This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello,

I have addressed your concerns about the above DYK nomination. Thank you for your feedback, and I hope you will continue the review.

Georgejdorner ( talk) 16:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Happy New Year! I was looking back at some article I wrote last year, and I noticed that you DYK reviewed it. As a new editor, it meant and still means a lot to me. Thank you again for that, and thank you for your incredible contributions to Wikipedia! Bananasoldier ( talk) 05:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. — Maile ( talk) 21:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Featured List Medal
		For your outstanding contributions to the Featured Lists Audie Murphy honors and awards, List of songs written by Audie Murphy, and Audie Murphy, all of which achieved FA status in 2014, you are hereby awarded this Featured List Medal. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject, TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your outstanding contributions to Featured Biography Articles in 2014 you are hereby awarded this Biography Barnstar. For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your outstanding contributions to Featured Lists in 2014 you are hereby awarded this Tireless Contributor barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 ( Talk) 08:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm STUNNED by this. Thank you. — Maile ( talk) 12:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw the removed thread, but thought I'd respond anyway. All my research has stopped at 1836, so I have no idea what was going on in the RoT years. Good luck! Karanacs ( talk) 23:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The more research I did on the militia, the more my head hurt. Like the Tejanos in the Texas Revolution idea, this is a very vast subject. Yes, there were militias in the Republic, separate, but also sometimes combined with, the regular Army and the Rangers. (Also, trying to figure out who all the secretaries of state of the Republic were hurt my head) However, Karanacs, if you do see anything at all on that Template:Republic of Texas you'd like to change, I would be OK with that it. It's a work in progress. — Maile ( talk) 23:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems kind of broad to me - it covers politicians, documents that created the republic (but not the Convention of 1836), treaties signed afterwards, diplomats....I think it would work better with broader articles to cover some of this. The biggest problem is that not all of the articles have been created; the only editors I know of who work(ed) in this time frame were interested in the Indian Wars but not in the rest of the time frame. I got stuck in the Texas Revolution and don't see myself working my way forward in history for a while. ;)

Perhaps an article on Republic of Texas–Indian wars to cover the battles ( Council House Fight definitely needs to be included) and treaties signed with the native tribes. Perhaps a Foreign policy of the Republic of Texas that would cover all the ambassadors (so we don't have to individually link them) and could also include reference to the French Legation. Karanacs ( talk) 23:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's kind of broad, also. There already is Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas and Template:Foreign relations of the Republic of Texas (neither created by me). I'm thinking of totally taking out the battles, and only mentioning "Military" that the Republic had an Army, a Navy and the Rangers. Or leaving the military out altogether. As I say...a work in progress. — Maile ( talk) 23:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you have a day in mind for this to run on the Main Page? We have no other articles with an Irish connection for March 17, and Murphy is the most common surname in Ireland. - Dank ( push to talk) 03:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to write the nomination now. You may have to clean it up afterwards, as I've never written a Today's FA before. — Maile ( talk) 13:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, I'm working on a TFA paragraph now. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC}

I just created Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Audie Murphy. — Maile ( talk) 13:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Today, precious again! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Today: Texas Revolution! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for adding the links at the above discussion, although the particular articles are in no way germane to the discussion. The point of the question was to generate comment on the subject as a whole, not on the individual articles. But you can sleep well, knowing you have done your part. John from Idegon ( talk) 19:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I would like to re-nominate Chain Reaction (sculpture) for DYK, but since the old Template:Did you know nominations/Chain Reaction (sculpture) already exists, I'm not sure how to do this. Any ideas as to how to re-nominate? Viriditas ( talk) 05:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I just went ahead and re-nominated it using the same page. The old nom is in the page history. Is there a right way to do this? Viriditas ( talk) 06:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Viriditas, I don't know the procedure myself. But I did put a note on the nomination template about it. Either it will be OK as is, or someone will set it up as it should be. Glad to see this got to GA and is once again nominated for DYK. — Maile ( talk) 13:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Viriditas ( talk) 21:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I just finished reviewing Center for Biofilm Engineering. Since you donated your review to me, can I donate this one to you, to use as you see fit, or to give to someone else? Viriditas ( talk) 23:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought. However, I have a backlog of several hundred unused QPQs of my own, and am currently not submitting candidates to DYK. So, you could either keep that for your future use, or Pay It Forward and donate it to anyone on the DYK nomination page who is needing a QPQ. — Maile ( talk) 12:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have a category for DYK's needing QPQ's for this purpose. Viriditas ( talk) 02:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You're Welcome, but my participation was minuscule compared to yours and others'. Congrats on the FA!-- 66.44.194.238 ( talk) 15:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Heh! I guess I got logged out while I as typing.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. User:Jdanbeck fixed his DYK review of Snezhnika. He's new to Wikipedia and the DYK rules. So, follow-up would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your assistance. TeriEmbrey ( talk) 16:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Answered on the William F. Mullin template. — Maile ( talk) 17:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I was getting the error not validated yet even with the confirmation of validation being sent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aplattsmier ( talk • contribs) 23:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Terrific. Looks good so far. — Maile ( talk) 11:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Aloha. I have an easy question regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Matt Stainbrook. I'm trying to evaluate it for newness but I'm a bit rusty on the rules. It's also a BLP, so I'm not sure if the 2x or 5x expansion applies. The reason I'm asking is because given the date it was submitted, I want to make sure it is still eligible. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 18:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I answered on the template. It qualifies as 5X expansion, because someone else expanded it 10X since April 28. — Maile ( talk) 19:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Viriditas ( talk) 20:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

	Some science equipment for you!
	Thanks for your review of Seeley G. Mudd Chemistry Building! I was surprised but pleased that I didn't need to do any further work on it and I hope the whole process didn't take you too long to complete. Thanks for your time spent reviewing GA candidates and your care in doing so. All the best! BobAmnertiopsis ∴ ChatMe! 01:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Victuallers has asked for a second set of eyes here. If you get a chance, can you take a look? Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 01:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, if you have access to the relevant biographical entry at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) site, that will greatly speed up a review. At the moment, I don't have access (even though I'm authorized). Viriditas ( talk) 01:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Edited some on the article and commented on the nomination template. — Maile ( talk) 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

At your request, I have stepped away from the review for good, however, I would like to point out that the nominator has intentionally avoided, evaded, and distracted from addressing every point I raised. I did not say the article had to be complete, the nominator claimed it was complete. I was not attempting to impose GA criteria, that was something the nominator claimed to avoid addressing major problems with the hook and article. The nominator was given specific information on how to fix the problem and refused to do it. There is simply nothing neutral nor accurate about writing the bio around Poovey when her opinion is theoretical (a thought experiment about feminist literature), selective (assuming she reviewed only 1 of 16 books by the author), and disputed (by her colleagues who published in the same journal, but whom the nominator can't be bothered to cite). In short, Poovey's opinion is neither definitive nor authoritative, yet she is quoted as if she is both in the lead and the body. Viriditas ( talk) 07:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. — Maile ( talk) 12:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me and doing the revert. I was using a computer that had a filter and it distorts words like Hell, Damn and in the case of W. S. Van Dyke's name. The last name 'Dyke'. I remember making the update to the 1943 film Frontier Badmen on Carillo's film page as I just wrote the article. Well any thanks again , sorry for those distortions, they weren't intended. Koplimek ( talk) 23:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

But I'm afraid the laptop I'm using currently has no Javascript, hence despite enabling the enhanced toolbar, I can't see it in the editing box. Thank you though for fixing the few remaining URLs. Regards, -- Merchant of Asia ( talk) 03:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

You asked me a question on my talk page. I copied your question and answered on Template talk:Houston family tree. At the very least could you please provide a URL to the source that you say is used for the tree. -- PBS ( talk) 16:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Funny moment. I was listening to Sirius radio this morning, the Prime Country channel, and the DJ just made a big spiel to get people to watch Texas Rising. Apparently the soundtrack includes music from George Strait, Kris Kristofferson, and others. I'm really glad we got the article up to snuff - apparently the media blitz over this is only going to get bigger. Karanacs ( talk) 14:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Me, too. About a week ago I went through the list of actors on Texas Rising and put Wiki links to historical characters, and sorted them out into sections. I noticed Kris Kristofferson is President Andrew Jackson - Kris is about the right age and roughness of character to pull that off. Whoever set up the article just dropped the names into a big list in no particular order. — Maile ( talk) 14:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The article has been scheduled for the Main Page on May 25! I also got an email from Maggie today that The History Channel is pleased with the article (or at least they didn't come back with a list of things they want changed...probably because by now we've read more than they have ;) ). She asked for a list of editors who helped write and review the article and an estimate of how much time was put in. I estimated a minimum of 270 hours in the last 6 months, but I'm pretty sure it's more than that (and goes into the thousands if we count all the reading done before they officially asked for help). It is likely that our usernames will be mentioned in their publicity push. I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with, and I hope we get some more people interested in editing. Lots more Texas history articles to go, only a few of us interested in writing. Anyway, we officially met our last goal! Karanacs ( talk) 21:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I guessed you put in a minimum of 50 hours on the article (incl research) over the last 6 months. Is that way too low? Karanacs ( talk) 22:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs, your guess is as good as mine on how many hours I spent. I get lost in books and notes, and never think about the time. The irony, is that I never planned to do that much. I felt bad because volunteer offers never materialized into substance, and I didn't want you to quit. That's happened to me also. Well, you have me now. Ask for my help whenever. — Maile ( talk) 22:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

How could it mean the Texian army, which was mentioned 3 sentences previously? - Dank ( push to talk) 12:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, well do whatever you think is most clear. — Maile ( talk) 12:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Dank, you re-added "English speaking settlers". With the article, we worked very hard to correct the omission of Tejano (Mexicans living in Texas) contributions to the revolution. Indirectly, the blurb now omits them again - and on the main page. Is it really necessary to have that phrase in the blurb? — Maile ( talk) 12:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I added "mostly English speaking settlers", which makes explicit that some were not English-speaking. How many readers will think "Texian" is anything other than an old-fashioned spelling of "Texan" if we don't at least give them a clue what it means? - Dank ( push to talk) 13:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I've linked Texian Army, which explains the demographics. Didn't delete what you had, but I'm still asking you to delete that phrase. — Maile ( talk) 13:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Most readers don't click on most links. See WP:Checklist#clarity; that's been in place for a long time and has a lot of support. I haven't seen studies on Main Page readership demographics, but I'm pretty sure most of them won't have any idea what "Texian" means unless we tell them. I'm open to whatever description you think is accurate. - Dank ( push to talk) 13:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What if we amend it to Sam Houston was named commander of the Texian Army, a mix of native settlers and recent immigrants from the United States? Karanacs ( talk) 13:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good to me. — Maile ( talk) 13:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Since we're over the 1250-char limit, I shortened to "US", and otherwise used that verbatim. Are we good? - Dank ( push to talk) 14:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep. — Maile ( talk) 14:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maile. Maggie asked if I'd be interested in putting together a blog post (for the WMF blog) about our Texas Revolution collaboration and how it got me back into editing. I put together a draft here. Would you please take a look at it? Anything else that should be added on our collaboration? Any other points that you think I should make? Karanacs ( talk) 20:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Karanacs. Thought you might find Stephen Moore's new book Texas Rising of interest. I don't know if he's connected to the mini-series or not. But I sure do appreciate the way he does research, and the way he lays out a book. — Maile ( talk) 21:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

That can't be a coincidence! Wouldn't that be even more cool, if Moore was the one reviewing our article? A blessing by one of our own sources :) I need to set my DVR to record the first episode tomorrow and see for sure. As for the correction you made, sorry for being mistaken (I think I've used the improper reference all over), and I really do think it hilarious that women bust the stereotypes and enjoy research on battles. Karanacs ( talk) 22:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Now that summer is almost here and with it the break in activities (oh, blessed calm!), I want to offer an invite - if you happen to be in/around SE Texas and/or the Houston metro area I'd love to treat you for lunch one day. Karanacs ( talk) 22:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the offer. Re the change on your blog draft, I've been letting everyone think whatever they want. Mostly, because human beings really do respond on the web according to their perceptions of such. I'm hoping my "On Demand" TV cable will have it up to view by the next morning. I don't want to stay up as late as that ends on Monday night. The History Channel has been running promos of it at "On Demand". I know the storyline is that Emily West is recruited/volunteers to distract Santa Anna at San Jacinto. They're in a bathtub together. Will be interesting - and extremely graphic on the violence. I'm sure it's not a coincidence regarding Moore, since he has the little History Channel logo on the front of his book. — Maile ( talk) 22:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking we need to add Emily D. West to the to-do list. You know, to make it clear she wasn't at the Alamo, didn't seduce Sam Houston, and wasn't in the center of the Texian Army (and didn't speak with a British accent). Overall, though, I did enjoy episode one. They got a lot of the big themes across correctly. The geography made me laugh so hard I almost fell out of the chair (dear, God, bison on flat plains in Nac and cliffs outside Goliad) and some of the details just made me shake my head, but overall, I was pretty pleased. My husband commented on a few things he thought were wrong (like the court-martial) and was surprised when I told him that they did happen in a pretty similar form. What did you think? Karanacs ( talk) 03:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Haven't seen it yet - hasn't been yet available on On Demand. I think THC is running Ep 1 a few more times before putting it with On Demand. Agree about including Emily West on our to-do list. Will let you know. — Maile ( talk) 12:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now watched it. I guess it's OK, more or less. I have comments/questions about this production:

• Guess you did not see the prequel "Avenging the Alamo". Odd, in a way. It is claimed that "Texas brag" had its start in "Tejano brag". It is stated that Deaf Smith sort of got his skills by osmosis by being married to a Mexican woman. Heavy on how Anglos absorbed Mexican culture, but it never really conveyed the actual Tejano contributions. This hour-long prequel seemed to have no purpose except as an audience grab.
• Juan Seguin is short-changed more than usual. He had raised a Tejano company in Gonzales; as far as I know, never threatened to walk out.
• Moore's book has some details on court martial(s), but I don't remember what.
• We might include Deaf Smith on our clean-up later on down the line. Don't know much about him, but Moore and others don't give him such a prominent place in the story as he has in this series.
• Nice scenic view Houston picked for his camp, atop those high mountain cliffs.
• When Deaf Smith looks through a telescope at the Alamo it's sitting out in the middle of nowhere, flat brown, barren land and nothing else but tents of the Mexican army - no cactus, no San Antonio de Bexar.
• Susanna Dickenson and Emily West are being driven in a wagon by two Mexican soldiers. I thought they were walking. What happened to Joe?
• And they're being attacked by Karankawa?

That's about it. My attention started to wander after about an hour. — Maile ( talk) 15:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The second hour was better. The wagon and the Karankawa attack was pretty much the height of the absurd (although they did at least point that out - that Karankawa wouldn't be that far inland). I would like to do more on Deaf Smith one day. I remember him having a lot of mention in middle school Texas history, and I'm curious to read more about him and see where the balance actually is. Karanacs ( talk) 16:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No one every accused the History Channel of letting itself be confused by facts.-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I will eventually be viewing it again, particularly the last hour. When I start tuning out commercials, eventually I find half an hour has passed and I haven't paid any attention to anything. Which is what kind of happened here. A couple of things I know they really nailed correctly:

• Sam Houston's orders to both Bowie and Fannin.
• Santa Anna's account of his early life service with José Joaquín de Arredondo. I have recently read that somewhere, and it reads almost identically to how he was telling it in the program. His psychology in war is what he learned from Arredondo.

They obviously have put in some research, in spite of playing fast and loose with things like Emily West. I have the feeling Emily knocked out Joe, tossed him over the side, and took his place on the wagon. I am rather hooked enough to see how they do it up to the capture of Santa Anna. They did some of it well. — Maile ( talk) 18:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maile. How would you feel about running for adminship? You've certainly been around long enough and made enough edits. (And I also think you have enough featured articles.) We need more admins with strong content backgrounds, and I think you fit the bill admirably. What do you say? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Um...not something I've thought about. Like, what would I be expected to do as an admin? Do I have to reveal my RL identity to anyone at Wikipedia/Wikimedia? — Maile ( talk) 13:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I'm an admin. I occasionally delete things, protect articles where I see a lot of vandalism is ongoing, block vandals. It also lets me see deleted edits, which is quite useful, albeit rarely. I am not a highly active administrator, but I use the tools enough that I find them useful. I think you'd make an excellent admin - you're level-headed and know policy pretty well. Karanacs ( talk) 13:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, coming from you who have collaborated with me, that's good. — Maile ( talk) 13:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, you wouldn't be expected to use your admin tools for anything. You can use them as little or as much as you like. (However, commenters at RfA usually like to see that you intend to use them at least a little bit.) The odd page protection and vandal block here and there, perhaps fixing up the DYK queues and helping with stuff at WP:ERRORS - that's the kind of thing that pops into my mind. And you could use them to add the watchlist notice that you were talking about at WP:VPT earlier - that's what gave me the idea to ask you about it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you by any chance asking to make the nomination? Don't want to nominate myself. I wouldn't mind having some of the tools, and responsibilities. Not sure if I want some past mis-steps showing up, but I guess that's part of the process. Of course, I used to be afraid of FAC until I went through the process on one. I was reading How to pass an RfA, and while I probably don't have experience on everything wanted, I have participated in DYK, GA, FA, RFC. I've created several hundred non-stub articles and lists on various topics. There must be a tool somewhere to find out what I've done with AFD discussion and CFD noms, because I think I've participated but not enough to remember what they were. My current leaning is to improve existing articles. What do you think? — Maile ( talk) 21:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was offering to nominate you. :) Your AfD stats are here. (I'm not aware of a tool that does the same thing for CfD.) Looking through the discussions you've participated in, though, I'm beginning to think that it might be best for you to get more experience there before running for RfA. I see a number of discussions where you just say "keep", but those kinds of votes tend to be discounted, and people commenting at RfA would definitely pick up on that. You might still be able to pass given your stellar track record in creating content, but if you ran now an RfA would probably be quite a stressful experience. Sorry for the false alarm, and I do think you would make an excellent admin when you have a bit more experience in administrative areas like AfD. If you would ever like a nomination in the future, please let me know. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, we'll table the adminship nomination for the time being. Thanks for the advice on where I need more experience. — Maile ( talk) 12:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Pls email me on gbusonuwaje@gmail.com so I can learn more about wikipeda.. asap.. cheers Onuwajebemi ( talk) 21:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please contact Wikipedia:Teahouse. They are there to help newcomers. — Maile ( talk) 21:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maile, you're mentioned quite a few times in this Wikimedia blog post that will soon be published: m:Wikimedia Blog/Drafts/Texas Revolution. Can you look it over fast and beat me over the head if I made any mistakes? Thank you! Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 07:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ed Erhart (WMF), the only thing I would suggest is that Karanacs is not the only native Texan here. So am I, by the way. That's why I'm in this. — Maile ( talk) 12:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I made the change on the draft. Also added that I've been editing Texas articles since 2006, not "only a couple of months ago". Thanks. — Maile ( talk) 14:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I did a little more copyediting to try to stress the collaboration a bit more. Karanacs ( talk) 14:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. You probably don't remember this, but about 2010 I started getting more involved in editing Texas articles. And I hadn't a clue about much of the process required. You and MCorazao were two editors who actually tried to help, rather than eat me alive. Too bad he left. But I haven't forgotten anyone who offered constructive help rather than knee-jerk deletions. — Maile ( talk) 14:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I remember :) I was always thrilled to find new editors wanting to work in the topic. The post I wrote wasn't quite what they were looking for, so Ed started over, asking me questions and then writing this post from that plus his own knowledge/research. I didn't actually read any of the post until this morning. I suspect there may have been some confusion because you didn't work on Texas Revolution articles until more recently. Karanacs ( talk) 15:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Prior to the Runaway Scrape, my writing about Texas had been mostly people, places, museums, protected areas, NRHP, etc. I think the closest I came to writing about the revolution were the people, and one extensive attempt to clean-up and improve Davy Crockett. — Maile ( talk) 15:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies—I didn't want to assume. "A couple months" came from a post you made on WT:MILHIST... I interpreted it wrongly. I'm now very glad I asked you to check this. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 18:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs and Ed Erhart (WMF), I just made an important correction on a key detail. It said Texians lost every battle before San Jacinto. In reality, Texians won every battle until they got slaughtered at the Alamo. — Maile ( talk) 19:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not quite - they lost both San Patricio and Agua Dulce before the Alamo. Karanacs ( talk) 20:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, I was writing that off the top of my head and forgot to come back to it. How does it look now? "... it is the tale of a hurriedly assembled rebel army who separated themselves from Mexico in large part thanks to the crucial Battle of San Jacinto, where they captured the Mexican president. They used this advantage to force an end to the conflict." Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 20:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That works. Karanacs ( talk) 20:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Karanacs: Hopefully last question. Alex Stinson ( Sadads) asked me to expand on the historiographical point. Does this sound good/is everything correct? "They had to decide how much weight each view should receive, similar to when an academic historian evaluates a topic's place in historiography. This differs from primary source research in that it evaluates historical narratives that have emerged from the event. Using the Texas Revolution as an example, historians disagree on the importance of the Battle of the Alamo—whether it was a band of valiant individuals who sacrificed their lives to bring freedom to Texas, or whether it was an unnecessary battle that could have been avoided. Time often plays a significant role in this concept: here, the revolution's traditional narrative, upheld by many of the television and film productions of the last fifty years, has since been been superseded. Still others fit into neither category and hinged on little-used so-called fringe theories. After their initial assessments, Karanacs and Maile identified areas that required more research and each returned to the library." Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 20:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You should go with whatever Karanacs says about this. However, an important point is that we took into account that Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. We, therefore, went to extra lengths to strike a balance from Mexico's perspective of the revolution and the Texian perspective. It is perhaps only heroic from the United States perspective. We had feedback on the talk page that Mexico still believes we stole Texas from Mexico, so we tried to be fair in our narrative. — Maile ( talk) 21:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ed Erhart (WMF), a better example might be looking at the contributions of the Tejanos, or native-born Texians. (This is something Maile and I discussed a lot.) For about 150 years, US historians portrayed the Texian Army as being almost entirely Anglo (white, primarily from the US), and as having the support of ALL citizens of Texas. [NB - this is what I was taught in school.] With a handful of exceptions, Tejanos (native-born Texans) were completely ignored. In the last three decades, research has changed this narrative. Historians now accept that a significant number of white Texans supported the Mexican government, and that many Tejanos fought with or otherwise supported the Texian cause. I like your last three sentences, so I hope you can rewrite this to go with that. Karanacs ( talk) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC) ( edit conflict) with Maile - she's right too.

Yes, indeed. By the way, Tejanos are native-born Texans of Mexican ancestry. Spanish surnamed people. Somehow, their contributions got tossed out of the history books, so Karanacs and I put them back in. — Maile ( talk) 21:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Great thought on heroic; I've removed the word. I've rewritten and split that paragraph to use the new example. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 21:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Like — Maile ( talk) 21:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed, it looks good :) Karanacs ( talk) 21:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@ Karanacs: (and Maile, of course) Thanks for working with me! It's now published, and we're going to send out social media messages for it tomorrow. Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 02:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed! I posted a link on my FB page with a note inviting friends to edit WP, and I think we might have recruited a new editor :) Karanacs ( talk) 02:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

(back to my volunteer account now) That's awesome! The major reason I joined the WMF was to build bridges between them and the community, but a big secondary goal has been to send these sorts of stories to the world—I don't think many people realize how much work goes into writing articles. Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 04:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks The ed17. Looks terrific. Well done. — Maile ( talk) 12:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Maile+@ Karanacs:, so you aren't surprised, this will also be in the Signpost this week. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) ( talk) 06:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. One thing this has done, is that I've noticed more gnome editors making constructive corrections to the supporting articles. — Maile ( talk) 12:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't suppose you would have any interest in acting as surrogate over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Agua Dulce/archive1? Karanacs hasn't been around for quite a while. I corresponded with her and she indicated that she can't return right now, but that you know the sources well enough to guide the nomination. If you don't have room for it on your plate, no big deal—I'll just archive it and Karanacs can renominate it when she's ready. -- Laser brain (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Taken care of. — Maile ( talk) 17:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello Maile66. I seem to be stepping into things and causing friction regarding the DYK that you commented on. I am sorry that the discussion took the turn that it did and I wanted to apologize for any part that I played in causing that to happen. I appreciate your efforts there and elsewhere on WikiP. I just saw your "Little bit of heaven" pic and it thought it a real beauty. Best regards. MarnetteD| Talk 17:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• @ MarnetteD:, please don't worry about it another moment. We Wikipedians are so human. Thanks for posting here. — Maile ( talk) 17:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply M. I hope that you have an enjoyable weekend! MarnetteD| Talk 17:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I got busy. Kept forgetting about it. I'll start the review today or tonight while I work my desk job. School got in the way and everytime I got on here something caught my focus. I'll set everything up for the review.-- Will C 15:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I see that. Thanks. — Maile ( talk) 15:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey again Maile! Wauw, that was quite a long list of problems with the article in the failed GA-review. I was sad to see all those issues; I wasn't counting on that at all when I nominated it. Actually, I was pretty confident it would be a quick pass given all the effort and time I had devoted to it. Anyways, I finally got the time to work on the article again and I'm pleased to inform you I have fixed ALL the problems outlined in your very thorough review, as the articles edit history will show. :) Because of this, I've re-nominated the article for GA-status and was sincerely hoping you would review the article again. Since you made it clear what was wrong with the article in your first review, the second should pretty much be a walkover. Would you mind? Let me know. Peace! Jonas Vinther • ( Click here to collect your price!) 22:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Per Reviewing good articles, a different reviewer is needed for a re-nomination. — Maile ( talk) 23:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for your input at the DYK! If you want to, please take a look at my article noms at TAFI. Some of them needs one more input to reach it three needed reviews. Just would appreciate it. Cheers.-- BabbaQ ( talk) 21:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Duncan Renaldo filmography appears to be missing Renaldo's extensive co-starring role in " King of the Texas Rangers", a 1941 Republic serial. I don't feel qualified to add this, but seeing as you were the major author/contributor to this article, I respectfully pass this on. Joalkap ( talk) 01:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Added. Thanks. I was unaware of this film. — Maile ( talk) 12:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed  ^{[talk]  [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class Medal for your great work on Audie Murphy, Audie Murphy honors and awards, and Runaway Scrape. A small token of appreciation, please continue the work! Cheers, MisterBee1966 ( talk) 05:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If you really feel it's necessary, you can unclose it, I add the comment, and then you reclose it. I think including the comment below the closed section is the least fussy alternative. —  LlywelynII 23:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. This hook was approved on September 9. It is now September 29. I would greatly appreciate it being promoted and prepped in order to appear at your earliest convenience. Many thanks.  —  Calvin999 20:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You could post this message at WT:DYK if you like. I passed one also on that date that has not been promoted, and another one even earlier than that. There are others older. — Maile ( talk) 20:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I only asked because you promoted one of my far more recent nominations.  —  Calvin999 20:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I can try to help, but I'm not sure how good I am at remote assistance. What's the specific editing action you're trying to take, beyond checking the ISBNs? -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll get back to you, if need be. I'm going to see if I can get some feedback from someone I know specifically used AWB on ISBNs. — Maile ( talk) 13:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be best, honestly - I don't think I ever have. Sorry I can't be of more help. :-( -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the Wikistripe for your contribution of 2 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 10:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{ WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maile66, I came across Template:Did you know nominations/Country Joe and the Fish today and noticed its replacement hooks were posted over two weeks ago. If you aren't interested in continuing your review, I would be happy to take it over. Let me know. Thanks for your contributions, and happy editing. — GrammarFascist _contribs ^talk 02:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Answered on the template, but you are welcome to do a review of the nomination. I wasn't reviewing it, just commenting. — Maile ( talk) 12:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maile66: Please ignore the irrelevant comments on my talk page from another user who seems to have an attitude problem. I would like to know who is requesting these links in a review, because that request is not consistent with the guidelines for citations; for example, the guidelines at Template:Citation#Publisher say:

publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant.

— (my italics)

The point being that wikilinking the publisher should only be done in exceptional cases where it is of special relevance, not routinely; the purpose of a citation is to allow the reader to locate the text that's being referenced; a publisher wikilink does not help with that. If a reviewer thinks routinely linking the publisher is required or desirable, they're wrong, and we need to have a discussion about it. Colonies Chris ( talk) 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@ The Rambling Man: has expressed my own opinion on the subject matter. I have literally participated in hundreds and hundreds of reviews on all levels, often crossing paths with The Rambling Man. I am not going to waste my time sorting through those reviews to help you target individual editors. What you cite as the "guideline" to justify your edits does not hold up. "if relevant" is left up to the individual editor and does not say "if relevant to user Colonies Chris" If you would like the guidelines to very specifically express your opinion, then please open a discussion on the talk page of the guidelines you quote. — Maile ( talk) 14:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me who has the attitude problem. It's Chris' way or the highway, no common sense applies. Really sad. The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that template instructions are, well, instructive, but not prescriptive. It's absolutely incorrect for Colonies Chris to attempt to mandate some kind of style guide, or some kind of policy or guideline, where it doesn't exist. That's a really poor attitude, and doesn't help our readers get the most out of Wikipedia. It's very odd because normally Chris' work is helpful. I suggest you continue to do what you're doing Maile66 and make Wikipedia a better place for it. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful advice. — Maile ( talk) 21:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Chris' way or the highway"? Really, what ludicrously overblown language - it's a disagreement, not High Noon. Do calm down the rhetoric. Yes, of course, any interpretation of "if relevant" will be subjective. But the phrasing of that guideline makes clear that not linking publisher is to be the norm, and that linking it should be the exception, only where it has special relevance. It's for the person proposing the link to justify it, not the other way round. I may (or may not) disagree with any reason given to link the publisher, but it's the linker's responsibility to provide a reason and have that discussion. That's not happening here. No reviewer should be imposing a general requirement to link publisher as a condition of granting FA/GA status - the guidelines don't require it and common sense doesn't require it; it's not useful. We don't just make links because we can - we use intelligent linking, where we think that (a) a reader is reasonably likely to want to click the link and (b) there's a reasonable likelihood that they'll find out something useful if they do. And these links, within citations, to articles about large generalist publishers, don't meet either of those criteria. An editor looking to locate a reference has no motivation to click the link, and would discover nothing useful if they did. Colonies Chris ( talk) 12:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, take this discussion to the talk page of the template you have cited. Individual editors are not answerable to you for every link they make across Wikipedia, or for anything else they do. Editors do NOT have to justify every edit they make, just to make sure someone else among the millions of Wikipedia editors, might have a different view. End this discussion on my talk page right now. Take it to the talk page of the template. Stay off my talk page with this, please. — Maile ( talk) 13:46, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your WP:GA Review of The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise.

Most appreciated !!!

— Cirt ( talk) 00:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It was my pleasure. — Maile ( talk) 12:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Maile, thank you for mentioning N14. I was pretty sure I'd seen somewhere back when I was starting that prep set builders were supposed to recheck the nominations they were about to promote to be sure everything was okay with them, but never was able to find it again. Good to know it's out there in black and white. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. It's there... — Maile ( talk) 21:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Maile, when you first responded to this review, what you responded to read very differently from what it does now; the original text was expanded and revised extensively the following week, though the sig date was not changed.

It's entirely up to you, but if you'd like me to restore the original review—I'd retain the current version and move it to where it would go chronologically. If, on the other hand, you're sick of the whole matter and don't much care—the history will always be there should someone wonder—I'm happy to leave it as is. Please let me know your wishes in this matter. Thanks, and sorry to bother you. BlueMoonset ( talk) 04:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@ BlueMoonset: First, let me set the record straight here. Anything you post here, or anywhere else, is not a bother to me personally. I've been meaning to tell you this, but I have long considered you an editor par excellence here at Wikipedia. You've always had good instincts and understanding of the structure of Wikipedia, and what works within that structure to make an article better. I'm not exactly sure what you're saying about this review, so I'd say I want you to do whatever you believe to be the best for Wikipedia. I know you'll do the right thing, because you always do. I have taken all the DYK pages off my watchlist, and removed "Mentions" from my notifications options. Rise above and move forward to make Wikipedia better. If you or any of the old regular DYK editors want me, post here. — Maile ( talk) 12:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Maile, I hope I'm misunderstanding you, because it reads as if you've left DYK, and I hope that's not true. On the other hand, I wouldn't wish the current DYK environment on anyone, much less valued colleagues, and I rather doubt I can stand up to the stress myself over the long haul. Best of luck in your future Wikipedia endeavors and those outside Wikipedia, wherever they take you. Thank you for the kind words, and for all that you've done for DYK. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@ BlueMoonset: Your talk page is being trolled, and so is mine. That aside, you misunderstood. I currently choose not to utilize my time bothering with a situation manipulated solely for the attention it generates. When DYK goes through periods of emotionally needy disruptiveness, DYK drops off my watchlist until it passes, however long that takes. This is not the first time. When I look back at what the project, and you and I, have survived, what's going on now is just kind of pitiful in its way. This too shall pass, and the good DYK editors will come back. Until then, I'm around. — Maile ( talk) 00:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you see where Garlin Murl Conner's MOH action is active again?-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That's amazing. When it comes to MoH for anyone, I don't think there should be "you waited too long to file" for anyone. — Maile ( talk) 23:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions and even better the colloboration (you are credited at DYK) You added useful stuff including a bit "and they served in the Springfield Portuguese Presbysterian Church 1853–1854 in Springfield, Illinois" which I have found some extra detail background about (and a pic). However I don't have access to the source for that key fact (the ODNB says they "visited") and it interferes with them being in Britain in the winter of 53. Could you help sort it out? Victuallers ( talk) 13:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@ Victuallers:, I had a typo on the date. But I also added other information. Did I catch everything, or is there something else you need on this? — Maile ( talk) 14:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you capped your comments, but you didn't say if you support or not. Could you please do that? Sorry for bothering you. GagaNutella ^talk 23:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Nice list on the Alamo defenders. Just wanted to give you a heads up that ref 177 lacks a year for Groneman, which means that readers can't tell if it refers to the 1990 or the 2001 book. P. S. Burton ( talk) 23:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I've taken care of it. — Maile ( talk) 23:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Brief comment - you mention "selected hook" in your last post. Which one did you mean? I also see what you mean about lumping her in her husband ... but I think that is what has happened (but not in Brazil!) .... here I am am lumping him in with her which I agree is only a change in emphasis. Thanks for your help. This one seems to be slow to get agreement on Victuallers ( talk) 13:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I see that Sarah Kalley is stuck at DYK and the current atmosphere is poor. i'm thinking of just withdrawing it and a few others as I'm tired of seeing hooks stuck for silly reasons today. What d'y'think? Victuallers ( talk) 23:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@ Victuallers: I feel your pain. And you've been busy. I just counted 8 (as yet) unapproved DYK nominated by you, and 2 passed DYK waiting to be promoted. Don't know how many people at DYK are in the U.S. A., but we just got past Thanksgiving week, during which people would rather eat and watch football than do anything else. Still, I will respect your decision, whatever it is. However, do yourself a favor and run this past WT:Women in Red before you throw in the final towel on any of it. Might help, and can't hurt. I reached total WP burn-out a week ago, but was leaking initiative before then. Not solely because of DYK, but DYK has been going through a period of less-than-genius-level junk and other childish things. I've been spending my time blissfully reading through my new Questia access, and it's like a whole new world of research opened up. Personally, I think you are one of the DYK stalwarts who has kept DYK alive in a positive way. I have long admired your efforts and dedication to contributing over there. The continuous DYK contributions you have made over the years during periods relating to women has been inspiring. — Maile ( talk) 00:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Maile66,

Thanks again for your tip on the Harvard-style citations script. I was just able to use it to fix one broken citation in a featured article, Mantra-Rock Dance. Without the script, I probably never would have noticed the error. Thanks so much, and happy editing!

Michael Barera ( talk) 18:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good. Happy editing. — Maile ( talk) 18:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Supporting and opposing. In the event that I get an opposition to my nomination, If I agree with some but disagree with other improvements/suggestions or oppositions of a reviewer and I feel that in principle the suggestions or concerns being made are not fully legitimate problems, I am only required to state that, correct? -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 06:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically, can I disrespect the opinion of a reviewing editor if I believe I have legitimate reasons to?-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 06:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@ KAVEBEAR: Yes, but you probably ought to be able to give a solid statement on why. How FA works, is that it is, in theory, a consensus of Supports that pass it. But the FAC coordinators look at any unresolved issues. So, if you had 10 people who gave you a Support, but one who continued to argue that one or more issues had not been resolved, your nomination could stay out there for a couple of months. Depending on how the coordinator(s) sees it, the Oppose argument could sink the nomination. Because your FAC of the moment falls under the WikiProject Military History, I would encourage you to post on WT: Military history and ask for some guidance. — Maile ( talk) 13:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
A very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and all your loved ones, and a joyous and prosperous 2016. All the very best from your friends: Cliftonian, Mrs Cliftonian and the two little Cliftonians. —   Cliftonian  (talk)  20:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wow, thanks. And may your own holidays be joyful! — Maile ( talk) 20:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Maile: Wishing you and yours a warm and wonderful holiday season! I value your contributions to Wikipedia, and look forward to seeing more of them in 2016. Best, Yoninah ( talk) 21:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this. And likewise, I certainly value your contributions. I always look forward to crossing paths with you on one thing or another. It's always a pleasant experience. — Maile ( talk) 00:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I finally got around to watching both series of the TV show. I quite enjoyed it. I loved the authentic looking sets and costumes. The fictional characters were fun, although I would have preferred the real people. The physics was a bit of a mess, and the show may still leave people with the idea that the Manhattan Project was all about physics. But I liked it, and had fun answering the family's questions about the Manhattan Project. I hope that other people will turn to the Wikipedia for further information. Like Hawkeye7 ( talk) 22:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@ Hawkeye7: I'm so glad you liked it. I hope they come back with a 3rd season, because they ended with that enormous hook at the end of Season 2. I've come away with this thinking Robert Oppenheimer must have been a little odd, assuming the TV show got that right. They could say anything about physics, and I wouldn't know if it was right or wrong. I sure am hooked on that show. — Maile ( talk) 22:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no news about another series. It would be fun watching Helen lead the raid on Hiroshima. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 02:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)