist, though, so if you do any work I'll chime in. I'm hoping to get serious about the article late summer/early fall. Karanacs (talk) 00:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Good, then. You've given me time to do some editing on it, and you can have a look at it later down the line. I was reading the book "Paper Republic" to do a book article. Decided I can't. It takes a numismatic oriented person to do an article on this book. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015

Looks like you don't subscribe, so here's a link for you. They quoted from your FA nomination, which looks wonderfully refreshing in their newsletter. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 and Simon Harley on the sinking of the Lusitania Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Why the protection at User talk:Lightbreather?

There's no evidence that the IP is socking, and the vandalism is only related to one IP. Why the protect? It's also kind of stale. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 16:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Probably because the posts (now suppressed) were exceptionally nasty and might have real-life repercussions. It's hardly worth risking the perp jumping to another proxy to reinsert them. Compare this AE thread. How do you mean, it's stale? It was 12 hours ago. Bishonen | talk 17:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC).

What Bish says. This is the second IP that has posted oversight-worthy stuff on Lightbreather-related pages. The Arb case pages were already protected. I suspect that yet another IP would show up in a few hours. No one should have to put up with harassment. A few days worth of protection for her talk page seemed warranted, and unlikely to have a negative effect on anything else - LB isn't editing much at the moment. Karanacs (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Alright Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 17:10, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A little help

Sigh. Maile and Karen: I just got up, I see the TFA column was changed 8 hours ago. I've reverted until I can get some feedback from one or both of you. Could you have a look at User talk:Dank#TFA blurbs and article leads and Maunus's point at WP:ERRORS, please, and reply here or on my talk page? (Preferably, don't change the TFA directly, I don't want to give the appearance of rapid back-and-forth in the TFA column.) - Dank (push to talk) 10:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Re-pinging Maile. - Dank (push to talk) 10:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Also see WT:ITN#A little help; I'm checking to see how much of a problem it would be today if we have to go over. - Dank (push to talk) 10:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

THC Avenging the Alamo-The Road

All night long, THC has been running an hour-long Avenging the Alamo-The Road, which seems to be a prequel to the series. The history of Texas from SFAustin to the Alamo fall, with Texas Rangers mentions tossed in. Author David Marion Wilkinson, historian Andrés Tijerina, H. W. Brands (UT), Albert Camarillo (Stanford University), and a handful of main actors. Brands does most of the talking. They say they threw in the Emily West storyline to have a possible explanation of why Santa Anna went Non compos mentis (my term for his temporary brain burp) at San Jacinto.— Maile (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

YGM!

Hello, Karanacs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hey Karanacs, have you seen my email to you? Thanks! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw it, meant to respond and say I was thinking about it, apparently forgot to respond, and will get back to you by Monday. Pinkie promise. Karanacs (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Take your time—there's no hurry! I was worried that I'd messed up the address or some similarly silly mistake. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a small reminder; there's still no hurry. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

My brain apparently interpreted that as next Monday. Sigh. All done now :) Karanacs (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Texas Revolution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• army staged a surprise assault on Santa Anna and his vanguard force at the [Battle of San Jacinto]]. The Mexican troops were quickly routed, and vengeful Texians executed many who tried to surrender.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Just some yadda yadda

If you haven't already seen it, a few people have been adding reviews on the Texas Rising article. I've started to look at it as entertainment, because it's starting to stray a lot from history. Although...if it wasn't meant as Texas history, that storyline about Emily and Santa Anna is like...well...maybe a soap opera, and it's not bad in that way. Not sure why Indians keep getting thrown into this...so...if they take this series far enough for the 1841 Enchanted Rock stand off between the Comanches and John Coffee Hays...what part of Durango, Mexico will substitute as Enchanted Rock? — Maile (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm planning to catch up on it this weekend (I don't usually have time to watch tv during the week). I figured it would be less than historical, which is why our article was important. It has Brendan Fraser and Bill Paxton, and that makes me happy :) Karanacs (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Romance WikiProject

Hello, I've noticed you've edited Romance articles in the past and wanted to see if you had any interest in joining a new WikiProject for romance plange (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, if there's a romance novel WikiProject I would join! One of my goals this year is to increase the coverage of romance novels, starting with the RITA-Award winning books. Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

awesome!! Oops my link was bad, here it is WP:ROMANCE. I just started it this weekend so am still fleshing out pages. I'm awaiting AWB approval and will then start tagging. I started fleshing out articles last week when I saw that many RITA authors didn't have pages, so I started pages for the likes of Sherry Thomas and more. (Also nominated it for a DYK) I originally thought to just make it a task force under WP:WPBIO but realized that wouldn't do. As you note, books are in desperate need. I was kind of horrified at how lacking the site is in this area, but that's not surprising. Also, don't know if you saw on WP:NBOOK's Talk page but there's a discussion going on to add bestseller lists to notability... My WP knowledge is only strong on bios so if you have anything to add to the guides on novels (or to bios or anything else there) I've set up please feel free. I just see what i have there now as an initial stab until others start joining and add to the concensus....plange (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Tempted to email you...but...

I perceive you as a person who prefers transparency, so I'm here. This is my opinion of the latest. There will never be an end if we continue to respond. You can make your own decision, but I choose not to feed it. I have seen this before. There seem to be among us certain really, really, really needy individuals who fill up talk pages. Every response is a green light for them to keep going. Whatever it is, this looks to be endless. It does tend to kill motivation, which in and of itself might be what lies beneath. That would be a form of disruptive editing, right?— Maile (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. The arguments are becoming ridiculous and the sheer amount of text is problematic. I do still believe the article needs an overhaul. I've got a stack of books on my desk, just have to find the time to dive further into them. Hopefully life gets calmer this summer! Karanacs (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Comparing behavior

Comparing behavior:

1. Lightbreather replaced a POV term in the NRA lead with the term used by WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, WP:RS[1] - per three talk-page discussions.[2][3][4]
2. Scalhotrod completely re-wrote the lead, omitting term used by WP:V, WP:SECONDARY, WP:RS.[5]
3. Lightbreather restored #1.
4. Lightbreather asked Scalhotrod, on his talk page, to stop. Discussion head "NRA Lead".[6]
5. Scalhotrod followed Lightbreather to another editor's talk page, went to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles to add LB's question to other editor as an example of ownership statements, then (two minutes later) accused LB of ownership on other editor's talk page.[7]
6. Lightbreather asked Scalhotrod, again on his talk page, to please stop.[8]
7. Lightbreather removed Scalhotrod's "ownership" example.
8. Scalhotrod went to his page, changed discussion head "NRA lead" to "Do things my way," wrote this:[9]

Next you'll probably add a THIRD request because of [1] [This was hidden text]

<snark>You'll need to be more specific, my mind reading abilities don't work on Lightbreathers. Oh wait, did you hurt something else and you're now under the influence of something stronger than Ibuprofen?[2] Or maybe you'd like to post a lengthy list of sources that only make sense to you. And don't forget to notify a dozen or so Editors and Admins that you got a boo boo and that some boy is being mean to you[3][4]...

Is that what you are referring to when you say "Please stop." Heck, why don't you file at ANI for old time's sake[5]. Are you bored over the lack of drama over the last week or so?[6][7] I threw in a dif or two to support my claims, did you like that? Say Hi to Eric Corbett[8], Sitush[9], and Hell in a Bucket for me. Oh wait, you can't...</snark> --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

His edit summary on that last post was Is duh wittle User upset? and you think his behavior and mine are comparable?[10] Lightbreather (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You left out the part where you insinuated another editor was either a meat or sockpuppet [11]. So yes, I do think that both of you are being equally disruptive. Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

FTR, I also believe his ownership example is entirely appropriate and would support leaving that on the page. I saw that before I knew it was something you had written. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Needs to be said by somebody. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

RITA books

You've been working on RITA books, and I've been working on the authors, and I typically probably won't be doing many novels, but I've been using the Sherry Thomas article as a testing ground for an article's layout, etc., and put it up for a sitewide PR to see what the wider expectation is for a writer bio. Anyway, in the course of this, have been getting reviews for her two RITA books--are you okay with me going ahead and stubbing those out? I didn't want to step on your toes if you had them already in a sandbox... plange (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not working in a sandbox - I write directly in the article. If you've got the info, go for it! Right now, I'm trying to get Vision in White (not a RITA pick) ready for a potential FAC run. Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Deal with this user

In every edit History he is calling himself a celebrity from Bollywood and Hollywood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ali567845 --Cosmic  Emperor  13:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Tahera Ahmad

Hi there, on an encyclopedia note could you take a peek at Tahera Ahmad article. I started a stub and have tried to illicit help from the who you'd think have the most interest in improving the article but alas they have not noticed or decided to ignore. It may be facing deletion soon and I think I've made a case for notability on the talkpage but the writing could be improved. I'm not the strongest writer but my research tells me she is not only a good candidate for an article but also one that helps actually helps the profiles of Muslim women in general. I did tell an anon that if they want to delete after our discussion I will start it on their behalf for full disclosure. Not asking for a !vote should it come to it but help in gauging notability certainly prior to that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about that one. They are right that the coke can incident is really not notable. The other - being the first American woman to recite the Qu'ran publicly - that might be enough to meet the notability criterion. Have you found anything else that discusses how rare that really is, or is it just line items that she did it? This may be a case of she's too "current" for the RSs to have given her enough in-depth coverage to justify the article today. Karanacs (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The way I was seeing it, being the first women to read quran at americas largest muslim convention is one, being featured as a chaplain in The Calling, a pbs special, and coverage that I can show that ranges from 2011-2015. That's four years of covering her work and opinions, I can understand the pop can being somewhat minor but then there is articles like Kai the hatchet weilding hitchhiker and his murder trial and I look at this woman I can't reconcile how that is so different. Maybe I'm missing something. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Peer Review

Hello, Karanacs. I'd like to invite you to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. I've already had lots of great feedback there (so it should be pretty tight at this point), but it would be really nice to get some more, particularly from FA vets. I'd appreciate anything you are willing to suggest. Thanks! RO^(talk) 15:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP violation

You've just restored personal attacks/abuse targeting me. You may want to reconsider. I've reverted you and demand that you not restore it, as it's subject to revision-deletion which I've already requested. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Wikipedia:No personal attacks states that it would be a personal attack if the content is "Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor." The IP seemed to merely be providing an example of personal attacks against other users, not linking to them for the purpose of harassment/attacking. Update (20:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC): Just noticed User talk:NorthBySouthBaranof#vandalism?, BLP got it.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That edit very much violates several policies on outing, harassment, and BLP. Do not restore content like that again. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Advice on book article

Created this this morning and it got redirected back to the author's page. I haven't worked a lot with books, but doesn't it meet #1 in WP:NBOOK? Especially as it stands now in my sandbox? Should I just revert and place new content and see how it fares if put in afd? Thx! plange (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe it does. Revert the redirect and move your sandbox version over what's there. Oh, and can you please sort out that "an historical" nonsense in Sherry's article? Eric Corbett 19:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:ROPE

Wow, shes really reaching for the rope again now. With all the harassment stuff I think she could have gotten some leniency due to responding in tress or something, but getting blocked repeatedly for violating sanctions I think shes in for it. Even GW blocked her. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Heads up

In case you miss the two questions on Talk:List of Alamo defenders:

• "this says that Highsmith reentered the Alamo with Martin and Smith" - I'm unclear on which Smith you mean.
• Please have a look at how I handled the entries to Seguin's bunch, just to make sure that's what you meant.

I have to say, you did a lot of reading and note taking this weekend. I'll work on updating the lead another day. I'm been working on the individual minutia for the last 11 hours. I need a break, but I'm trying to head off any questions that might come up in a review. Diddle with any edits you want.— Maile (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, I just logged back in. I spent most of the evening re-reading Lindley. I'll go look back in the book to see which Smith that was, and I'll check on the Seguin entries probably tomorrow. I'm supposed to be working on real work, I'm just weak :) Karanacs (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Maya civilization FAC

Hi Karanacs,

Would you mind revisiting the Maya civilization FAC? I have trimmed it to a point where it is below the length of the Manhattan Project when it made FA, which was the first on the list you posted a link to. Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Alamo

Since I'm primarily a lurker on the Battle of the Alamo page, is it worth addressing the flag/absence thereof in the text?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Gaarmyvet, I don't think the flag or lack thereof is significant to the article. Do you disagree? Karanacs (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Gaarmyvet, nobody knows which flag or flags were even at the Alamo, except for the flag of the New Orleans Grays. Santa Anna captured that one, and sent it back to Mexico where members of the Mexican congress stomped all over it. Traditional lore (and John Wayne) have said the 1824 flag flew over the Alamo, but scholars have since discounted that because the flag was designed to support the restoration of the 1824 constitution, while in the Alamo they were fighting for a Republic. What some refer to as the "Seguin flag" was actually the flag of Coahuila and Tejas, which the Mexican army hoisted over the Alamo. The Flag of the Republic of Texas was not designed until later. The Dimmitt bloody arm flag was not at the Alamo. — Maile (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I only thought it might be helpful because casual editors keep "improving" the infobox. Maybe a comment in the infobox -- like that for Audie Murphy's birthdate -- would work. I'll yield to the judgment of those working the issue.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a comment is an excellent idea. Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Karanacs. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

I enjoyed the Signpost piece about your article writing. Thank you for the time and energy you put in to making this site wonderful. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)