User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:47, 10 October 2007

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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.

Featured article removal candidates view edit
PowerBook 100	Review now
1981 Irish hunger strike	Review now
Battle of Red Cliffs	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

User:SandyGeorgia/FAs for review

About me

Talk to me

To do list

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Re:Nancy Reagan

Hey Sandy. I have been working on the Nancy Reagan page for a long time, and as a well referenced, well written, neutral, factually correct GA, I think it is ready for a FAC. I was wondering if you could take a look at it, fix anything you like, and contact me on my talk page. I contacted you a few weeks ago regarding this matter, but you were probably too busy which is totally ok. Anyway, if you have time this would be great. Thanks, Happyme22 00:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I umderstand completely. Thanks for getting back to me, though. Happyme22 03:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More input needed at Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC

Hi, thanks for your comments in opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton. However, you only gave one example of where you thought the prose was 'regrettable' and the sourcing lacking. That area has been fixed up, but we need to know what other areas you think suffer from these problems, so we can fix them too. Thanks ... Wasted Time R 03:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firefighters' unions praise is in footnote presently numbered 169 at the end of that sentence - it was always that reference, and that reference does include praise of her efforts regarding health issues facing 9/11 first responders. Did you mean some other reference problem? Tvoz |talk 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the problem, like

I'm going to hold my ignorant hands up here and plead that i did'nt know what I was doing. I though it was an independant checklist, I did'nt realise the might of FAR would reign down. Pity the fool ;) Ceoil 01:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"my numbers won't add up". I'm an accountant bty, there is always a way to 'make them add up'. If you know the answer, i can find the question. Ceoil 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its funny you should say that because what the cabal lacks is a gal. Outrigg's ok, but you know. So your in. Your code word is 'no. 3'. Ceoil 13:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never understood the rules of baseball, though it looks great to watch. Anyway, Outriggr's out of favour after last night. Congratualtions, no.2 Ceoil 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Lady is fine. We don't want to formalize removals there though we might add a note about the stats. Laika's OK too. I've been busy on my trip though I'll do some catch up edits tonight. Marskell 17:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! Mild mannered during the day...Ceoil 17:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And

Not sure if you noticed Wikipedia:Content review/workshop. The first section is a list of review processes. Do you know any others? You strike me as the editor to ask... Marskell 18:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. Guidance here (along the lines of Tony's how to write guide) could help raise the bar and maybe dissuade the perception of FAC/FAR as a MOS bearpit. The people to invoive, imo, are Awadewit, Hoary, Sandy, Qp10qp, Geogre, AnonEMouse, Outrigger, Casliber, & Piotrus. Thats a fairly tangled web though. Ceoil 18:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but. As soon as I show up there, so will someone else, who has a retort for everything I say. Not going there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could go there quietly, just to add the review processes that exist but aren't mentioned, and then sorta watch... And hey Ceoil, comments welcome. Marskell 20:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as quiet in my contribs; just watch Tau Ceti. Mark my words. Twenty bucks ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell, no, all my reviewing insights are recieved. I've seen many FACs in the last few months that I'd like to comment on, but I don't have the tools to dissect them. Which is why a 'how to' like this is so attractive. Ceoil 20:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are other Iriah overlords? I need to act quick; but have not yet found anything from you last 1000 contributions. Humour me with a diff. Dont worry; I am all mercyful, no harm will come of them. Ceoil 23:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine; but can you explain me this - why can't I page move H.D. to Hilda Doolittle. Its really bothering me.Ceoil 23:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, so thems the reason. Do you reckon I'll get in trouble for asking such quetions. Many of them are watching us, you know. Ceoil 23:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I moon someone ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not now, hold still. Their day will come (Leben der Anderen). Ceoil 23:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is I'm a simple person and I type what I hear. I'm listening to TV on the Radio at the moment, so im typing what they tell me to. Ceoil 23:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And and

Would you have any formatting concerns with Tau Ceti? It's FAC hasn't had a lot of traffic. Cheers, Marskell 18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I et al. things after two—I don't know if there are discipline specific rules for secondary mentions. Your semicolon is fine. Thanks! Marskell 20:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How'sit going?

Just thought I'd say hi. :) Spawn Man 09:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries

Not a problem. I can see at least one ongoing and apparently personal feud being prosecuted via FAC, which is a misuse of the process and annoying if yo've got an article up for consideration. BT19 does seem to be going fine. I'm worried - everyone's being too nice! :-) Cheers. 4u1e 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Tom Hawkins (footballer) - Template:ArticleHistory

Hello there. Thank you for correcting my template. I looked at the talk page, and will do it that way. The WP banners were on the talk page in that order, but will nest them if I again see multiple banners listed separately. Thank you for your note. SriMesh | talk 01:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani

You're right about that I probably should have signed the edit myself. Sorry about that, and thanks for catching the error. John Carter 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; I think of Yomangani as somewhat modest, and I don't think he'd want it to appear that he added that statement himself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ticks are...

arachnids! :D Mac OS X 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for that (in the "learn something every day dept). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Favor

Could ask you for a favor? When you get a chance, could you look at the refernces cited in the section "Mastiff" in the article Iowa class battleship? I only did the basic citation becuase of school constraints (I am allowing myself a few minutes on here as a reward for finishing an assignment), however I am certain that some of the citations could be expanded upon with the inclusion of author and publish date and the like. I would handle it myself at a later date, but I have no idea when I will be back on, and this is a featured article, so I feel like it needs to be done soon so as to keep with the FA philosophy here on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cite template bloat

Thanks for the tip on Obama about empty fields - I knew that, and promptly forgot it. Will work through the article. Tvoz |talk 09:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoSElement

Hey there. I hope I'm not being annoying (feel free to tell me so or just ignore me if I am), but I wanted to run this by you. Because you mentioned that the {{MoSElement}} template has the potential to clutter up talk pages, I learned how to make it collapsible. Maybe this will make it less problematic? (The folks at Talk:Harold_Pinter are using it to positive effect.) I certainly respect your objection, but I'm one of these "let's find consensus whenever we can" people – and I like to address everyone's concerns when I can. (As ridiculous as it is for me to try to please everyone, it doesn't stop me from trying, heh.) Thanks in advance for your time. – Scartol · Talk 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that Galileo talk page is a nightmare; but isn't that more a function of projects competing for space? I also never understood why the {{talkheader}} template is so popular..

We did indeed check in with Tony1 – he responded, and I implemented most of his suggestions. I really do want to make this as unobtrusive as possible, and only give a positive tool which can help (as impossible as it is to remove all the negatives on WP). Thanks for your feedback! – Scartol · Talk 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAR and away

Please check on Talk:Monopoly (game). [1] [2] [3]

Apparently two established editors have removed the FA tags, though neither said anything on the talk page first. Gimmetrow 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Master Editor Award

I had to remove the master editor award from your award page. You do not meet the criteria for a Master Editor Barnstar. You must have 40,000 edits and 5 years of service to receive or give yourself this award. You have only been a member since February 2006. You are eligeble for the Experienced & Established Editor award. I have informed User:Marine 69-71 in case he would like to give you an alternative award.--Dr who1975 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, you are a stickler for requirements. I think you should make Sandy an honorary whatever, because she is the greatest!!!!!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the greatest too. Except nobody seems to recognize it.--Dr who1975 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fill-the-hole contest

Well this is awkward. I'm launching a contest to fill the new hole here with the funniest cartoon commentary on this screwup. Dr. whoever you are, you're welcome to strike the words "or give yourself", since I certainly dont' give myself awards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, an entry for you. I don't know anything about the situation so it is pretty neutral. May the best cartoon win. -Susanlesch 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't thought of a cartoon, but the "screwup" made me consider the possibility of an Ineligible Award:

The Ineligible Award may only be given to editors who do not meet the criteria. Enjoyment of this honour is brief, as it is usually bot-reverted within 24 hours. The Ineligible Award image is copyright; placement of the award on an editor's talk page is a violation of WP's non-free content policy. Editors who frequently award ineligibly may therefore be banned.

Colin°^Talk 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many Wikipedia:Barnstars does the community allow User:SandyGeorgia in one calendar year?
I personally like this one. Has no relevance, just slightly amusing. Woodym555 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally like this one. Has no relevance, just slightly amusing. Woodym555 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Architecture of Windows NT

I think there are more issues in that article than just referencing. Could we please get it delisted? I'm not going to be able to work on it for the time being (my wife is pregnant, and I'm busy at work). It's degraded anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Atlantic University

I saw that you did a nice peer review for Ohio Wesleyan University and was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the above article. It is currently undergoing peer review here. If things turn out well I plan on taking it to WP:FAC next.

Thanks, KnightLago 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==FA Task Force on Hillary Rodham Clinton== Will you join me in this Task Force to improve the article. The FA is getting into a shouting match, just short of people pulling out guns. I propose a way to consensus by improving the article so much that people say "wow, that's a good article!" 7F 20:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comment by Dereks1x sock - same sock farm that brought the bogus Obama FARs. Tvoz |talk 21:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 Well this is awkward.  I'm launching a contest to fill the new hole [[User:SandyGeorgia/Barnstars|here]] with the funniest cartoon commentary on this screwup.   Dr. whoever you are, you're welcome to strike the words "or give yourself", since I certainly dont' give myself awards.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 :*OK, an entry for you. I don't know anything about the situation so it is pretty neutral. May the best cartoon win. -[[User:Susanlesch|Susanlesch]] 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
+:*I haven't thought of a cartoon, but the "screwup" made me consider the possibility of an '''Ineligible Award''':
+:::The '''Ineligible Award''' may only be given to editors who do not meet the criteria. Enjoyment of this honour is brief, as it is usually bot-reverted within 24 hours. The Ineligible Award image is copyright; placement of the award on an editor's talk page is a violation of WP's [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|non-free content policy]]. Editors who frequently award ineligibly may therefore be [[WP:BAN|banned]].
+::[[User:Colin|Colin]]°[[User talk:Colin|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 <gallery>