User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch38

Archive

That's got awfully confusing for a moment - she posted just as I was archiving the old material - but at the top.. no problem.. move it and carry on.. oh wait.. it's there again.. oh it's a duplicate... no problem.. no wait.. there is it again... how on.. what was I doing? I *think* we got there in the end but i'm checking. --Allemandtando (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine now. She said she had cognitive difficulties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Thank you!!!

That is what I was looking for. JohnRussell (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC urgents

I had previously said I would try updating the FAC urgents list (User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch37#FAC urgents) but I don't think it is working out. The scheduling and listing choices are not compatible with mine. If the list is going to mirror the bottom 7-10 articles at FAC, then a bot could help you. Alternatively, you could reduce the scope of the list to only 2-3 FACs so that you don't have to update every time you pr/ar. --maclean 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll be interested in keeping it up; with the summer slowdown, those dragging at the bottom are troubling, but the urgents list will be quite different when things pick up in the fall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

		Thank you!
		SandyGeorgia, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And a special thank you to you, Sandy, a wodnerful person whom I consider a true friend and my mentor. --Happyme22 (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

File:HersheysDark.jpg		Yum...
		Thanks for everything. I'll be seeing you around! Happyme22 (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Late vote for Happyme22

Hi there, just wanted to let you know I have addressed that userpage issue. I will be watching that account very closely. Thanks for the edit summary warning. Risker (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd left a note for Karanacs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Shape of Things to Come (Lost)

I see you have yet to raise this issue with the nominator, on the article talk page, or at either of the places recommended above by Elcobbola, so I'm moving this topic to the talk page, where it belongs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

citation template mess

TS manual citation: a very good idea. I feel like discouraging the use of any citation template. Heck, it looks like more work than manual entries, and is an invitation for screw-ups that no one but our unlogged-in, long-suffering readers have to see. So, is there hope that David R might get it sorted, coordinate them, allow non-lemon citations, any time soon? Should we discourage usage? I guess we have to have a plethora of them ... hmmmph. Do we, in fact, encourage the use of these templates at FAC? Tony (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITE is the relevant guideline ("Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus"), most editors would consider manual citation a chore (for example, Diberri's script automatically generates cite journal templates on bio/med articles). David Ruben's work is at Template talk:Cite web#Edit requested dates: optional links and style, Gary King is following. There is inconsistency within the WP:CITET family and with the {{citation}} template; been that way for as long as I've been around, doubt anyone will fix it, since different disciplines have different ways of citing, and they each defend their turf. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, eliminating citation templates just to deal with inconsistent dates would probably be barking up the wrong tree; many editors find them useful, and most editors aren't able to manually format citations with the consistency I did at TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about the rest yet, but {{Cite news}} is inconsistent in itself: while the article's date may be in any format, and unlinked (although the documentation page encourages linking full dates), the retrieval date must be in year-month-day format and is linked automatically. Two questions: would it be much if we left the retrieval dates in this format and be consistent in all others? And if not, would it be that hard to change this in the template? Waltham, The Duke of 16:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who "we" is, but as we say in Spanish, nosotros es mucha gente. Solving the long-standing issue with, within and across the citation templates is Somebody Else's Problem. I've never seen anyone make any progress on it; maybe no one has taken enough interest to put up a page summarizing all the problems and proposing a global solution. I do know that whatever has been proposed in the past, someone has opposed, because different groups are tied to different citation methods and formats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to quickly jump in on Walham's last question, access date needs to be accurate down to the day because well, if you don't know what the day that you access it on is (typically the same day you enter the reference), then there's a problem :) As for the date field, websites and newspapers sometimes only publish once a month, so sometimes they may put something like "January 2008" without a day; the date field is flexible enough to accept these types of dates. Both {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} is like that which I think is acceptable. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr King. The logic behind the system is sound, but it is its application that creates problems. I now wonder... Would it be too much to ask them (the epitome of vagueness) to replace the automatic linking and obligatory recognition of the xxxx-xx-xx format with a system recognising the basic date formats and showing an error message if a date were incomplete? It would require some programming effort, and the result would be to sacrifice some uniformity between all citations, but that would enable people to apply true uniformity in articles. Instead of all immigrants maintaining their native customs, in other words, they would succumb to those of their host country—this is the kind of consistency we seek in Wikipedia: organised on the most basic unit of information, the article.

PS: It might be a good idea to have the template only accept the same format for both dates, irrespective, of course, of the main date's completeness. That should make up for the loss of the other type of consistency. Waltham, The Duke of 23:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC header stuff

Do you want us to just add that stuff in before we transclude? If you give me a template or whatnot I'll try and save you the extra step. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad someone noticed :-) I do all of the bookkeeping/accounting/admin/grunt stuff on every FAC myself. The old FACs (with previous FACs) don't have the advantage of the pre-load; whenever one comes up, they need to have the tools and the nominator line added, just as I did there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, so I only need to add the nominator line if the page already existed (old, failed nomination or whatnot that's been archived)? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the deal :-) The rest are dealt with now on the pre-load (see your interview of Rick Block ... he needs the nominator line for his bot to run more smoothly). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, If we went to the other system, every FAC would be a new page and use the preload. Gimmetrow 16:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We are going to the other system, as you find the time to do the work, right? No hurry? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yay other system. Sounds good. Gary King (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Nighty nite FAC

Let's put soft flannel blankets all over the floor of FAC, with lots of cuddly stuffed animals (a few live bunnies in there with some tired kittens, too), play some Enya, serve Sleepytime Tea, set the temperature at 71 degrees and nap until October. I don't think anything else is going to get done before then.

Or we could pay a "Sacrifice editor" to oppose every single FAC on account it doesn't have enough images of naked cavorting animals to wake it up a bit. A Sineater editor. --Moni3 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

But, but .. the edit summary !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

New sections do not allow edits summaries, the bastards. --Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have a chance to get back to this last night, Moni; somewhere in there was a youtube I didn't find time to view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Esta aqui. No sound. Just as random as I like 'em. --Moni3 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good gosh, if I had viewed that last night, my brain would have exploded with "who's on first" overload. I've got a family member determined to drag me through four years' worth of Lost episodes, even though "I Don't Do TV", and he doesn't know that I cheat: I can only figure out Who's on First by reading ahead on Wiki :-) So while we're watching, I'm reading Wiki LOL !! I could not have digested that youtube in the middle of three Lost episodes :-) I'm still not sure I can figure out what's going on on Lost; sounds like I'm in good company with Diddy and Dork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Moni, some nice person gave me cake this afternoon, and the corresponding sugar rush woke me from my nice FAC nap :( You now have comments. :) Karanacs (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cake. I like to take naps in cake. Cake from Publix, especially. I'm off to get all fussed over my comments now. --Moni3 (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Uggggggghhhhhh!

Three errors. A massive strikeout with the bases loaded (on a huge curve). I'm in tears. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you were going to show your face 'round these parts today :-) I had all kinds of great lines prepared for you, but then I remembered The Fat Lady. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was in mourning this morning. I'm getting tired of the American League. That Fat Lady is annoying sometimes (depending on your POV). I bet the Fat Lady was warming up, if not actually singing the lines during the bottom of the ninth inning Boston down 4-3 in the game, 3-0 in the series. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

You really should come over to the Big Leagues; behind-the-plate tickets for the Los Angeles Angels are always available at a very reasonable price. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A true Angeleno has no love for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Santa Ana, California, Laguna Beach, and Costa Mesa, California. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

People in Orange County disagree, but perhaps they aren't true Angelenos :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about what exists below the OC Wall. I hear there are robots running about. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Peterloo

Helllllllp. Malleus has given up on the nomination for the main page and I was pipped at the post by the atlantic hurricane article but it has no points score given. Does that mean i can replace it? - and how many points do we have for Peterloo anyway as I've not nominated before. Is it two or three? Richerman (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, you need to spell them out for me. Date connection? Has Malleus been on mainpage? etc. You can probably replace the hurricane, since it didn't tally points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be three. I haven't been on main page, and I don't think any other of the main contributors have either. It's the anniversary of an important historical event, described as one of the defining moments of its age, so I make that three points? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Noble gas at WP:TFAR

I don't visit WP:TFAR too often and have never nominated an article there. I'd really like to see Noble gas hit the main page, though, and it's definitely an under-represented category. The date connection is 140 years to the day this August 18 that the first noble gas was discovered. Could you take a look at that? By the looks of things, William IV of the United Kingdom is next in line to be replaced? Gary King (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

arrrgh, this is Not My Job :-) Gary, go to the talk page there, calculate your points, and add them to the template and as a talk page entry to see if there is agreement. I can't calculate the points for you; I don't know all the factors. It's not clear at this point who is next to be replaced because there is some stretching of the point system going on. Take it to the talk page there, and calculate your points. And, you'll still likely have another shot to get in, next time Raul schedules, so don't worry; the 18th is far enough out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Drrrring

You got mail. --Dweller (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The answer will never change :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What if I ask veeeeeery nicely? --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking nicely won't change my answer, but I will keep the flowers :-))

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What's that, marriage or RfA? Is there really a difference? --Moni3 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Marriage allows for the option of divorce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen RfA allows for the option of indefinite blocking. At least in divorce you get to keep your articles. --Moni3 (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So, whatcha waitin' for, Moni? Ready for the trial by fire? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Going with my marriage motif here (which I actually thought you meant initially), I think I'll languish in perpetual bachelorhood adding notches to my bedpost (FAs). I'm watching Karanacs closely, as her role is the closest to mine as an editor. No pressure or anything Karanacs, but if your time is spent trying to mediate between 5th graders all the time and you're no longer able to contribute in the manner you wish, I think I'll keep doing what I'm doing. --Moni3 (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll take the credit for your "saved by the bell" moment ... pass the chocolate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a big ol' basket of cacao beans just for SandyGeorgia.

Oh boy, now I have to be a role model? They may take my tools away for saying it, but I believe 5th graders, no matter how well-intentioned, should probably be supervised by their parents and not WP admins (and I mean that as an admin, as a parent, and as an editor). I am no fan of huge drama, so I avoid ANI and AfD. Speedy deletion is kind of fun, but if it interferes too much with my Texas Revolution obsession than I'm going to pretend I'm not an admin anymore. Karanacs (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, please go do some role-modeling of adult behavior at WP:TFA/R. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't made a huge difference to what I do either really. See this one for a parallel calm, quiet acheiver at RfA, and my only nominee thus far. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Role model or guinea pig? I made the comparison to 5th graders because when I taught, inevitably one would have a total lunar freakout when a pencil went missing, and everyone and their mothers were accused of being thieves, then no apologies when it was found underneath a shoe or a bookbag. I only got away with saying "Spaz" under my breath once. (Count to five don't say words count to five no words breathe). A couple months ago I laughed so hard I cried at a story a college intern told me: she was visiting a classroom when a student started to choke seriously, turning purple and all. A classmate saw him, and said, about as bored as could be and still make a sound: "Hey. He's choking." You know if the pencil was gone that kid would have been screaming from the rafters. Look at the children, just like Jean Piaget. --Moni3 (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Here. Have the whole basket of beans. Go nuts. Or make chocolate and put nuts in it. Next time I think I get tempted to read 100 supports of all the wonderful things I do here, I'll run a poll on my talk page instead. --Moni3 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Flowers and chocolate in the same day ... life is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Limerick

I asked User:DrKiernan this question but he has yet to reply, so I pose it to you as I know your interest in FAs/FARs. I have gone through the History of Limerick, now on FAR, and there seems to be quite a bit of general Irish history thrown in that overshadows or overwhelms the Limerick story, where there is one, but maybe some of the general history should be trimmed out. The Irish Famine section seems to be more about the Cromwellian and Georgian period with only 3 sentences about the famine itself; perhaps a rename is in order there. I am slowly working on finding references and will also try to expand the earlier period per DrKiernan's comments, but any other advise, especially on the above points, would be appreciated. It is so much more difficult to reference other peoples work at a later time than ones own as it is being written! BTW, any advise on the citations. I much prefer to use the templates but this has been done manually for the references (really Sources), so I have continued it for the books but used template for the inline where it is only being used once or twice and is not in the listing, otherwise I use the "Author name (year), page" format. (I post in one place to keep a discussion together, so am watching this page for a while). TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Ceoil (talk · contribs) involved ? I haven't had much time to glance at FAR lately. I'd consult with Ceoil on article structure. On citation format, according to WP:CITE, you shouldn't change methods without consensus; I don't know if any of the original authors are involved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A pity you are busy. Ceoil has indicated he will get a book out of the library that I can't get, but I don't know when. There were no inline web cites before I started so I did not change the style. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I will catch up there as soon as I can, but getting Ceoil involved will help ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Question.

Hi, I am a member of WP:PW, and I, along with other users, have been constantly trying to get a PPV article into FA status, but every time an article is there, the reviewers will say that we need to have who wrote the storylines and who were the script writers. I am referring to you because you commented on the FAC of SummerSlam (2007). Now, script writers and who wrote storylines, is never revealed by WWE or any other reliable source. So I ask you is this necessary? Another thing is the jargon that many of our articles contain, so an example, "The feud escalated into a No disqualification match." (that would be jargon), would this be any better and clearer, "The staged rivalry escalated into a match where neither competitor could be disqualified for malicious actions."? (If possible may you reply on my talk page, but if not, I will keep this page on watch). Thanks for your help. Cheers, --S_RX 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed a few wrestling FACs and been one of the people who has complained about jargon (I don't follow wrestling). The second sentence sounds much better than the first, to my initiated eye. Karanacs (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Caesar cipher looks OK to me.

I notice a whack from the list arrived on FAR a week ago, which is good to keep it moving. Coincidence or are some of the regular nominators consulting the list? Marskell (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question? Someone moved a bunch of them from No citations to Few citations; is that what you mean? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant that six from the list arrived on FAR in six days—the number from the list suddenly swung up after tracking down for so long. I was wondering if people were deliberately taking noms from the list as I had suggested on FAR talk. (And now we have The Cantos, which hopefully won't get ugly...) Marskell (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see; not sure. By the way, I'll get through some FARs today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just closed two. If you're happy with Helium it can go as well. Soon FAR will be below twenty for the first time since we started the modern process more than two years ago. Marskell (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I promise to look at Helium tonight; can't do it now. I would nominate more off of the list if the one I already nominated would move through faster :-) There are four in FAR that have been up for two weeks, and I don't see improvement on the Bay Bridge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I predict that the Cantos will get ugly. Also, Sandy is stalking us Tim. ;-) Joelito (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I stalk all my favorite editors, and some others as well :-) Re Cantos, "Does a bear sh ..." oh, never mind :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC

There, I believe I am caught up on replies and striking issues. Blech. Been a busy couple of weeks here! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So you want me to cap more? I've been trying to set a good example... Also been trying to leave in my edit summary when I consider it "done" Ealdgyth - Talk 23:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Second crusade

i've tagged for clean-up. regarding the first link to the portal in a template campaign box: i couldn't see the mos on portal placement, i'm guessing these are just meant to be at the end of articles. kind regards Tom (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania and gossip

Having been to a Wikimania myself, yes, a lot of gossip gets traded around. With that said, I don't know if what he says is true or not. Raul654 (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Lovely. No wonder I avoid those events like the plague. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Scroll box for Johnson

OK. You got your reasons I'm sure. I thought scroll boxes made an article easier to handle. The idea is in your mind now so if you like it later you can always put one in. For myself I haven't worked on the article and do not plan to, so I have nothing else to contribute. It is a nice article. Best wishes. Bye now.Dave (talk) 01:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, for your help

Thanks for the nowrap help on Forksville Covered Bridge and for asking Tony's help as well (I asked him too as I did not realize the duplication from the TOC). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Forksville

Please see User_talk:Ruhrfisch#bridge. Tony (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC) PS Now I'm unsure about the hyphens I added to arch-thingy. Tony (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think no hyphen in AmEng when it's just a noun. The more important thing was to get the structure of the paragraphing right and to move that information up into the lead. But let's see if Ruhrfisch likes it; he should revert if he doesn't. Tony (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

	<font=3> Thanks again for your contributions and comments - Forksville Covered Bridge made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

William IV

Sandy: I'm not seeking to negotiate, but if I withdrew William and were to try again with him for September 8, would that mean that you would not oppose on the grounds of proximity to other King articles (you could of course oppose on other grounds, if you saw fit)? Sept 8 being the anniversary of his Coronation. It would also help if I knew that it would fall outside the time period for the deduction of a point. As it stands, it is exactly two months after Edward VIII, but of course that is 62 days, the longest possible two month period.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

First, we need to nail down that a month=30 days, or it's going to become an issue sometime (on that page, anything that can become an issue eventually does). The only reason I'm opposing now is that we had a King in June and in July and we have other articles that want in; September makes more sense. I'm not encouraging you to withdraw; my goal is for the community to understand that if they want the responsibility of scheduling some of the mainpage slots, they have to be responsible about it. We have a pending template, so earlier articles should be able to get in sooner if we can all develop a sharing attitude, rather than grab-as-grab-can, which we're seeing right now with the planet. If you look at the pending template, the Battle or the Fires should be on the page next. If you withdraw the King, and a fight ensues over the Planet, we'll see again that the community isn't ready for this responsibility. To me, that page is a sociological experiment that shows the worst of Wiki. Complicated by every new person who shows up and Wants Their Slot. If you withdraw the King, do you think the community can make a rational decision about putting up the Fires, and choosing the later date (in the range) for the Warsaw Battle? That's what should happen in fairness to everyone, considering the points in evidence in the pending template. I wish the page would work that way (common sense consensus and sharing rather than grabbing a slot as soon as eligible). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Correcting a statement I made above; the other reason that I'm opposing is because we must nail down this "basic subject matter" issue; same thing is coming up with Donald Bradman, so we need to get that definition settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will hang on to the slot at least until the issue are decided. I would wait longer but there is no logical date connection for William again until next June (20, date of death, 26, date of assession). I think the thing is that the community is still used to grabbing a slot as soon as it opens up and holding on to it for dear life. It is going to take time for people to realize that if they have an article with a decent number of points, they can wait a bit. BTW, you haven't said what you thought of my latest definition of basic subject matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the matters will be decided soon; the other problem on that page is that editors tend to cycle through only when they want a slot. How about pressing for consensus instead on getting the Fires up now, and the Warsaw Battle, the King and Bradman up in the next round, knowing that the hurricane can wait even another round? Sheesh, is there any chance we can encourage editors to think of the big picture, look ahead, and share? I can't ask you to voluntarily give up your slot if the next one up is going to recreate the same issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look again later on basic subject matter; it's hard to keep up with everything on the page, and I also want to leave time for others to weigh in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable plan. If you lead the way, I'll support you, and if we can get this sixty day thing done, have William bow out and wait until a reasonable time before September 8, maybe when the Bradman article (which I think is an almost inevitable TFA) clears out sometime around August 24. And yes, I have an interest in having the FA's I've helped out on hitting the main page, but I also find this interesting, so I'll be around. Besides, there are two articles that I'm starting to groom to begin the process . . . --Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But how do we lead the way? We have a point system in place, we have no consensus to change or update it, so we have nothing to lead with. If you take down the King, a battle will erupt over the Planet, the Fires and Warsaw, when anyone can see the earlier dates should go up first. We have to fix the system; even if we urge consensus on the talk page, if a battle erupts, the first one up with the points wins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Easy. Offer a bonus point if nomination made within 20 days of requested date; second bonus point if made within ten days. That will encourage people to wait, especially with borderline articles. Make the proposal and I'll support that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened to, "no changes for a few more cycles" or to accommodate current articles? I'd like to do all of this in an orderly fashion. I have to think about that idea; it encourages last-minute planning, and could give points to articles that otherwise wouldn't have them ... is that always going to be a good thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My position is no longer operative, to borrow from Nixon's press secretary. The system is going to be changed, I am not going to stand in the way of consensus. Yes, there are still gonna be a few articles that are "last minutes", or maybe you only get the points if you've submitted your article onto the template by a certain date. That avoids last minuters and also "sniping", to borrow an eBay phrase, and encourages people to act out in the open.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Could work; I have to think about it. What would the exact wording look like? The idea is to encourage editors to wait, so that earlier articles can get it, but then they risk being shut out. It's tricky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"To encourage full opportunity for discussion and a more rapid turnover of articles from the project page, bonus point(s) will be awarded as follows. 1 point if requested on the project page for the first time no earlier than 20 days before the date requested, or 2 points if requested on the project page for the first time no earlier than 10 days before the date requested.

Articles are only eligible for the bonus point(s) if they meet the above criterion, AND were listed on the template on the talk page thirty days in advance of the date requested. Articles which request one of multiple dates are not eligible for the bonus point(s), and the bonus may only be claimed for the article if the article was not requested previously on the project page within the 90 days before the request."--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thinking out loud. Needs to be simpler and sometimes Raul schedules further out, so 10 days is too close. I'd reduce it to one bonus point for 15 days before, skip the 20 and 10, and skip the 2 points. Still thinking though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried following your advice and assumed that people were going to try to game to get around it. Like having a TFA nominee not used by Raul, and immediately renominated. And I think the template requirement is needed to ensure full consultation and having point disputes settled in advance. I don't think we want "sniping".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree with those points (about the template): I only meant to lose the 20 and 10, 2 and 1, and make it only 1 for 15 days. That, for example, would solve the current dilemma. I'm still worried there's a downside I haven't thought of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The thing that I fear is that one point may not be enough, which is why I proposed two points for 10 days. But you are right, if Raul is going to schedule a week in advance, ten days may not be enough time for discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Still thinking it through; it would have to replace our current 30-day proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, I think I'm seeing it. It's a risk, it could flop, but worth a try. I'll work on writing something up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to modify my text, or will you just put it in your own words?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got a mockup at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, basically, that is fine. I changed "criteria" to "criterion". You should indicate your support for the proposal, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sunderland Echo

Hi Sandy. I saw the message you left on your recent copy edits of Sunderland Echo[1]. I have just contacted Epbr123 as you suggested. I expect I am to blame for introducing these errors while making the requested FAC changes. If you could give me an example, I'll have another look as well. Many thanks.-- Seahamlass 19:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

An example was in my edit diff; Epbr usually gets to that sort of thing quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Trenton (withdrawn FAC)

[2] Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Help!

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses). I think I've reached the wall on my ability to explain that just because other FA's use a source, doesn't mean its reliable. Help??? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You should have warned me it was the "me and my mum with a gramophone" site! It makes me chuckle every time I see it used as a source; how much more blatant can it be? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll look in later, but optimally, other editors will pitch in before I get there. Did you link the Dispatch? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I changed my boilerplate text to include the dispatch. Brain is fried from trying to source Horses in warfare properly... (whimpers) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen War elephant? It was featured, then lost its star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. (tickles Sandy) Horses. Not elephants. They look distinctly different, you know. I have quite enough on my plate at the moment, although I do intend to try to help out some at FAR. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I wanted you to see the problems we had with the elephant (based on my vague memory of the FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of FAR, if I was to help out most with the sourcing stuff, would it be on the first section or the second? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Either; in terms of whether it's worth the effort at FAR, I wait until I see that there is actually someone working to save the article. If not, not enough hours in a day, no need to examine the sources is no one is going to address them. As a current example, Helium is likely going to keep its star, so warrants the kind of scrutiny it would get at FAC. Right now, it has Keep declarations even though it wouldn't pass FAC in its current shape and needs a copyedit. It would be good to check the sources there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To make you feel better... I pulled some articles on War elephant usage. How do you guilt trip me into these things??? (I'm still not touching Barbaro though...)

FAR

This clause, "determine either that there is consensus to close during this first stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and, thus, that the nomination should be moved to the second stage.", requires me to declare a removal and to state that the article cannot be fixed based on severe problems during the first state, otherwise, the review can be closed. If you do not like that, please remove the clause. Otherwise, the Wikipedia rules on consensus require me to make it absolutely clear that I believe it needs to progress through the ultimate steps. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Then declare, Move to FARC, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Changed accordingly. I just assumed remove would mean the same thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OR, please review the FAR instructions carefully. I recommended you enter that comment at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Objectivist poets because it had been up for almost two weeks; The Cantos review is only one day old. The purpose of the first stage is to review and offer constructive commentary. It is not going to be moved to FARC when it was just nominated at FAR, and Ceoil is up to the task. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out, your comment was patently absurd. I suggest you do the civil thing and strike it immediately. There is no waiting period that says that people cannot express a concern that it must proceed onwards. Consensus builds over time. In order to have a consensus, a voice must be expressed. Policy is clear, those who do not express it are in agreement with the action. Now, you have the opportunity of respecting the structure of consensus and striking your absurd claims to rules that do not exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Problems - Anekantavada

This is with respect to image of Adi Shankara on the FAC nomination page of Anekantavada. i have received the following response from user:MBisanz. - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anishshah19&diff=226942520&oldid=226682293 . He suggested your name to resolve the issue.

What do you suggest? Can we keep the image or try to replace it?--Anish (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Letters, we get letters....

...or in this case, email... Risker (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Depersonalization disorder

Look here at the top - notice "class" and "importance". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You can change that; editors working on the article shouldn't assess it. You can find assessment descriptions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-23/Dispatches. This problem occurs frequently on Psych articles; I run through the psych and medical articles about once a week to pick up these issues, re-assess as needed, and delist GAs, but I don't think I should re-assess an article that is at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Its not that. Its just information if you need to know the background. I have a suspicion something might happen. (based on cough) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just another day at the office :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup yup. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it my imagination, or is this becoming a common trend where these pages are being upgraded to "top" priority almost randomly? I mean, I'm excited if an article of mine becomes "mid" priority and this just seems greedy. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The bigger problem is the A-class ratings on articles that are barely GA; I removed many of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I brought it to the psychology WikiProject's attention. Ratings from Start to B should be easily changed. However, important ratings and GA and above ratings are stuff that always seems shady. I couldn't find any of conversation on the topic, which just seems more self promoting than actual discussion. It seems rather epidemic and might need to go to the Village Pump to talk about the grading over all. There are admin who devote most of their time to the process, and its unfair when people change these or heckle them. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no effective Psych project; when you find a problem in their assessments, it's more efficient to simply correct it yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean just the Psych project. I mean WikiProjects as a whole. Many of the Christian pages have certain users challenging over grading. I'm sure you can fill in some examples on your own. :) There just needs to be a forum of some kind to bring it to the attention of a larger portion of admin so there can be more support. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: grrr ...

(copied over from my talk page:) OK, I'm on this now. Well done with the Harvnbs! Heh. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Asperger duplicate citation

That Witwer & Lecavalier 2008 citation was indeed duplicate, so this revert seems to be an error to me. Eubulides (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Undid myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

Hi Sandy. The merger took place on June 8, 2006—a day that will live in infamy...

Should the Dispatch mention the first edit from Larry Sanger? Where was the info at before that? I don't even know how to investigate such ancient history. Marskell (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I did link to that diff, but I can't find earlier history. I don't know where this original list of 110 Brilliant Prose as of August 2001 is to be found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, Marskell. I have some vague idea that revisions before a certain date can no longer be accessed because at some point (twice I think) the software being used was changed. I managed to find an August 2001 version in the Internet Archive. Not as easy as I thought, since the Wikipedia url has changed. At the time it was www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Brilliant_prose. The Internet Archive search results give a few more versions, becoming almost daily in November 2001. The revisions from November 14, 2001 to December 12, 2001 are available at http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brilliant_prose&action=history, the last couple of revisions of which overlap with the two oldest revisions of the current WP:FA. The earliest version in the Internet Archive was last edited at 2:43 pm, August 13, 2001. The Recent Changes page for that week(!!), which also happens to have been saved in the Archive, shows that this is the only edit to the page between 8:30 am August 8, 2001 and 8:24 am, August 15, 2001. The Recent changes entry is

• Brilliant prose 2:43 pm [Adding "ordinal"...lots of other candidates among the math articles...] . . . . . Larry Sanger

which would indicate it existed at least before August 8, in order for ordinal to be added to it. The revision history of Brilliant Prose which is saved in the Archive only shows revisions from October 18, 2001 (which is revision 56) to November 19, 2001 (revision 70). The talk page was only saved in November 2001, and its history is only saved back to September 2001. Also possibly of interest—the most popular pages in October 2001. Dr pda (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That helps a lot, Dr pda; thanks ! The Aug 15 internet archive version has about 106 entries, so I can't get back to the 110 number mentioned earlier, but this gets us closer. I'll see if I can incorporate it somehow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

I was wondering if there was anything else I needed to go over regarding Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Airlines Flight 93? I asked yesterday on the review page, but no one responded. I wasn't too sure the status of the NBSP and date formatting issue. Could you please reply on that page? Thanks. -- Veggy (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, what if I remove the Jarrah image from the article pending some resolution? Is there anything else need on Flight 93? -- Veggy (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked the FAC as of yesterday, but the last time I checked, there were two issues pending: 1) the image problem, and 2) Aude (who was traveling and who is a major contributor) asked for time until the end of the week to further review the article. If the image is removed or cleared, and if Aude has no further feedback, there were no other issues as of the last time I checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Giant pliestocene man-eating clams

You know, I really have nothing productive to say to you right now. However, the thought of copy-editing Everglades once more makes me want to sob like a tiny, tiny child. So... I am not being disciplined and spending my time wisely. I am leaving a useless message on your talk page. I wish I had been the person to do this, but I am not, alas. That kind of senseless random editing is what is called for after an elongated period of concentrated efforts. For as much content as I have added, I am not allowed to lower the quality of other articles. There is no balance. What a crime. --Moni3 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sobbing like a tiny, tiny child is probably more healthy than pop tarts :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't decide if the florid language in the description of this harrowing demise is more reminiscent of The Fat Man or Willow. Either way, that deserves a barnstar. --Moni3 (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That... is... truly... remarkable, but it wasn't me, I swear. I generally edit from Brooklyn, not from Breukelen. In case I decide not to marry Ceoil, perhaps this IP address is in search of a husband and muse for her shaggy dog stories. If you're reading this, you know how to reach me.

If you're interested in highbrow IP vandalism by a more corpulent hand, see this edit from before I got an account as well as the subsequent, dramatic confession and self-outing on Outriggr's page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my; where do you find this stuff ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

By lurking and being creepy in general. --Moni3 (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

It's obviously rough and meagre, but could you let me know whether this seems to be going in the right direction? I'd like some preliminary feedback so I don't go too far down the wrong path (if I should indeed be taking a different approach, that is). Danke im Voraus. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you have catching up to do on more important things, but, if you have time or want a change of scenery, could you pop in and let me know whether the new stuff is more helpful? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

MJ

I have left a response on the review for Jackson, regarding numbers. — Realist² (Speak) 01:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, could you ask WesleyDodds to step away from the Jackson article, he has already overhauled the article to his personal taste and has already left a long list of opposing reasons. He is now reverting or altering improvements I have made at the request of other edits. I have already told Tony1 that I am considering withdrawing the nomination because of the sleep deprivation it has caused me. I ask all reviews to have patience will I resolve concerns. I'm getting really upset about all the contradictory messages I am getting and its hurting. Please ask him to let me do it the best I can, otherwise I have to withdraw the nomination, it is making me ill. — Realist² (Speak) 01:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to point out that this is proving frustrating for me as well (see comment about good faith and edit conflicts in the FAC). However, Realist shouldn't withdraw the nomination if he still thinks it can pass. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying my best Wesley, I'm working hard for many hours in this voluntary program. I have already gone to great lengths to accommodate your tastes on how the article should look, I have changed or agreed to changes more for you than anyone else by far. I'm even making changes to please you that contradict reasons others have supported. Yet you clearly don't think the article is worthy still. I have gone to great lengths to win your approval at the cost of my own sleep and now you rubbish the work I did for another editor. You clearly have your vision for the article and I have worked hard to allow it, even on things I disagree strongly on. I can't do everything you want but I continue to try, it scares me how much I have changed the article for you yet your unlikely to support anyway. Please stop confusing my goal, say your piece and leave me to it. — Realist² (Speak) 02:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a 24-hour break would help? Realist2, please don't edit Wiki to the point of frustration :-) Besides being bad for your health, it can prevent you from seeing the forest for the trees. I'm in no hurry to close the FAC, so some time off might be good to ease the tension. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, that would be nice, the article is so close this time, I can't afford to withdraw it, people have looked beyond their prejudices and supported the article, I'm scared that won't happen a second time. Can we have a day break from FA editing and comments (well not so much comments, but seeing all those requests build up makes me nervous). I need time, I need to plan things in my head before I write them (remember I'm not English people) and I can't think with this unnecessary stress. I would like Wesley to stick to comments and minor clean ups, not removing chunks of the article at his own consensus making, disregarding the thoughts of others, confusing me. — Realist² (Speak) 03:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell either of you what to do or how to edit, but editing to the point of frustration isn't good for anyone, and taking a break often helps. And please don't think FAC or any article is so fragile that it can't make it (whether now or later, and I'm saying that without having read the FAC today); consider the case of Happy and the Reagan FACs: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-18/Dispatches. Seven FACs Happy went through, with just about everyone against Reagan. He kept his cool, took his time, didn't get frustrated, and eventually pleased even his worst critics (and became an admin this month). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing Happy pass his RfA is one of my wiki highlights, it is bad that people have biases against public figures, I happen to think Reagan was a great President even though I'm a liberal, the man was a genius. I read that Reagen FA review and I thought it should have passed too. Happy helped me with the Jackson article, happy he is a kind man. — Realist² (Speak) 03:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

So cheer up, relax a bit if you need to, and you'll be better able to make better edits when you're refreshed and relaxed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I have a reasonably consistent pattern with the numbers now. See here. If I have royally made it worse...oops. — Realist² (Speak) 05:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wondering why you're now using digits for numbers less than 10? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I only have used numeric numbers for 0-9 if there were higher numeric numbers in the same sentence and was thus trying to have consistency within the same sentence (per MoS I thought). For such sentences like "five people ate 37 mice four years ago" I did "5 people ate 37 mice 4 years ago". Should I change such sentence to "five people ate thirty-seven mice four years ago" ? — Realist² (Speak) 05:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) ah, I see ... you might have gone too far with that (I thought I saw others, but could be wrong). I don't think it's within the same sentence, I think it's within a list (I could be wrong). BUT !! Don't worry about that silliness. Focus on the text, addressing issues raised about content and prose, and when the article is close, you can ask User:Epbr123 to run through and fix little things like that. It's not the kind of thing you need to lose sleep over :-) You can ask Epbr to review and fix it later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Checked, yep, per WP:MOSNUM: Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs). It's not really within sentences; it's when there's a list in a sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I see, at least I gave it a good crack, I did contact Epbr earlier, hopefully he or someone will fine tune it. Still, a bit better than it was. — Realist² (Speak) 05:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I made the most noticeable corrections. That doesn't mean I got them all, but it's fine for now; when Epbr goes through, all that will be addressed, so try to get some rest and not worry about those little details. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Epbr has done a wonderful job with the MoS, I'm drinking tea and eating a bowl of mango, it's relaxing. — Realist² (Speak) 14:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Johnson

I found a biographer that discusses Tourette syndrome. I placed the beginning of my notes for it here. The work was edited and aided by various doctors, in case you were curious. There is still more information about the "tics" before the section I start quoting, but I focused on the TS section first. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a busy day, and started my day with half an hour of unexpected work on Ima Hogg; I'll look in there tonight. Remember, his TS is already well established; we're looking for excerpts that explain how it impacted his life, work, personality, etc. (for example, the snippet that I already posted that showed that it may have impacted his ability to get that job at a school). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It discusses where and when it would have appeared in his life, and who would have been around to see it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I broke down the chapter so you can use it to determine that Johnson's "tics" may have started in 1729 in the section of his life that people know little about what actually happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you were busy on Ima Hogg so I added Harvnb templates. I checked them all and they all worked for me. You can double check them if you want. I hope that helps. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but I'm not at all fond of Harvnbs; I only agreed to them on Johnson because they seem to be the trend on literary articles. There would be no point to reverting the changes, but in general (see WP:CITE), you should gain talk page consensus before changing citation styles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

oops, actually, I will have to revert unless you want to complete the job. The article now breaches WP:CITE by mixing citation and cite templates, resulting in two different styles. Can't do that. I'd prefer a revert, since many editors collaborated on that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I went ahead and reverted because 1) completing the job of switching over all of the rest of the citations would be a lot of work, 2) the previous method enjoyed consensus, and 3) I don't want to bother Karanacs about consensus to change the style when she has IRL things happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick note - this does not apply to inline citations, unless there is a competing template. Now, there was no inline citation tool used, which would also be a strike against FA, and FA review would force it back to this point. So why not cut to the inevitable? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And if this is wrong, I think Malleus should be noted for forcing others to change their citation styles when putting forth FA/GA candidates, especially when he disputes non-harvard inline citation templates. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does apply to inlines. Citation and the cite xxx family of templates yield completely different styles, so when an article uses cite web, cite book, cite journal, cite news, etc. the citation (or Harvnbs) shouldn't be introduced unless there is talk page consensus to change the entire article style. I agreed to change Johnson because most literary articles seem to prefer the citation style (in general, most other articles do not, many editors hate citation, and avoid it like the plague). Also, there is no requirement at all to use any template; manual citations are fine as long as the style is not inconsistent. What cannot be done is to add citation (Harvnbs) to articles that already use the cite xxx family. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I have already demonstrated, I did not alter any of the templates that already were there, and the citation styles at the bottom keep the same information in the same pattern, so there can be no complaint. And Sandy, if there is any problem with having the cite journal templates in the opening, I would recommend you removing the cited journal entries that are placed in Samuel Johnson as a violation of your interpretation of the code. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First, there are no cite journal templates in use in Samuel Johnson. Second, you left Ima Hogg with a mixture of {{citation}}, cite book, cite web and cite news: a breach of WP:CITE that creates different styles. You are free to gain consensus to change the citation style on any article, but if you do so, you will need to make the change completely so that there aren't two conflicting styles. Please take these discussions to the article talk pages. I'm getting a sense you enjoy debating with me on my talk page :-) While it's fun, it also makes it hard for me to get other work done :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If that is true, then each of those citation styles are in conflict with each other. I'm just getting back at you for letting Malleus take away my precious "cite" inline ref template (remember when I publicly revolked my claims as the first person to place inline cite tags on the article? you should. :P ). Now, I didn't have a chance to clean up the rest of the page, because I was busy trying to keep people from radically altering BLP to remove everyone's birthday, children, spouses, etc, from their articles. Oh, and there is also the disambiguation policy changes that people were attempting. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, precisely; the different citation methods are in conflict with each other, which is exactly why they can't be mixed within an article. That is precisely the issue and why mixing them shouldn't be done and why I had to revert Hogg. You seem to have a separate misunderstaning with Malleus, similar to the misunderstanding you have about Johnson, Hogg, and mixing citation styles; I could get more work done if my talk page light weren't going off over issues that should be discussed on article talk pages :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

More work but it kept the cite book et al at the bottom. Eh? Come on. Come on. Its amazing. I'm a genius. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is contentious and requires consensus first before adding it. I am notifying you instead of reverting it myself. Three columns have been preferred by a lot of people, and the community should be involved before a guideline publicly discourages such. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That wording is taken directly from the template where it has been since at least December 2006; it's not at all contentious and in fact has been thoroughly discussed other places. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I really have to remind you that 2006 is not 2008, that guidelines are not templates, and that changes to guidelines should have consensus first, especially when common practice is different? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The Reflist|3 issue is both long-standing and recently discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yet the guideline page, which you are changing, lacks any link to the discussion. That is not following standard consensus guidelines, especially those that deal with changing guidelines. By the way, this shows your mistake. You are thinking of the wrong template combinations. Sorry, but its true. I did my research on this a while back when I first used the "cite" inline citation templates. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• "I think Malleus should be noted for forcing others to change their citation styles". Are you referring to me? Where have I forced anyone to to do anything about citation styles? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I can quote you exactly when you said that harvnb as oppose to "cite" is the only format that can get something to GA standard. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You can try. Let's see it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"I'm quite aware of academic referencing standards, but this is not an academic paper that we're writing. I can absolutely categorically guarantee that this article will not get through GA with its present referencing system. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)" Then I have to find the one in which you say harvnb. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be rapidly losing whatever little of the plot you had to start with. Where in that does it say that "harvnb as oppose to 'cite' is the only format that can get something to GA standard"? I'm becoming rather pissed off with your dishonesty and stupidity. Or is it just stupidity? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like this to stop. It started over what now looks to be a misunderstanding on guidelines at Ima Hogg, and I Do Not Want to trouble Karanacs over Ima Hogg considering the real life issues she has mentioned on her talk page. Ima Hogg has always enjoyed stability, its current referencing is perfectly fine and MoS compliant, and I'd not appreciate having an unnecessary and trivial issue there over citation formatting at this particular point in Karanacs' life. I mean it; when your father is ill, nothing else matters. This doesn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Ottava Rima really pissed me off, but you're right; this is just a web site. Karanacs has got much more to worry about than a few web pages. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, Malleus; thanks for the note. My day started and ended with sorting Miss Ima, a perfectly compliant article; perhaps I'll read FAC later, then :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuthatch

Sorry, I'll try to do better jimfbleak (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Images are done. Awadewit (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Croatia national football team - Temporary withdrawal

After receiving some strong objections, I have very temporarily withdrawn this article from the FAC list. It will be put back on shortly as I have just spent a fair amount of time fixing up the references and further edits are yet to be made. It will be added again shortly. Sorry for any inconvenience! Domiy (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Braddles

I'm off on my wikibreak. I think Bradman ought to now be on the main request page, but what this means is me being responsible for another deserving (if less deserving, perhaps) article that's been sitting there for a while dropping off and perhaps being ignored.

I'm uncomfortable about it and because I'm short of time, I'm struggling to work out why and express myself properly. (Who is it that said "I've sent you a long letter because I didn't have time to write a short one?) Anyway, I'll be gone for a week and I trust you and Raul implicitly to make sure that the right things are done. Just not sure if I trust the process we're developing.

Closest I can come to expressing my emotions is that it has an uncomfortable taint of bullying, but that's a loaded worded and it carries with it elements I certainly don't mean.

Gnash, I'm not doing a good job of this. Let's touch base in early August.

Cheers, me old mucker. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Blaise Pascal. Waltham, The Duke of 21:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Evening

What's up? Giggy referred me to you. I'm looking to expand my contributions to the 'pedia. I'm pretty nice at copy editing, I write advertisements that appear in newspapers as a 2nd job, and have been doing so for a few years. Anyway, I asked Giggy, and he said you're the person to talk to regarding copy editing at FAC. Stop by my talk page if you get a chance. Beam 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, may I ask what the first job of these advertisements that appear in newspapers is? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

One way to pitch in at WP:FAC is to begin at the bottom of the page and locate FACs that have pending prose/copyedit issues. For example, Wikipedia:FAC#Puerto Rican Amazon is one towards the bottom of the current FAC page. There are others, but that's the first that comes to mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Supremes

New topic of sorts, regarding The Supremes review. Although I nominated it for a review I am of the opinion it should be left on hold to give Ceoil time to finish it. Our music related FA articles already lack diversity as it is, it would be very unfortunate to lose this soul/R&B group. When the MJ review is over I intend to help Ceoil if he want's it. I'm going to the shops over the next week and might purchase some books. — Realist² (Speak) 01:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If Ceoil is working on it, I'm sure it will be held. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow's query

I wonder whether you're able to respond, right at the bottom of User_talk:Tony1#Ima_Hogg. Tony (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've sorta responded to this on WT:MOSDATE. Gimmetrow 21:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In other news, Tim Starling added something which addresses the problem with move-archiving and redirects in general. So, it's not a problem on my end if you want to keep using WP:GO. But given Duke's stats, an average 60 hits per day, do you want to keep up with WP:GO? Gimmetrow 21:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Won't hurt to do it until further feedback from others, so it's not a unilateral decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for you forbearance with nuthatch, and giving the time for it to be improved. I know what Shyamal felt like with ant now! I appreciate the help given by bird project members and the reviewers in fixing this, although I had to take a few deep breathes before replying to the very late claim that it wasn't comprehensive. The good news is that the next one is a single species; the bad news is that there is a next one. Cheers, jimfbleak (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA, and the extra time was no problem considering the summer slowdown (I just hope editors realize I may not be able to let FACs run so long once school resumes and things pick up again). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tic (disambiguation)

Sorry about the edit conflict. The result looks OK though. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Its actually part of the MediaWiki system, sorta like User:Pending deletion script and User:MediaWiki default used to be, so you'd need to bug Tim Starling (talk · contribs) about it or file a bugzilla report. MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mangalore FAC

Hello. SandyGeorgia. Well I apprecaite that you moved unresolved issues to the Talk Page. But I don't think it's of any use. That's beacuse look at Nichalp's comments on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore. (I would not consider the first three to be reliable. The Penn University source is the work of a student as determined by the tilde in the url. World Gazetter on the other hand has been used as a source by wikipedia including several featured articles such as Mumbai.)
He says it's the work of a student, when it has been proved in the FAC that David Ludden is a professor at Penn who specializes in comparative world and South Asian history. (Davis Ludden's Homepage). So I think you even need to move the related discussion to the Talk page. Or just allow me to do it. Because, without the discussion, the step is of no use. Thankyou, Kensplanet^Talk_E-mail^{Contributions} 06:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some issues at the talk page of the Mangalore FAC (Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore which need your comments. Thankyou, Kensplanet (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

Im tring to seduce The Fat Man as best I know how, but JayHenry and our mutual friend are making it difficult!! Help; for friday night sake? ( Ceoil ^sláinte 12:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

But, but ... it's Saturday here ! I suspect the moment may have passed :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert of edits

Dear SandyGeorgia

I find it hard to understand your comment: "Remove original research, pls dicuss on talk how to incorporate, but opinion and original research has no place on Wiki" re my recent edit to add more depth to the entry on "Deep brain stimulation" and specifically the citation of a Nature study on thalamic stimulation in one patient in a minimal conscious state.

• It is a fact, and not a matter of opinion, that deep brain stimulation has been used for various types of post-traumatic coma for over 40 years by many different researchers around the world (as shown e.g. by the two references); with the bulk of this research carried out by Japanese researchers.

• It is a fact, and not a matter of opinion, that the cited Nature paper did not cite this work.

• I would have thought that it would be of considerable interest for wikipedians to know that there has been quite a lot of research in this field (although, sadly, the results are not very encouraging).

Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortenKringelbach (talk • contribs) 22:41, July 27, 2008

You can sign your entries by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your posts. Please have a look at WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:V and WP:RS. If you have a reliable source discussing what Nature didn't discuss, then you can add it. Also, adding text supported by a string of primary sources only is synthesis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Best edit summary of the week!!

One in a million :-) — Realist² (Speak) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it; I owed Moni3 one :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

People link the oddest things. Wikilinking is shrouded in a cloud of mystery and controversy. (from an article :-) Gimmetrow 22:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't know how much this means to me. — Realist² (Speak) 00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Sandy. If anything remains of my time here at Wikipedia, let my colorful edit summaries spread as much joy as they do confusion and alarm. Thank you for bearing that torch with me. --Moni3 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:GO

In response to your reply to me at Gimmetrow's talk page, I was only expressing regret that the page was being consigned to history. Gimmetrow said "will anyone notice" in his edit summary, and I was merely saying that I would - that's all. I wasn't criticising anyone for the ending of the page, or anything of that nature. Just wanted to say that, as your reply seemed as though you were a bit annoyed by what I said. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Lucifer, not at all; I was just explaining the history. Truth is, I have been slightly bugged that only Raul and I tended to that page and other featured processes never helped with the archiving, but GimmeBot solved that, and then it seemed that his work was for nothing. All solved now :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson FAC

Sandy, my oppose still stood. The article does not use summary style effectively and still needs grammar cleanup. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wesley; some feedback on Jackson and summary style. You might be aware that, as a reviewer, I opposed every article that came to FAC and FAR with greater than 55KB readable prose per WP:SIZE, arguing in each case that summary style wasn't effectively used; I was strongly overruled in every case (see here and here for lists of our longest FAs). So, we have articles like

• Bob Dylan (79KB and 13,300 words of prose, passed FAR),
• Ketuanan Melayu (86KB and 13,900 words of prose, passed over size objections),
• Punk rock (71KB and 11,800 words of prose, passed FAR), and
• B movie (63KB and 10,300 words of prose, survived FAR over size concerns),

compared to

• Michael Jackson with 58kb and 9,800 words of prose, within the recommendation for 10,000 words of prose at WP:SIZE.

I'm not personally a fan of longer articles, and adhere to strict application of summary style myself (aggressively chopping Tourette syndrome via four sub-articles and summary style), but the community has consistently supported larger articles at both FAC and FAR (I can't think of a case where my argument for more aggressive application of summary style prevailed). After 11 days at FAC, Jackson had garnered 10 supports, no other reviewer raised these same concerns, and some reviewers were asking for even more detail. Considering the much larger size of articles like Bob Dylan and Punk rock, which both passed FAR, I can't make an argument for holding Jackson to a standard for summary style, when its word count is below the 10,000 guideline and no other editor objected to the size or on the basis of summary style. If there are still any grammatical errors, I hope they'll be sorted via the talk page. I hope you won't feel discouraged to continue your quality reviews at both FAC and FAR. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the sheer size I had problems with. Given my contributions to the FARs of Heavy metal music and punk rock, I know sometimes a lot of info is necessary. It's that summary style was not effectively used, so there's lots of unnecessary detail on particular items. The point I made in the FAC about reorganizing the Musical Style section (which describes the sound of most of the songs on various Jackson albums one-by-one) as being one of the chief concerns was not addressed. Prose-wise, there's still lots of problems with the article that needed to be dealt with. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Greek to you

Basically, adding __STATICREDIRECT__ to a page will cause User:Redirect fixer to ignore that page (I added this to its userpage). Where it would normally make an edit to that page, it won't. This means that __STATICREDIRECT__ needs to be added to some redirects (Gimmetrow will know which ones and will probably do it), and nothing else needs to be changed.

At least, that's what I make of it. Hopefully this clears things up. :-) —Giggy 07:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Giggy; I think I figured out what eight redirects Gimmetrow was referring to, and I hope I've fixed them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This change was made yesterday to MediaWiki. The log says "Magic word __STATICREDIRECT__ to suppress the redirect fixer. For periodically-archived pages like [[WP:GO]]. " Gary King (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

That FA one of the hardest things I've done, and I have a kid! But it was fun too, and the article definitely improved as a result of the process. Thank you for all the help, especially the otherwise thankless job of re-formatting all the refs! Maury (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FA

Hey, as a delegate to the FL director, can you do a quick review of SummerSlam (2003), I plan on nominating it for FAC. This is a wrestling article, and as you know in the past these haven't passed because of sourcing issues and jargon. This article is written in a more enhanced way with a reception, no jargon, and reliable sources. Thank You. You may give your response on my talk page.--S_RX 15:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FL = Featured lists; I'm not involved there. On a quick glance, I easily saw at least one source that provides nothing to indicate it meets WP:V. I left a link to the article peer review for user:Ealdgyth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I meant F"A". Ok thanks, they told me about it and we are discussing it.--S_RX 20:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig

Hi, SandyGeorgia,

I would like to request your opinion and advices regarding this recent GAN. It was failed, in part due to confusion about the reviewer's asking for a second opinion. See my protest and the archived GAN. I am wondering if this article merits being taken to GAR for community review/assessment? JGHowes ^talk - 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really follow the GA process, and it's hard for me to decipher what the issue is there or who the reviewers were for that matter. Can't you just re-submit it to GAN (I don't know)? I suggest asking User:Geometry guy, unless someone else who follows my talk page can better advise you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like Sandy is the go-to gal for anything FA/FL/GA related :) Gary King (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was baseball :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Having not read the GA reviews too carefully, it looks like the remaining point of contention was whether or not the prose was so purple as to be imprecise, POV, OR, etc. GAR, I think, is really meant to handle situations when a reviewer was way off base (not following the criteria, etc.) or when an existing GA needs to be re-evaluated (akin to FAR). So, if you think the reviewer was indeed off base, GAR is a valid route to take. If you think the reviewer's remaining issues have some merit, however, I think it would be more appropriate to work to fix things up and renominate at GAN. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hand

Yes, we went through all the things in your edit summaries. That isn't to say that some inconsistencies don't remain, but we didn't spot them, anyway. Punctuation style got edited a bit back and forth and I tried to get it consistent with the logical style, but that style isn't intuitive with me. qp10qp (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Me, neither (that's why I asked :-) Can you find anywhere that comment Tony has been leaving at the top of date-delinked articles ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added something of my own in the meantime!--Slp1 (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Qp and Slp together on an FA for NYB :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuttin special

Just a little note to say I was thinking of you (fondly, of course), and that I am managing. Going to bed in a few minutes, as I have to be up early for work. Hope you're doing well and are happy. Jeffpw (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC interwiki

How do you always notice these things five seconds after I do them? As it so happens, that's not an Italian interwiki—it's Lithuanian. That's a lowercase l (ell), not an uppercase I (eye). I wouldn't have noticed either, except I copied and pasted. Pagrashtak 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada

Hi Sandy, Now that all the concerns have been put to rest as per your advise, I hope a decision will be taken soon on its nomination.--Anish (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

May I bring to your notice...

Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury and Template:Infobox Saint and Template:Infobox Archbishop of York. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ugh, I just came across one at an FA. It breaches two different MoS guidelines: 1) Portals go in see also (WP:LAYOUT), and 2) WP:ACCESSIBILITY, templates follow text in the lead. Is this going to be an issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And what would be a centralized discussion point to get these fixed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No idea on either. I've had no luck with keeping those templates stable and that make any sort of sense. I gave up on them ages ago (They are out of chronological order on the fields ... they use 'began" to mean enthroned ... etc. etc...) If you can get them to stop using the portal, it'd be nice. *I* don't want the portal link there, I got it out once and it came back in May... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Another one of a long list of reasons to oppose infoboxes in general, <sigh>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind one, if it's small. Breeding infoboxes that don't stay stable drive me batty. I long ago gave up on keeping them out, they just come in and in and in... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't fix Saint; it's protected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Pagrashtak 12:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The amazing invisible hand strikes again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ann Arbor

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ann Arbor, Michigan will need to be reviewed again starting in about two weeks. Its currently slated for Today's featured page August 5. The article has gotten WEAK. I just left a review on the talk page hopefully someone will pick it up and fix the page. .:davumaya:. 09:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any of the regular editors are still active there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

dispatch

Yes, I've started and must finish soon. Leaving in 15 hours' time. Should be able to pop in from time to time over the next week. Blizzard at the moment, so the net will come in handy Friday. All that money just to sit inside! I trust you can handle the mechanical stuff at the right time. Tony (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

<Hijacking Tony's thread to avoid a new section> Would you mind looking at August 11 again (when you have a moment) and letting me know where/if 101ers might get lost? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I suddenly have more than one iron in the fire, Ec; I will get there as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Take your time. It's still a ways off and I'm not exactly an impatient person. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

FA size

I have been working on Hurricane Vince (2005) and it is more-or-less finished. All relevent information has been included and the article comes to just over 15 KB. I have never seen a Featured Article so small, and am wondering whether Vince would be laughed at. Is there a hard floor on the size of a Featured Article? Plasticup ^T/C 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the article is comprehensive, it can be short. I've had two promoted recently that were about that size. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What she said. Hurricane Irene (2005) is one of the shortest FAs on Wiki; just be prepared to explain how/why it's comprehensive in spite of short length and to justify that you have covered eveything needed and available to make it comprehensive per WP:WIAFA 1b. 16:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, that's good to know. I am traveling for a few days but expect to see Vince on FAC next week. Plasticup ^T/C 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request

Hey SandyGeorgia, I currently have the article The Great American Bash (2005) up for Peer review. I come to you in hopes of you reviewing the article, as I'm aiming to get this article prepared for Featured Article status. I would really appreciate if you would take some time and review this article to the best of your abilities. Cheers, -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

Hi, the reference 20 in this article, "Odol, Autobahne and a non-smoking Führer: Reflections on the innocence of public health, had some problem, the doi created another link in the refernece section. I have fixed the link, compare [3]. If you think my edit had any problem, feel free to revert it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually, PMIDs and DOIs are given on medical citations; it would be better if you leave them. They take you directly to the PubMed citation, where readers can do further research on the author, the journal, etc. Actually, what is duplicated in your citations are many of the URLs, since most of them are freely available at PMC, which Diberri also provides in the template filler, but not worth worrying about. Anyway, you really should add back the PMID, as it makes it easier for others to understand the quality of your source. Readers have different preferences; some go straight to PubMed, others for DOIs, and medical article on Wiki use both, as well as free full text when available. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches for how to use the Diberri template to generate citations from PMIDs. You can see some featured article sample citations at autism and Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added the pmid back [4].  Done Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Thanks for your tip on using citenews. In fact, my problem was that I coudn't see the publisher name; it was there but I coudn't see it because I got lost in the long quote. JRSP (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured Topic premature nomination

Gack! Are you in charge of this? This isn't ready, and the merging of Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is not at all a good idea. I don't know who Xenus is, and I just got a message on my talk page after it had been nominated for Featured Topic. --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ... nothing to do with that page, and ... as an editorial aside ... it's still troubling that none of the other featured content processes seem to have any sort of ... oversight ... or whatever the word is. It really seems to me that if the main content contributor says it's wrong or premature or whatever, it's wrong ... but I'm not sure that's part of that process ... and I'm not interested to horn in on another process. Ugh, I feel your pain :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Moni, I saw the nom when it went up but I thought that you were the nominator! Otherwise I would have said something to you. Karanacs (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I have any recourse but to oppose strongly? --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know ... as far as I do know, Raul and I have nothing to do with that page. I would think that opposition from the main contributor would count for something ... but then someone could cry "ownership". When I see things like this, I feel reassured that FAC is one of the last remaining pages on Wiki where common sense rules. <sigh> ... I'm out for the afternoon, will check in later ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved spectator, I undid the redirect, left a strong note on the nominator's talk page and entered an oppose. Moni, you should also oppose and detail what you think still needs to be done. This is not the first time recently that the person who was majorly involved in articles was left out of a featured topic nom (although this is the most egregious), so I'm going to start a discussion on the talk page, too. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Karanacs. I'll keep watching the nomination, but... you know... Do I need to post a really detailed list of what needs to be done to Everglades, Everglades National Park, and Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan? Meh. --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm back; by the way, whenever you see something goofy like this, be sure to check for backlinks. You often find an awards-center-type or admin-coaching drive behind the nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find any evidence of a larger movement from the nominator's contributions, but these things slip past me sometimes. --Moni3 (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Moni, I suddenly have my hands full with a COI, BLP, Legal and political issue; I peeked in there and it seems under control. Pls let me know otherwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be handling the situation so far, though I don't know who is responsible for promoting topics and how it's decided. Would be interested to know where this came from all the sudden. A prime opportunity for a passerby or, as you noted, a collaboration of sorts. I found this while looking around trying to figure out the reason for the nomination. It's not an awards center... --Moni3 (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an awards center by another name (that is, the route to RFA via admin coaching). It was set up after the previous Awards Center was MfD'd, and only recently moved to WP space. Same horse, different color; lots of editors generating lots of support at FAC. The problem with all of the other featured processes is a lack of oversight; I've seen some surprising promotions at sounds and other places, and there's no one ultimately responsible for the bottom line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the move: [5] It was initiated during the MfD of the Awards Center by one of the Awards Center regulars. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center If they do good work, fine; if they put together more than half a dozen nominators (several of whom haven't touched the article in weeks, but add their names so they can claim "credit" on the path to an admin-coached RFA) to bring an article to FAC, and then pile on support, so that other editors have to rewrite the article before it's featured, it's just another Group to be watched at FAC in terms of independent review and support of a large group project vs. fan support. Doing all the same things the MfD'd awards center did (is it "canvassing" when they send out a newsletter to announce their FACs or post messages to all of their members talk pages announcing their FACs?). These Projects come in with a guaranteed dozen supports at FAC, members rarely declare they were part of a group, and then I've got to watch for independent review and support. I've long thought we need to add something to the FAC instructions that these large group Projects need to be declared in the nomination, but so far I've been able to keep track of them myself, and assure that an article isn't promoted over a dozen supports until it has independent review and supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that it was a collaboration that didn't seem to be heavy on finding many excellent sources or focusing on rewriting anything. What I seem to be missing in my search for what's going on is the call for a certain number of featured topics, or the motivation to choose this one in particular. I haven't found that. --Moni3 (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There's often a small amount of time between the featured nomination and an RfA that you can put money on; remember, what drives the "awards centers" are editors who want to use the "award" at RfA. I'd check admin coaching next. I do think we've stemmed the tide of this, which was in full swing a few months ago, with noms of premature FACs regularly appearing a few weeks before an RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You are better versed in this detail than I am. You might want to chime in. Or not. --Moni3 (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your post on TFA page

A retraction would be nice.[6]--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Retract what? You don't want to remove 1-pointers from the template (although they have virtually no chance), I think they only clog the template and render it less useful. That's the situation. You do want to remove lesser-pointers, which makes no sense to me, because a lesser pointer can become the higher pointer if subsequent articles are scheduled that change points. As far as I can tell, there's nothing to retract on that page. I'll peek in on TFA tomorrow or the next day, as I don't have time for it today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You told EagleOwl that he couldn't remove Ceres (for the same date) yet because I disagreed "with removing articles for which others have more points." That couldn't refer to removal of one point articles because Ceres has two points. Accordingly, and given the conversation thread it is clear (because this was EagleOwl's question) you referred to removing lower point articles for the same date. In point of fact, as you well know, I proposed doing just that, only to be shot down by you. Accordingly, what you said to EagleOwl was at the very least wildly misleading, and is probably better described as simply "not true". I've left a nonjudgmental note on EagleOwl's talk page, but I think you should clarify (a.k.a. restract) your statement. If you won't, you won't, but it is one more thing that eats away at WP:AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, a good dose of AGF always trumps wikilawyering, but even though I already referred EagleOwl to the full discussion just below (which made everything clear), I will go over there (in a bit) and add another explanation to the topic to clear up any misconceptions that may be left for anyone who isn't able to read the section below it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, people can read, and they aren't blind to implications and suggestions. I think we can agree that taking potshots won't do either of us any good?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Um. You agreed to that once before, when you requested at "truce", when I've never been at "war", indicating that you possibly were, and then you went right back to more of same the very next time an issue arose. Honestly, AGF works. Try it; if there's no war, there's no need to call for a truce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't seek conflict with you, Sandy, you are too influential to want to "war" with. But, jeez, if you don't have a sense of how you sometimes come across, just ask someone with no connection with WP whose opinion you value to read some of our recent discussions. However, I will simply be thicker skinned about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Questoin about Image MoS

I saw you reverted my slide right of the image at Samuel Johnson. I understand the "staggered" image issue. However, with the last image (a simple text block) being so much further up the page, wouldn't the fact that the image interrupts the flow of the blockquote override the minor concern with left/right staggering? S. Dean Jameson 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about left to right staggering; it's about the eyes/image looking off the page (which happens to be something that drives some FAC reviewers nuts, and is given far more attention than the staggering issue). Personally, makes little difference to me, but I know an image looking off the page will generate an issue at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Nice to know, as I'm working with the FACC on making a featured article out of John McGraw and England. Doesn't that seem a bit ... well ... "nit-picky" though? S. Dean Jameson 22:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Like many things Wiki, everyone's got their nits to pick, and some people care a lot about that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any idea why they care so much about that one? Or is it just one of those unexplainable "quirks" one must put up with if one wants to see an article through to FA? S. Dean Jameson 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Sandy knows the answer to that, I will tell you. ;-) It has to do with human factors engineering. The eyes of the viewer follow the eyes within the image and try to deduce what the subject is reflecting upon. If they are looking away from the text, then it draws the reader away from the article; if they are looking toward the text, it draws the reader's eyes back to the article. Consider what you learned when you went to driving school: "Always look where you want to go, not at the scenery." That's because the rest of your body and your thoughts follow your eyes. Risker (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I learn something new every day. Still seems nit-picky to me, though... S. Dean Jameson 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)