Jump to content

User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
I ''did'' tell you...
Barnstar :)
Line 223: Line 223:


* Well I suppose I should say that "I hate to say I told you so" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=131003260&oldid=130798451]... but, well, like I said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Sayre&diff=142552593&oldid=142446332] ... [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
* Well I suppose I should say that "I hate to say I told you so" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&diff=131003260&oldid=130798451]... but, well, like I said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Sayre&diff=142552593&oldid=142446332] ... [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

==Barnstar==
{| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar3.png|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This barnstar of diligence is awarded to SandyGeorgia for having reviewed over 1000 articles—580 at [[WP:FAC|FAC]], 390 at [[WP:FAR|FAR]], and 85 [[WP:PR|Peer reviews]], as of a week or so ago, but these numbers are almost certainly out of date already. Congratulations and keep up the amazing work. [[User:Dr pda|Dr pda]] 02:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
|}

Revision as of 02:41, 5 July 2007

If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.
I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.


Getting Started With The Working Group

I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Whatever exchanges may have taken place in the past, between the various parties, it's in the community's interest for this discussion to go forward. Thanks. zadignose 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And...

File:Resilient-silver.png
The Resilient Barnstar

Not for your blunders or mistakes, but for picking yourself up and keeping up the good work ;) Remember, if you need anything I'm right here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Dismantling an FA..

Wanna put yer 2c in here? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA'd Nov, 2005, very few inline citations (less than 5, maybe), and 6 refs in the tail. My instinct says it should be a former FA, but I'm not familiar enough with all the details to be sure. Xaxafrad 01:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could submit it to WP:FAR, but I suggest waiting at least a week or two, as there is currently another Polish article at FAR, and the same authors may work to improve both articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When to cite

I'll have a look. What are you going for in the way of examples? This may not be a completely bad thing; see my recent creation 5-HT3 antagonist: much of its "backbone" is "synthesized" (but not to advance a position :) from two book sources, with inline references for specific data likely to be challenged; do you think this is insufficient? On a side note, as something I felt was a bit over the top: I once saw a {{fact}} tag slapped on the lead of sibutramine, following a claim that it is related to amphetamines. I felt like saying "well, look at the structure!" I didn't, of course—I found a reliable source, cited and reworded the statement, but you can see where I'm headed :) Do you think a compromise can be reached? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't thought any further yet than I don't know how one begins to give examples of what to cite in medical articles, and what not to cite (such as the example you give above). I don't know what kind of examples to give, so the entire notion has me uneasy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky; this may very well vary from editor to editor. The "subject-specific common knowledge" line makes me cringe. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Vickers gave a good answer further down the page; whenever you make a statement based on someone else's work, you cite it. In medicine, that's almost everything. I just don't see how we make a list; it's one of those things you know when you see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. I like Tim's "rule of thumb"—seems pretty close to our current standards and broad enough not to discourage common sense :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copy-editing

Hi, you weren't very clear about what to copy-edit, and I've wasted my time now on the wrong bit, Colin says .... Tony 11:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was unclear about what you meant in regards to secondhand news sources - could you clarify? I'd also like to know if you agree with my interpretation of the reliability of the sources. Thanks. Λυδαcιτγ 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itanium Again

I finally completed my latest try at a lead paragraph of Itanium. Please take another look at this and at your other open issues on hte review page., if you have time. Thanks. -Arch dude 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sections

Sorry, I should have read the FAC page more carefully. Thanks for removing subheadings.--Paaerduag 00:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TS epidemiology

Fingers crossed :) After comparing the new draft to the version that was featured, you know I have to say this one actually seems clearer to me? I hope it was worth the effort :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do I, considering ... well, never mind. I guess I should view any opportunity to educate as a good one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's the secret ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments! You've done more for this article than anyone else, and Colin's copyedits far outweigh my minor contributions :) Hopefully this new text will be to everyone's liking. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit help

Sandy, Could you try copyediting History of Puerto Rico? It is the first article I helped reach FA status. It will be featured June 18 in the main page and I know it needs some copyediting. Thanks in advance. Joelito (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get through it as soon as I can, but remember, I'm not a great copyeditor :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much better than me. :) Joelito (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what you deem worthy of citing. Joelito (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Did not notice your {{inuse}}. Joelito (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the referencing help. It seems the vandalism has already begun. Thanks for reverting. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Theatre

Suddenly some of the old musical theatre folks have resurfaced and started to discuss changes to/finalization of the article structure guidelines for musicals. I know that when you were helping me on some of those articles, you expressed some opinions about these guidelines (I remember that you did not feel that they were as good as those at the film project). Feel free to weigh in at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. -- Ssilvers 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might not make it there 'til tomorrow, but will weigh in ... Father's Day and all that jazz :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FA

sorry I thought anyone could FA Articles Zalaza 17:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fixes have been made. Epbr123 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Puerto Rico

Don't worry about it, but as I said on the article's talk page its more prudent to ask the user making the change the reason behind it before reverting it. It helps to avoid misunderstandings, Peace. - 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Well, I guess that's why I don't enjoy the mainpage, because things move too fast for my fingers. Just trying to help, and I left you an explanatory note, but you still seem upset, so once again, I've learned to stay off the main page. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I wasn't upset perhaps the word selection wasn't the best but I certainly wasn't upset if I was I would have written the comment in Spanish ;) - 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda has been quite useful in my work on San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Bueno, me distes bien duro on the article talk page. I was only trying to apologize after correcting another editor's mistaken change to the United States, and considering the article previously had Partido estadistas unido ... I'm glad El Hatillo was of some use; Enano275 (talk · contribs) might be of help on San Juan. I try to help out in Spanish, but I don't do well on the fast-paced mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mi naturaleza es fogosa, hay veces que selecciono mal mis palabras. I have been looking for someone to help me to do some text cleanup is he good at that? - 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

Just curious as to whether the bolding utilized in the cast section of The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film) article is all that is keeping you from supporting the FA nomination? The "cast section" of the WikiProject Films' Style guidelines supports the format used in the article: "Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section (or in production), and only then should bolding be used to make the credits stand out from the additional information." As you pointed out, WP:MOSBOLD goes against the Film Style guidelines, and I can easily "de-bold" the cast section if it is preventing you from supporting the FA.-Hal Raglan 01:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U2...

Hi SandyGeorgia. You come highly recommended as a copy editor, and we are looking for a fresh set of eyes to look over U2 which we would like to push towards FA. I've seen you help out on a few Indonesia articles in the past - Toraja? - and hope you could help out here. If not, perhaps suggest other good copy editors. kind regards Merbabu 12:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take care

Keep well, Sandy. Marskell 07:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Your return made my day, too (I was worried; sometimes people don't come back).

That foxglove is twelve foot tall now, with five spiky children further down. I've never seen anything like it, but I've now got an eight-foot-tall verbascum about to flower. If there's a secret with biennials, I think it's growing from seed and sowing early the previous year. But the warm winter has sent this year's crop crazy. My favourite flower at the moment is a pale mauve scabious, which I sowed a year ago February and has its first flower, like a pincushion, which the bees adore. (Now that I know you're a gardener, I'm not afraid of boring you with this stuff).

All the best. Don't do too much. qp10qp 23:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From me as well! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're back

Unfortunately, it would add way too much code to check for everything people might do wrong. Oh, and if you could, could you use the "01:23, 4 May 2006" format for date when you use dates in the GA templates. I designed a lot of the code around the page history and the date format there is "HH:MM, DD Month YYYY". I haven't programmed the bot to recognize all variations, especially ISO. Gimmetrow 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out this at WT:CITE. Someone wants to allow footnotes before punctuation based on the Nature style. It's a little confused because a couple other people involved want them both ways in the same article, but I think the idea is that any particular article would be all one way or the other, not mixed. Also referenced at WT:FN.
In July and August, I may not be online regularly, especially on weekends. I take it you run a Windows computer and don't have an easy way to run a python script? Gimmetrow 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what a python script is <eeek>. Yes, I have Windows and don't speak anything else; can I learn to run Python on Windows? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(hope you don't mind if I butt in) Python is a programming language. Lots of bots are written using a python-based framework called PyWikipediaBot. I run it on a Mac, I'm sure there's a Windows version (you'd start up a DOS or cmd shell, then type some gobbledygook to get it going). This relates to a conversation we had some time ago. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help, Rick. It looks like our old conversation has a link to everything I'd need to get started. Considering the archaic state of my computers and computer knowledge, it may be a steep learning curve. Not something that excites me (particularly when Wiki can be such an unpleasant place and I'm re-evaluating how much time I want to spend here) ... but if you both think I can get it up and running without too much effort, I could try. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad to see you appear in my watchlist once more. I've sent you an email. Colin°Talk 22:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hall problem lead

Hi Sandy - During the FAR for Monty Hall problem you expressed a concern about the lead, which was resolved at the time by shortening the lead. user:Georgia guy has been rating articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and gave it a B+ (!?), at least partly due to concerns about the lead. I've reworked the lead and he's happy with it now. Are you? Please let me know (here, my talk page, the article's talk page - I'm easy). Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and BTW, the problem statement in the lead is deliberately a quote to avoid what was a continuing series of wordsmithing edits (I forget exactly when this was done - perhaps before the original FAC). The point is as a quote it can't be wordsmithed. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy! Welcome back from your break! I hate to bother you so soon, but I saw you edited the talk page for Daspletosaurus (thanks btw) and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind running through the article real quick? It's up at FAC right now and I'd love to have the advice of one of Wikipedia's best-known copyeditors. I had a very productive exchange with Tony on an FAC last year and since then I've tried to take his advice to heart. I'd be thrilled to see if I've pulled it off this time. Thanks either way! Sheep81 08:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking it over, I added "Dinosaur Mailing List" to the ref as you suggested... not sure why I didn't think of that myself actually. Thanks again! Sheep81 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT

I don't know how passionate you are WRT fiction, but you might be interested in this:

User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction)

It's being discussed on WT:FICT. — Deckiller 16:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I was mulling through the references for this FAC and corrected up to ref #5. Wondered if you could have a look to make sure these corrections is what is needed. Also, just to clarify, do you mean that cite web template is okay, but the parameters need cleanup for consistent order, and add 'publisher', etc. ? Cricket02 21:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're always a great help, thanks much! Cricket02 22:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy - I think I addressed the awkward sentence you found. Anything else need fixing? --mav 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

For helping format the refs for puberty. I am about a quarter way through the article, in case you would prefer to wait until all the refs have been added. I gather that empty parameter lines in book cites can be eliminated? Does that actually save much space? Also, I prefer a couple of the original section headings as providing more reader orientation, and will probably change back, but will wait until I finish referencing and minor amplifying and you finish fixing what you think needs to be fixed. This article may become large enough to split. I was thinking of splitting off a new article on Timing of puberty, and perhaps one on Endocrinology of puberty, which should hold about 30-40% of the content and should allow this one to be reduced by about 30%. alteripse 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

San Juan FAC

Well said. Joelito (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you thought so; I didn't want to step on any toes, but goodness, it deserves so much more !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone to review

I have put myself for an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Aditya Kabir. Check. Aditya Kabir 05:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: See also

Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers. Universe=atomTalkContributions 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks...

...for cleaning up the mess I made with the articlehistory template at Tool (band). :-) Johnnyw talk 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome!

Well met, SandyGeorgia! Good to finally get a proper welcome - I just sort of wandered into this whole shebang and am trying to help out where I can. I have not yet met Tony1 (talk · contribs) or Deckiller (talk · contribs), but I have been watching Deckiller's page for a while now since he seems to be on the ball. I've been editing at random when not working on the List of Missouri state parks, but I like the idea of helping with specific pages set aside as needing work. I'll check into the Schizophrenia page, thanks for the suggestion. Looking forward to working with you! - Kabethme 17:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need advice

Hi Sandy! Wonder if you have time if you could have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Mayer. I've gotten my feet a little wet in reviewing FACs, and commented on this one, using your examples of the citation template usage, and I may not be explaining it correctly. So I said I would defer to an "expert" :) Maybe you could help clarify? Specifically, I'm not sure if this method is a hard and fast rule for FAs, although I know it is preferred, (by me too) Cricket02 19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense now and I understand a lot more. A great big thanks for your input Sandy! Cricket02 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erie

I'm not totally done yet, but I was wondering what you meant about the citation publishers. I am not real sure what I need to do, so if you could please explain to me, I'd really appreciate it.--trey 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally checked all the references, checking and correcting titles, authors, and publishers. Ive un-linked some words, removed recently and currently, added some information on crime (that is basically non-existent in Erie). I've had to do this all by myself, as other editors that are part of WP:ERIE and contribute to the article are absent right now, so a thing or two might have slipped, just let me know. Also, thanks very much for using examples and fixing refs, I know normally FA-reviewers are reluctant to do things like that, so thanks for doing it. Please update your oppose. Thank you! --trey 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, thank you for your review and sample edits. One year at Wikipedia and I am still not sure which approach to references to take so it helped a great deal to have a solution in sight when one was needed. I would think they can all be morphed in the future if styles change. Thanks again and best wishes. -Susanlesch 00:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

- Just a little something for your help on the Dominik Diamond. You kept my head in one place after i nearly ripped it off in confusion.... Keep up the good work! =) --SteelersFan UK06 06:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICALS project

Thanks for your comment. I don't think the films project guidelines fully answer the question about Character Lists and Song Lists in musicals, as I've explained over at the musicals talk page. I'd say that the G&S article structure guidelines and examples are actually more helpful in these regards. By the way, speaking of G&S, I have now expanded the G&S article to finally include the important content that I thought was missing when the article was prematurely nominated for FA. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???

What was this about..? mattytay Talk - mattytay 17:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it makes more sense now!!! mattytay 17:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for help with FA

Search engine optimization is running on the main page Monday. Thank you for your help with this article! Jehochman Hablar 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hi there

The acrimony seems to have died down at WP:V and people are now co-operating on a single version that should be able to accommodate all views. Please feel free to edit this draft. here or add specific comments on how to improve it, either for clarity or including more of the relevant viewpoints. Tim Vickers 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

You're welcome anyway ;) I'll keep an eye on them. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whaddaya know... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did tell you...

Barnstar

The Barnstar of Diligence
This barnstar of diligence is awarded to SandyGeorgia for having reviewed over 1000 articles—580 at FAC, 390 at FAR, and 85 Peer reviews, as of a week or so ago, but these numbers are almost certainly out of date already. Congratulations and keep up the amazing work. Dr pda 02:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]