User talk:SandyGeorgia

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
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare	Review now
The Notorious B.I.G.	Review now
Anarky	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
0.999...	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now

About meTalk to meTo do listTools and other
useful thingsSome of
my workNice
thingsYukky
thingsArchives

GA & ArticleHistory

I'm finalizing the next issue of the GA Newsletter, and there's a section in it about the {{ArticleHistory}}. If you want to take a look at it, here it is. Feel free to make any changes that you might want to add. Thanks! Dr. Cash 01:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Very nice; I'll ask Gimmetrow to have a look. Some changes:

• Also tracks AFDs, other featured processes like lists and topics, ...
• Missing word: Although the template is pretty complicated ...
• " ... go to the article's history and click on the date of the most recent edit." (click on the version of the article review or GA listing ... not necessarily the most recent edit)

Thanks Derek! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've implemented your suggestions. Dr. Cash 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol

Hi SandyGeorgia,

There's been an ongoing...discussion between myself and another contributor at Talk:Wiley Protocol. Discussion is pretty charitable as we've both gotten rather hot under the collar over the issue. Words were said, sarcasm unleashed, extremely polite insults hurled. Anyway, the other editor (User:Nraden) is the husband of T.S. Wiley, for whom the protocol is named, and in obvious COI, but since being warned has been very good about engaging on the talk page rather than edit warring. He is now attempting to provide a more thorough description of the protocol, and is currently adding sources to a draft on the talk page. I've some concerns about the reliability and validity of the sources as it is a page about a variant of hormone replacement therapy (bioidentical hormone replacement therapy). But given the history of acrimony (one of the more polite disputes I've had on wikipedia, but still a dispute) I'm not the best person to make a judgement. In addition, you've a much better mastery of WP:MEDMOS and the requisite sources than I, so I thought you'd be able to provide a more nuanced analysis and discussion than I.

Would you mind having a gander? It'd be doing me a huge favour, which I could never repay... I'm not sure how that's supposed to entice you.

The page doesn't get much traffic, and User:Wikidudeman has also been dragged in to a certain extent, but I haven't seen him there in a while. Otherwise, any suggestions would be good.

Thanks,

WLU 02:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not sure if you're a he or she, or would rather not say. So I've referred to you as they/them on the talk page. Hope you don't mind.

It may be a bit over my head, but I'll have a look tomorrow and try to lend a hand (it's a bit late here now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have the utmost respect for the height of your head. WLU 03:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I went ahead and looked because it's so short; you got nothing there to work with, and you need not exert so much effort on a self-promotional article :-) Without any sources, it's just another person pushing their product. If someone doesn't cough up some reliable sources, the article needs to be reduced to what can be reliably said, which is very little. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, this has already been solidly dealt with in the New York Times; the article gives undue weight to the claims, and needs to deal with the issue raised here. Google is your friend.

• Ellin, Abby (October 15, 2006). "A Battle Over 'Juice of Youth'". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-12-01. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiley Protocol 2

I'm just trying to get a description of Wiley Protocol into the article. I've given up fighting Wiley's detractors, I don't care how much criticism they level. There are thousands of women doing very well on the protocol and there is an observational study running at U of Texas, and two of the principal investigators from the Women's Health Initiative are ramping a full-blown clinical trial. This is notable.

Please see my comments in the Talk page for Wiley Protocol

Neil Raden 05:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think yuo've made some questionable revisions to the Wiley Protocol article without discussion. The spirit of this thing, because it is so contentious, is to discuss first, edit second. I wrote two paragraphs about the WP, with footnotes, can we please get back to that. And why you would cite Dr. Taguchi as an unreliable source is beyond me. Please explain or I will revert it. Neil Raden (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For the words of assurance. The article is shaping up so well, that I am thinking of taking it GA in two weeks or something. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The usual subject

FAR is still quite overloaded but it's hard to close many of them because of few comments. The Ashes and Anno Domini could both use an extra comment in FARC; I notice you were working on the latter. Marskell 08:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What does "Those ref labels are still dead and need to be fixed" mean wrt Shoe polish? Marskell 19:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Referencing advice

Thanks for dropping by the Swedish language article and for the edits you made to it! I wanted to ask you for some advice about referencing. If an entire section of the article is based on a single reference, how do you cite that? Also, do you add that reference to the beginning or the end of the section? (Would it be a good idea to ask for additional sources so that the entire section is not based on a single reference?) –panda 18:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that a very similar question was just brought up in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#References for article sections. Sorry to bother you. –panda 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you certain everything in that section is sourced to that book and that one page? That's a lot of info from one page. If so, I also suggest a one-line introduction: so-and-so's book, such-and-such discusses blah, blah, blah. It wouldn't hurt to use a named ref on each paragraph. (See WP:FN.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure. But since the primary editor seemed to have claimed in the article's talk page that he normally only puts a reference at the end of a paragraph that applies to the entire paragraph, I was assuming that it might be true. He's on wikibreak so I can't ask, nor do I have access to all of the books listed. Maybe the safest thing to do is to tag the section with citation requests...? –panda 00:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what he will respond best to; I've not had luck in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Cap

I felt that since the cap is between two now signed comments, adding my name in the header was redundant. I wanted not to hide the entire discussion anymore. Circeus 01:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Goings-on archival

Looks like you did it correctly. Thanks for investigating about a bot further. — TKD::Talk 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi. Thanks for working on the article. I didn't know that you now had the extra responsibility of being the FA director too. Congratulations. You have my full support. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem! I am not the FA director; I'm just a delegate to help the director :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice

Your talk page appears on this list. See this and this for details on the issue. Your archive subpage uses {{archive box collapsible}}, which uses {{archive list}} and {{archive list long}}, both of which use a lot of #ifexist calls at the moment. Gimmetrow 05:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gimmetrow; I have absolutely no idea what any of that means :-) I installed collapsible archive boxes on some article too? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My take from Tim Starling's comment about the new preprocessor in Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) #.23ifexist_limit is that we can wait for a couple of days before worrying about this. There seems to be a good chance that the new preprocessor will fix our problem, without our having to do anything. Eubulides 06:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

stuttering COI

Hello SandyGeorgia. I'm afraid I know nothing about the stuttering issue you raise...sorry. Best wishes, Robinh 09:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance as FA

Hi there,

thanks for your comments on the Ambulance article. I have done some of the suggested fixes, but still had some questions, qhich i posted back on its FAC page. Sorry to post them here, but Peer reviewing appears to be chronically under 'staffed', with most articles only getting the automatic peer review. Most of the appropriate editors seem to gravitate to FAC instead. Therefore, I would really appreciate if you could help, as i don't think sending it back to Peer review will be helpful.

The questions or comments (copied from FAC page) are:

• WP:DASH – All the dashes in the lists are En dashes, which I believe is correct, although I have reinserted them all just in case. Was this what you meant?
• Captions – Fixed so far as I think is correct for capitals and WP:MOS. Anything I missed?
• TOC - Is your issue with the TOC itself (if so i can suppress the hierarchy) or with the headings themselves?
• Cites - all refs use the CITE template, so are in the correct format, and i have now added publishers where missing
• See also - cleared up and reduced to directly related articles
• MOSBOLD - I can't see the incorrect use - it is used in the lists, which is one of the reasons you can use it
• Offending 'sentence' - must of missed that, now fixed
• MOSNUM - I have reread this, and i'm not immediately seeing the problem, any further advice?
• 'Listy' article - I'm not sure there is any way round this given the variations which occur worldwide. If this was entirely rewritten to prose, it would be much harder to read, and more difficult to find salient information.
• Subject focus - I think this does stay quite well focused, given that sub headings, such as lights, are integrally linked to ambulances to the majority of readers.

Thanks in advance for your help. Owain.davies (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

based on your comments of: The peer review is quite old, not very complete, and there is a lot of basic MOS cleanup needed. Without even reading beyond the lead, I see incorrect capitalization in image captions, WP:DASH issues, WP:MOS#Captions punctuation issues, a rambling out of control Table of Contents (see WP:WIAFA), and the article is very listy. There is a separate section created for numerous one-paragraph issues; perhaps something like a War heading could be used to tame the TOC. Oh, I see you already have a Military use section, which makes all the other sections even more confusing. Citations are unformatted (see WP:CITE/ES) and almost no publishers are identified; See also is out of control (see WP:GTL). There is incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD. The article doesn't stay tightly focused on its subject, verring into the technology of the flashing lights, for example. There are numerous short, stubby paragraphs. The article has broad sections with no citations. A copy edit is needed (notice this "sentence": The scene was very popular, and its fame spread — During the year 1870, the ambulances attended 1401 emergency calls, but twenty one years later, this had more than tripled to 4392 ... which also has WP:MOSNUM issues). Commons links belong in External links. I don't recommend trying to bring this article to status during a FAC because there is frankly a lot of work to be done, and I suggest a more thorough peer review would be helpful. A lot of these kinds of issues should have been addressed via peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Owain.davies 12:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Gender neutral language

It seems odd that Tony and you could not get that included in the MOS. It is sure helpful, and I doubt it gets read very much where it is. MOS is the logical place to put it. If you ever decide to open a discussion on MOS about it, please let me know so I can support you. Jeffpw 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi, SandyGeorgia. Quick question. I see Raul654 has given you some new delegation in the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates process. I believe you are a very hard worker but are new to Wikipedia. May I ask please 1) what role you will be assuming? and 2) If you know Raul654 in "real life"? (This can make a difference sometimes I realize). Just a question from another newbie (about 1.5 years here). Thank you. I understand Raul654 is appointed by Jimmy Wales to select featured articles and to select placement on the Wikipedia home page. I guess I owe you a barnstar for your role whatever it may be. -Susanlesch 21:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Susan. No, I don't know Raul/Mark in real life, and I've never been to any Wikimania or other Wiki gatherings where I might have met him or other Wikipedians. The role is explained by Raul here; as he explains it (and I agree), basically, Raul is the FA director, and I "serve" at his pleasure. I don't feel new to Wiki :-) I won't be involved in mainpage selection, but I will be helping with promoting/archiving of featured article candidates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your reply, SandyGeorgia. So you agree Raul654 is the FAC Director, even though he is appointed by no one. That's fine with me. I did have a question about some of your edits while Minneapolis, Minnesota was in featured article review as you know. But I guess I will live. Are you for example, a Wikipedia administrator? Are you a former sysop from another online service? (For example, one could say a long term sysop on America Online has some demonstrated credentials.) Sorry I have never had the pleasure of meeting you or seen your photo (I have seen Raul654's photo on his user page). -Susanlesch 22:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree that the community has conferred and affirmed Raul's position as FA director and his broad discretion over the featured article process several times, and I believe that arrangement works well (I hope you've read the discussion at WT:FAC). I am not an admin at Wikipedia and have not had such a position at another online service such as AOL. No part of the FA process requires the admin tools, and since Raul can boot me if I ever I go astray, I don't feel a need for the admin tools, and it would be strange to apply for them if I don't intend to use them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well I do object a bit to an editor with limited knowledge being advanced over me. But I will think about it. Good work for applying for the job. Did you request your new position? -Susanlesch 22:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• No, she did not. The first time Sandy knew my plans was when I emailed her to ask if he would be willing to take the position. Raul654 22:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weird. A link to email. Well let me catch up a bit and come back to this thread. Maybe some new things happened in the last month or two? Could be. One never knows. -Susanlesch 22:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What's weird, Susan, are your questions. Why, with FA related edits that are in the tens of thousands, should she not be approved over you (or me or the guy down the street)? And no one here has to answer questions about what they do off-site. Anyway, Tim Vickers has provided the best description over at Raul's talk. Her tomb raiding is particularly prolific. Marskell 17:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, Marskell. I think you calling my comments weird is going a bit far. My use of the word "weird" above was not in any way related to you or to SandyGeorgia. It was related to a link in a reply from Raul654. But that is fine. You have helped me (I think once, don't recall) in the past. No problems here to speak of except that I feel it necessary to reply to you. But again, that is fine. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 08:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Naked Brothers Band Navigational Template

Dear SandyGeorgia, Could you add a cast column and just add Polly Draper since I think she should be on the navigational template since she is "the brain child" of the show and is their real-life mother, I think she should be indicated there. AnnieTigerChucky 21:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the current template is only characters, and I'm not sure it's a good idea for it to grow beyond that. Are you aware of other TV series templates that include that level of information? If so, perhaps propose that addition on the article talk page to see what others think. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The Michael Wolff article

Dear SandyGeorgia, I understand why you erased that Michael Wolff picture, because that was horriable. But why did have to erase the info box? AnnieTigerChucky 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with removing that image (although it was truly awful); it was deleted from Wikipedia by someone else. I disagree with the need for infoboxes on many bios, and particularly on that bio. There was no info in the infobox which isn't included already in the article, and without an image, the infobox makes no sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Naked Brothers Band album and songs

There's both a Naked Brothers Band (album) and List of The Naked Brothers Band songs

Dear Sandy Georgia, There's a problem, The Naked Brothers Band (album) falls underneath List of The Naked Brothers Band songs and The Naked Brothers Band (album) article should be deleted, since there is a lot work to do on that article and it's practically a duplicate anyway. How do you delete an article? AnnieTigerChucky 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, only an admin can delete an article, and it would have to fail notability, be submitted to Prod or be submitted to AfD. You can start by reading WP:MUSIC, and then see WP:PROD or WP:AFD, based on whether the article meets notability. Hey, Annie, it would be really helpful if you'd shorten up your section headings; something like "How to delete" would work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address

I read MOSDATE, and took this to mean DON'T wl dates unless there is a specific point, and then I delinked most of the instances of November 19 in the article: "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic." I take it I am misreading this part of the MOS? Also, I will review MOS for captions as you suggested, but my recollection is that using sentence fragments as photo captions is reasonable English practice; for example, "The Hay Draft" would stand on its own without a verb. As someone who is crazy about the serial comma, among other things, I don't see the problem with the fragments under a photo. Your view? Kaisershatner 14:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS#Captions - "most captions are not sentences, but extended phrases..." Kaisershatner 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no problem with sentence fragments in image captions; the issue is the punctuation. WP:MOS#Captions:

• Most captions are not complete sentences, but extended phrases, which should not finish with a period.
• Complete sentences in captions always end in a period.

On WP:MOSDATE, solo years are not linked; month-day combos are linked so that user preferences on date display will work. Full dates are also linked. Month-year combos are not, since those aren't affected by user prefs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You are removing retrieval dates from Amazon and Google book searches. Please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Electronic_equivalents. If you think the citations were incorrect, the right way to fix those is to add the hyperlink, not delete the accessdate. Kaisershatner 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misreading or misunderstanding; you add a retrieval date when you add a URL. No URLs were given. I'm trying to help with the sourcing so the article can pass FAR, and that article requires a mountain of work to correct the citations (by the way, many of the citations are not reliable and do not verify the text they are associated with). I don't have the time to go dig up every missing URL and add them, but someone else is welcome to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

re:Final Fantasy

Hiya. I think it's in pretty good shape; however, the bottom two sections could use some polishing. That could be done easily, and it's mostly minor tweaks. — Deckiller 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop

Hi Sandy - I don't know if you're still interested in the goings-on there, but having taken the PR topic as far as we can for now, we're currently deciding on which issue to tackle next. Your input would be welcome... ;) EyeSerene^TALK 09:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I hear you've finally (almost) succeeded in your nefarious scheme to dethrone Raul654 and replace him as featured article director! Congratulations! He couldn't have chosen a nicer evil mastermind of indeterminate gender! :-)

Seriously though - will deciding whether to award the little star get in the way of your commenting on FACs? I hope it doesn't; that was one of the best things you did in the FA process. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are so funny; the $64,000 question :-) Where there's a hole, someone will fill it; when an over-producer steps away, someone else usually steps up to the plate. Eventually, another editor will start to review sources for reliability, make sure text is verified by the source cited, and jump in with sample edits to show editors how to comply with MOS and correct ref formatting. If that never happens, we'll find a model that works—Marskell at FAR has managed to work so well with reviewers and nominators and express his own concerns while still making sound and neutral interpretations of consensus on closing FARs. The same model can't necessarily be applied to the higher volume at FAC, so for now ... while I'm still green, I'm starting very slow, planning to help hold down the backlog by running through the clearcut noms often, and leaving the messy ones to Raul (isn't that unfair to him? :-) There are a few kicking around that concern me, and SG the reviewer would love to just dig in and get them fixed, but there aren't actually so many of those. If I see anything really problematic, I can get involved and leave it to Raul to close. The time it takes to read through and sort out where each reviewer stands on a nom is surprising, and I've developed an appreciation not only for how much Raul has had to do, but also for people who thread their responses correctly, make their objections and supports clear and intelligible, and strike concerns as they are met. The bottom line is that if no one eventually does what I did, it means that what I did wasn't that important. Time will tell :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Autism problem

There is problems with autism scientific peer viewed journal articles that will help correct the autism article

The only thing is scientist say there is no cure, I refer to call it "completely better", and scientist don't explain it clear enough they are trying to say that you can't get completely better from the "Autistic Spectrum", but not necessarily "autism", but the spectrum. The truth is scientist do not know enough information about autism compared to a certified analysis who works with the kids through Early Childhood Intervention, they know so much about autistic's brains but so little about how they think and process things is the problem, that's why this is very tricky to find a peer viewed article that explains this, but I will continue to do so. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Take Temple Grandin as an example, she had autism when she was very young but got completely better from autism but she did not get completely better from the "autistic spectrum", she has Aspergers Syndrome now. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Annie, I saw the changes you wanted to make to the autism article, but the truth is that the article already makes it very clear that some of those treatment methods are effective, so I'm not sure why you're concerned that we don't cover that. Also, we can only report what reliable sources say, and we must avoid anecdote in all articles, but particularly medical articles. Temple Grandin has the same brain wiring she was born with; it's the diagnoses that change over time, and Asperger's didn't exist as a diagnosis when she was young. Also, the lines that divide one diagnosis from another are fuzzy. If you find any reliable sources that the autism article misses, it would be good to post them to the talk page for discussion, but remember to shorten your section headings :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay thanx! But just for more info, that Temple Grandin was not diagnosed with autism when she was younger she was diagnosed with brain damage. Which she said, when she was being interviewed once, and she improved and developed her language at age 4, which aspergers does not mean brain damage or problem delays with language. She had autism until she was 4, and then was diagnosed with Aspergers later on. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats!:

Congrats on your appointment. I couldn't think of anyone better for the job. :) Spawn Man (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Spawn Man, it's nice of you to drop me a note! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

From me, also. So they finally got you. :) —xyzzy_n 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

xy, where have you been lately? I've missed you 'round the TS article. Thanks for kind words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bryan Jepson

Hi Sandy. As planned, I've nominated Bryan Jepson for deletion. Please add your thoughts here. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Will do after I finish some other things; can't remember who he is :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Keli Price

Dear SandyGeorgia, There is a problem with adding Keli Price, before the last time I was blocked I created Copyright when I created the article, but I learned my lesson now and it's under protection, meaning it's disabled to create. And I found a reliable source at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2802157/?fr=c2M9MXxsbT01MDB8ZmI9dXx4PTB8dHQ9MXxteD0yMHx5PTB8aHRtbD0xfGNoPTF8Y289MXxwbj0wfGZ0PTF8a3c9MXxzaXRlPWRmfHE9S2VsaSBQcmljZXxubT0x;fc=1;ft=20 that will work to create it. But how do I enable the block. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Annie, here is the log for that page; you can contact one of those two admins on their talk pages, explain to them that you found a reliable source and you now understand copyright and other Wiki policies better, and ask them to re-create or allow you to re-create the article, showing them your sources (do you have others?). I can't help any further than that, because I'm not an admin. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanx! By the way I do have another reliable source, but I am going to start with this one for now. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

But your case to the admin for unprotecting will be stronger if you show more reliable sources and explain that you now understand how to use them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added these two [1] and [2], is that good? AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That should help! Thank you so much for the kindness below :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Insight

Sandy, I posted some comments here; perhaps you can offer insight. I have posted the same inquiries to the other users involved. Thanks, --Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

An Award

This award is for helping me and a lot of other users on Wikipedia and helping make Wikipedia a great place! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

NBB Film and NBB series

Dear SandyGeorgia, Could you please check the naked bros film and tv series article. I did some changes, wanted to make sure you approved and the same thing for the thirtysomething (TV series) article. By the way I found out how to edit a navigational template. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the midst of a lot of work tonight, Annie; I'll check those as soon as I have a free moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Annie, you've made a lot of progress there, and have turned those into real articles !! I left a lot of little manual of style changes; if you sort through each one of my changes by looking at each diff in the history tab, you can see changes you can do to other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

UNPA FAC

I was having trouble figuring out how the dates in your example violate WP:MOSDATE. As for the violation of WP:MSH, could that be resolved by getting rid of the "Support and Opposition" heading and just having "Support" and "Opposition" headings (rather than subheadings)? 65.205.60.17 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Both Support and Opposition are very short, and they seem to split the text unnecessarily; would it work to just have one heading and two paragraphs without sub-headings, which don't seem necessary? Full dates (month-day-year) should be wikilinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging it into one section does seem like a good idea. But in reference to the dates, are you saying that the date ranges should also be wikilinked? Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOSDATE explains that autoformatting doesn't work on date ranges, but my understanding is that you can do it like this:

• [[December 5]]–[[December 6|6]], [[2007]] to get December 5–6, 2007. I could be wrong, but that's what I usually do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks. By the way, I notice the citation page says "There is currently no consensus on a preferred citation format for Wikipedia"; do I have to include these "retrieved on" dates? I just think it's redundant since the time of retrieval is implied by the date of the edit in which the reference was added. Sarsaparilla (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, websources need retrieval dates; no, we can't expect editors years from now to sort back through old diffs to find out how to replace a dead link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added those and attempted to follow examples from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style and Template:Cite web. What do you think? Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, now what do you think of it? I think the 1c and 2 issues are pretty much dealt with. Sarsaparilla (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

I sent you an email.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Date question

SandyGeorgia, hi, thank you very much for your help with Pauline Fowler.  :) A question that I had though on date-linking. Sorry if I seem confused on this, but sometimes I have trouble getting my head around the subtleties of some formatting issues. My understanding of date-linking, is that we should only link dates that were "important" dates to the topic of the article, and that we should avoid linking all dates on the page. However, from your edit here, it appears now that all dates should be linked, even if they are simple "date of publication" in a reference?[3] I can definitely accommodate either method, I just wanted to make sure that I'm clear on what the current practice is. Thanks, Elonka 02:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of your dates in references are linked, yet there are inconsistent, sporadic misses. When I see an article that formats *no* dates in references, I assume it's a strange user preference, and I leave it alone, although I disagree. WP:MOSDATE says full dates are linked so user preferences will work. What probably happened in some of your dates is that there was a recent change in the cite templates. Accessdate is automatically linked when you use the yyyy-mm-dd format. While the date parameter previously was not automatically linked, but it was recently changed so that it now is automatically linked when you use the yyyy-mm-dd format, but not when you use Month day, year. That could be part of the difference. Go back and check the date parameters, as well as check if you missed any dashes. Trivial stuff; not that important, but might as well get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go take a look and see if I can get things cleaned up.  :) BTW, do you think that these little formatting issues were the main blocker at the FA nom? I noticed that the page has been at the nomination page for nearly two months now, and I was wondering if there was some major issue I was missing! --Elonka 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to tell why some articles don't get a lot of review, but it may have been the tense issues and questionable sourcing. I hope you can deal with the one cite tag I added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we've got it all squared away now. We have consensus on the tense issues, the sources have been tightened up, and the punctuation and dates have been cleaned up. And I added that cite that you requested. Any other "gotchas" that you can spot? And thanks again for the help! --Elonka 06:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to drop a note to Tony, as he has many FACs to revisit all the time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! Thanks and done.  :) --Elonka 06:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the variations in the cite templates:

• {{cite web}}
• Jimbo (2007-12-06). "Wikipedia". MediaWiki. Retrieved 2007-12-06.
• Jimbo (December 6, 2007). "Wikipedia". MediaWiki. Retrieved 2007-12-06.
• {{cite news}}
• Jimbo (2007-12-06). "Wikipedia". MediaWiki. Retrieved 2007-12-06.
• Jimbo (December 6, 2007). "Wikipedia". MediaWiki. Retrieved 2007-12-06.
• {{citation}}
• Jimbo (2007-12-06), "Wikipedia", MediaWiki, retrieved 2007-12-06
• Jimbo (December 6, 2007), "Wikipedia", MediaWiki, retrieved 2007-12-06

Gimmetrow 04:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL, it makes me crazy, but few seem to notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding author just to make it really look crazy ;) Gimmetrow 05:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can never figure why it doesn't bother some editors. Or why the templates aren't consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• You have mail. And your favorite bot helps maintain WP:GA, so don't diss it too much. Gimmetrow 03:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The Sweet Escape (song)

I heard you're Raul's second in command, so congratulations. Can you weigh in at this FAC, and restore order? The discussion has gone from whether the article meets featured status, and is now all about whether people should be allowed to make multiple nominations etc. etc. Of course, the discussion should be about whether the article merits the star. My personal opinion is that the commentator can debate the topic via the talk page of FAC if he wishes, though you're welcome to express your own there (or not express anything). Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems the user has taken my advice somewhat. Anyway, thanks for your time none the less. I hope all is well. LuciferMorgan (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine; I hope all is well with you, too; have hardly seen you around lately? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Knut (polar bear)

Hello, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to clean up the citation templates at Knut (polar bear). I also noticed that you left a note regarding a support at the article's FAC. This is my first time going through FAC and I wasn't aware that users had to have a certain amount of edits to take part; or is that just a precaution against sockpuppets? Does input similar to that have the ability to harm consensus? Can there be consensus with one longstanding oppose, for example? I apologize if I'm hounding you, but I'm still very new to this process and I'd like to be well aware of the little intricacies before beginning my next one. :) Take care, María (habla conmigo) 13:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hola, María. Many factors have to be accounted for, and an editor supporting an article as their first contribution to Wiki may or may not be given the same weight as an established contributor or reviewer, depending very much on all of the circumstances (that particular editor has made no other contributions to Wiki). Yes, we have to consider sockpuppets, sleeper accounts, outside canvassing, etc.—I'm not saying that is going on with Knut, just that I made the note as I went through to remind myself next time I read through. Yes, there can be consensus to promote even over a strong object, particularly if that object is not founded in policy or WP:WIAFA and others disagree, but it is better for the "long term health" of the article if strong objects can be dealt with by establishing a strong consensus, so issues don't come back to hound you in the future :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; the explanation for new users makes perfect sense, and it's wonderful that so many things are taken into account in order to promote an article to FA. Oh, but I was afraid you'd say that about consensus! I'll see what I can do. :) María (habla conmigo) 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles director names deputy

I came across this announcement just today. You're far the best person for this job! Congratulations, but please don't stop working on medicine-related articles! NCurse _work 18:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Piłsudski's nomination

I find it rather unpleasant to have been accused at FAC discussion of 'improper nomination'. I hope we will not allow the FAC discussion to turn into a place one can flame FA creators. In any case, I'd appreciate your comments on P. article. I know you cannot vote, but if you think there are any concerns I should address, do let me know. The copyediting have finished around Dec 3 and the article should be relatively stable now.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching. There are some unfortunate reviews and comments being made (not only on those FACs) that I trust will get sorted out. It may not be possible to prevent unfortunate discussions and comments, but I do hope my message at the bottom of that discussion is clear; if I thought a nomination "improper", I'd remove it. I haven't; neither has Raul. Hangeth in there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Again, if you think that I have not address properly any of the issues raised, do let me know! -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Dear SandyGeorgia, I was wondering if you still have my talk page on watch. I posted a comment back on my talk page, click here. [4] AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do, Annie; I will get to it as soon as I can, I'm just very busy :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		for taking the time to make detailed and precise notes to a new user (User:AnnieTigerChucky) who needed your help. This action exemplified the best of Wikipedia and you are to be congratulated! - Philippe | Talk 03:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Belfast

Hi, just to clarify, if I don't formally Oppose, I don't need to revisit, do I? PS Having trouble with my email system. Tony (talk) 05:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that wayward italic comment. Sounds like you're hyper-busy. Tony (talk) 12:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

FACs and Diocese of Miami

Hi Sandy, thanks for reminding me about the FAC for the Archdiocese of Miami, I've reexamined the article and was suitably impressed to strike my oppose. I haven't abandoned the FAC process for good, but the holidays have made everything a little crazy. If I don't have time to wade back in over the next few weeks, I hope to be back up to speed by January. Have a wonderful holiday! Karanacs (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussing featured image eligibility for animals, with possible repercussions on FAC process

Sandy, I wanted to alert you individually of this discussion as you are one of the people who best understand "the best of Wikipedia". Discussion here. Permalink is here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Poking for peer review ;)

Hi, Sandy. I unfortunately missed the announcement when you were given the keys to WP:FA, so I'd like to congratulate you belatedly. That's a much-deserved promotion.

Also, I was wondering if it was possible for you to comment on Wikipedia:Peer review/Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale? I want to eventually send that article to FAC, but I have no idea what I need to do before that. So pointers as to what to do would be much appreciated there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hah! That's definitely Tony... :)... btw, you missed all the fun tonight... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually noticed it when I went to do the unit conversions in Dashboard... I have WP:ITN as a page there, and it was giving me the "We have technical difficulties" page that occurs only when the MP is deleted... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I left a couple of questions on the peer review page. Mostly, I don't know how I can add information about damages to life and limb, as the scale doesn't measure that, and those damages really depend on the position of landfall of a storm... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I've also added  s throughout the article to "Category #" statements (except in section headers, where they break incoming links). Aside from that, do you think that the article could be in shape for an FAC run? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Two FARs

I closed Anne Frank partly on the strength of your "Formatting looks good so far"; I didn't realize you still had issues.

Swedish just seemed to be a talk page dispute that had spilled into another forum and with FAR being so disputatious lately, I thought I'd shut it down. Note it wasn't actually Panda's nom, so I hope s/he isn't personally put off. Marskell (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

NumaNumaDud

Thanks for fixing his edits. I was going through them as best I could, but it's hard on dialup to do it very quickly. :) kmccoy (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Some might suggest that rather than waiting for an admin to notice, you could just become one. Is there a reason you're not? :P kmccoy (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes; I don't want to apply to that club until/unless Wiki develops a means of dealing with abusive admins; hauling through ArbCom isn't my idea of time productively spent on Wiki :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative stuff

Hi Sandy I hope you weren't referring to me as a POV pusher. The article Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities has been a hard one. I think the subject is really important, but it's difficult to make an article that all sides are equally happy about. Anyway, thanks for the cleanup! (You're welcome back anytime ;) Piechjo (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not, Piechjo, not at all; it's been a long day and it's only afternoon here :-) On that article, I think ya'll just need to diversify those sources, because a lot of that really can be sourced to peer-reviewed journals so it won't come across as an advert for one book. Have you seen the Diberri PMID template filler in the userbox on my userpage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Now I have, thanks, and I've added it to my Explorer Favorites Center. I'll try and find better sources. It's actually a pretty new subject and some "expert" sources aren't very scientific. Piechjo (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But they're out there, and you can avoid problems by setting a *strong* citation standard from the beginning; if you over-rely on one book, it looks dodgey :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will. After a good night's sleep. Piechjo (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the list will be a tricky thing to redo. I think that's where secondary sources are really needed. There are now about a hundred therapies, and there are more out there. We need both a source to state that the therapy is not a standard procedure, and that it's used as an alternative therapy. Chiver's book, for instance, is not scientific, but she knows a lot about alternative therapies and has been the first one so far to write a book on them from a neutral point of view. If I was making a list of pseudoscientific concepts, I would use the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, for instance. I don't see it as an advert because very few Wiki-readers actually check the sources. If I can't used Chivers, Reid, Silver and Jacobson, I'll have to delete all the references. But then the advocates of these therapies start deleting their products from the list because it's unsourced. Piechjo (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you good at searching PubMed or google scholar? I'd wager you can diversify a lot of that list with some time spent in search engines. When I first saw the list, it read like Chivers had written it; lowering any of the amount cited to one source that you can will help the article, and a peer-reviewed source is stronger than a book. I know some sources are out there, because I've come across them in my Tourette syndrome research. Get some sleep first :-) And, if I don't get time to get back to the article soon enough, feel free to remove my advert tag as soon as you've gotten a fair amount of diversification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Auspicious moment

I just stopped by as a result of the content review business and found Tim Vicker's quote: absolutely priceless! Thanks for sharing! Also, amazed that you are not an admin, I checked out "wannabe kate", and found that your last edit "Me neither" at the content review workshop, was exactly edit number 45000. If you'd like a shot at RFA, I'd be delighted to nominate/support etc., although I would guess Tim has already asked. The admin tools are occasionally useful ;-) although they don't need to take over your wiki-life: this was only the 4th time I used them, I think. Geometry guy 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I found the thread where Tim asked. Also, "wannabe kate" gives up after the 9th batch of 5000 articles: you actually have an even more impressive 50152 edits. But I do think your reasons for declining are mistaken: I've had absolutely no admin hassle. Anyway, enough said. Geometry guy 22:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim is something :-) Don't be too impressed by my edit count; I'm a famously inefficient editor. How did you find the 50152 number? I don't know how to find edit counts after Kate craps out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wannabe kate craps out, but Kate is fine: see [5]. And please think again about going admin ;-) Geometry guy 01:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You can also easily find your own edit count by looking at Special:Preferences; it was added a while ago. Dr pda (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

But that's too easy ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

50,203 edits... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's weird; I don't know how I got an edit on the German wiki if I've never registered there, and I don't know how I got edits on Wiki books when I only registered there very recently to discuss a COI problem. And, I don't recognize those edits, but my memory stinks. I don't know anything about Canadian Geese. hmmm ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a transwiki content transfer. Edit history must be preserved for GFDL. Gimmetrow 04:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• FYI: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 8 Gimmetrow 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know (am I the biggest Wiki user of MOS shortcuts? :-); I'll watch. Looks like all are going the right direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Protests & Students

Finished a little more. Tell me what you think.. I know it still needs improvements. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [6] Jmegill (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I was too late? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

tutorial

By "MOS review tutorial", I guess you were following up my earlier comment (last week?). I think I'd rather integrate MOS things into the advanced editing exercises instead, where it's a more ecologically valid environment.

I'm more interested in a tutorial for the 1c thing, or at least important aspects of referencing in FACs. Tony (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What aspects of 1c need a tutorial? Gimmetrow 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno; it's so plain to me that I can't always understand what isn't plain to others :-) You scan the citation list, check the quality of the publishers, watch for missing publishers, click on any you've never heard of to check for reliability, make sure that sources are properly listed and formatted, look for sources that claim one source but are actually copyvios, randomly click on a lot of them to see what you find, and spot check that sources are what they claim to be and actually verify the text. I need to write that up, I guess, but I can't understand why more reviewers don't do it. Checking sources should be one of the most important elements of FAC and FAR. Tony and I need to do a tutorial like his editing exercises, to show others how to quickly spot issues, I guess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also, Sandy, if there's a problem with the Wiley articles let me know. Looks like NR is sticking to the talk page for now. Gimmetrow 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I unwatched there; I just don't like the tone and it really has me uncomfortable. I keep hearing I should become an admin so I don't need to seek admin help on issues like that, but being an admin wouldn't help in this case. I wouldn't be able to do anything differently even if I were an admin because 1) I don't understand the BLP/COI/possible legal issues so it wouldn't be appropriate to act, and 2) I'm an involved party now, so I couldn't/wouldn't act anyway. I went to the BLP and COI boards asking for extra eyes and over five days, got nothing; same thing that happened on the COI at stuttering and anti-stuttering devices to poor Slp1, who is having to deal with that mess by herself, literally as the only content expert on Wiki, as far as we can tell. Something is wrong; Wiki is stretched too thin and good editors have to spend too much time fending off craziness. Frustrated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also drawing your attention to this; relevant historical discussion is here. Gimmetrow 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Idle thought

Partly out of boredom, and partly because I've spent far too much time out of the mainspace recently, I jumped into a recent event on Battle of Musa Qala today. Pleased, many edits later; I'll be checking BBC in the morning.

Now, I shouldn't look at everything here through FA glasses, but I had a thought: supposing this page roughly triples in length (it probably will, as the battle is significant and on-going, and I've taken it to ITN) and I continue to scrupulously source it, would it be good or bad to bring it to FAC? I don't mean the day after the British (or whoever) declare victory, but after a week's news cycle is done?... I hate recent event articles. Most of them are spike-then-suck, IMO. But perhaps, with a conscientious editor watching, the idea of taking an article from creation to FAC in a week or two is not impossible. (More accurately: "isn't dead" as an idea—they used to do it in '03 and '04, AFAIK.) Marskell (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Idle thoughts as well. Going to FAC fast is doable; Yomangani did it, but not on current events. I can't think off-hand of a current event that has gone to FAC fast, but 1) keeping a current event page in FA shape if it hits the main page is difficult (recently I worked on Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007 which is still on the main page, so gets hit by a little bit of "everyone knows something and thinks it's important" without developing the big picture, which still isn't developed on that article, and I'm not even going to try while it's on the main page, how's this for a long sentence?) so that's a factor, and 2) whether others perceive an issue is settled also becomes a factor, because there are the random "there is no way this can be stable or comprehensive" opposes raised at FAC every time a semi-current event hits there. Do you have the historical perspective and context to turn it into a comprehensive article without having it come out looking like a BBC news summary? Here are two that came through on the heels of the events that I can recall: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Australian legislative election, 2006 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. I can't think offhand of a recent event that failed, but there have been albums, DVDs and such that are new that get complaints. Considering my experience with current event Venezuela articles hitting the main page, I think your biggest obstacle will be the "everyone has something to say and is convinced it's of vital importance" issue, so it's hard to get it stable and to develop perspective and context and also stay on top of MOS issues when everyone is putting their hands into the pot. I think you'd need a cadre of editors knowledgeable on the topic to help fend off the POV edits and MOS breaches and non-reliable sources. Doable, but not easy. You could try if you have nothing better to do (who has nothing better to do? I'm going to have to abandon cleanup of that walled garden of autism-related articles :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed an unfortunate fact. Because BBC and the other news stories are being updated constantly, what was verifibiale yesterday may not be so today where they drop particular sentences. Marskell (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

List of The Naked Brothers Band episodes

There is a problem it says that the beginning of the second season, episode "Been There, Rocked That" is an episode, but I realized it was only a half-hour special. The second season doesn't start until January. Is there a way we could make a headline saying special. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet claim by Zeraeph

Sandy, Just thought I would fill you in on the recent sockpuppet affair. I did open a new account Goddessculture as I thought this was allowable on Wikipedia. I stopped using the Soulgany101 account before that as I wanted a fresh start after my fumbling beginings on wikipedia, and have not overlapped the use of those accounts (nor double-voted or whatever it is called). I have further placed a note on the soulgany account saying the account is permanently disused, and have contacted WP. management informing them of same.

Put it down to me being a wiki-dunce, but I wasn't aware of the rules on this subject. I literally assumed that old accounts would become defunct and could be deleted, but as they were both still there it seemed to cause confusion for Z. But I'm now more aware and will take care to stick to one account. Apologies for any confusion, and thank you for the comment on the Sock page Goddessculture (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC) (was Soulgany101)

Yes, I could see all of this, and I didn't doubt your good faith. A problem occurs when multiple accounts are abused; that doesn't seem to be the issue here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. To add to Z's suspicions I also forgot to sign in several times, which has also been taken as sockpuppetry. I will be diligent with the sign-in from this point. Goddessculture (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, people forgot to sign in all the time on the AS talk page, and I never saw CeilingCrash accused of sockpuppetry for posting from an IP, which happened *all* the time. Goose, gander, all that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dead link tool

I just noticed the dead link tool you installed at {{FAC-instructions}} and left some questions at WT:FAC. I also tried to install it at {{FAR-instructions}} for WP:FAR, but I'm not sure I've done that correctly. If you have time, would you mind checking? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The automatic job are currently programmed in. However, I've added to the list with a massive update today which fixes 40+ issues. And your question about running on a specific article just shows that I suck at interface design :-) as there's a link right next to the title atop of each group. Feedback on this point is much appreciated. —Dispenser (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Mumia

He's being deliberately disruptive. I'm uncertain how to take the article from here. Do you think I should nominate the article if the image issues (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Image:Gov Ed Rendell.jpg) are resolved? I can't decide whether it would kill off one of his outlets or spur him into even more disruption. DrKiernan (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't watched the edits closely enough to have an opinion on the best course of action; I'm only aware of the issues because I kept the fac watchlisted after the last nom. I haven't actually looked at the article, either. Is Raul aware that the disruption continues? Usually with editors committed to disruption, there's no course of action that produces a logical result. I usually fall back on the old adage about not making a decision when you don't have to make a decision; maybe the decision of whether to nominate will become more clear with time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address 2

Have you finished pulling your hair out over this one? Marskell (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No; the last time I looked at it, I worked a bit on the top and the bottom, but I didn't get to the middle of the article, and there was so much work needed that I had to take a break. I'll work on it some more later today after I do some holiday preparations. It had some sources I need to look at closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We've never policed nominations and I wouldn't know where to start. I've been frustrated that, despite closing better than one per day this month, the total remains stubbornly high. I have thought the total increase in FAs would be offset by how many have already been gone over from '04 and '05. That's still true to a large extent, but we may have to live with a higher FAR volume in general. Marskell (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't police nominations but can encourage people to extend certain courtesy on the process, reviewers, and main authors such as nominating one at a time per person, and main author. Joelito (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh

Hello. I think Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh could be closed without stretching WP:SNOW in the least. The author is unlikely to be enthused by further enturely negative criticism. Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Angus; I will look at it on my next pass, unless Raul gets there first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

External jumps in Swedish language

Could you let me know which part of the text in Swedish language previously had external jumps that needed to be removed? I thought I was fixing the external jumps you were referring to,[7] but that was reverted by Peter.[8] Anyway, since you commented that they're now gone from the article,[9] I was just curious what they were since I was obviously fixing the wrong thing. Thanks! –panda (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Panda, I misspoke; they are still there in the Dialects section. I suspect you've done all you can with that article, and you may be at a point of diminishing returns, considering the resistance to improvements. Is it worth it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not when the same editor keeps reverting text that I add, which seems to be the general strategy to make opposing editors want to go away from the article. At any rate, I'm on my way to the library to get some missing page numbers, which hopefully won't get reverted. Considering the resistance is only coming from one editor and his friend, outside opinions would probably be more useful at this point. –panda (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

PMID

So, are you saying I can use that template and create a citation? This I've got to try. Too bad there's not one for doi's. Thanks for pointing that out (not to me, but to someone else, I just happened to notice). OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my. I just tried it. I think I just had a heart attack. If I had only known about this 6 months ago. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean you were doing cite journals on PMIDs manually! Oh My Gosh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

YES!!!!! I never knew!!! It's like I found the Holy Grail of citations.  :) My only issue with the tool is that a lot of science articles aren't on pubmed. How can I do it with doi numbers? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of a DOI generator, and I'm pretty sure there isn't one. TimVickers may know. I can't believe you typed all those manually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's so sad, that it's funny. I really never knew. I had PubMed on one screen, and Wiki on another screen, and I would cut and paste back and forth. It was exhausting. I need to figure out if PubMed searches work for all science articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim would know; and now you've met Colin, one of the nicest, most thorough, and most conscientious people on Wiki, so the headache was worth it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that I have the PubMed tool, I'm going to go after every single medical article. Muahhahahahahahah. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I like to hear; Colin, Eubulides, Tim, Fvasconcellos and I can't do it all ourselves :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Although controversial, I've started to clean up Pregnancy and make it into a more useful article. It's amazing how bad some of these medical articles are. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) In somewhat related news, I think User:Geometry guy wants to do CPR on WP:FACT. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You think I can find some time to get involved in that? <grin> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Life, the universe and everything

Indeed, and I totally understand. No worries at all. I have been very grateful for the support and advice thus far, and will slowly work on things at my end, as my own time permits. It is great that others have taken an interest, and I will certainly be in touch if need be. And I do hope your dog recovers soon. Poor dawg, poor owners  :-( --Slp1 (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorrier still, and hope that your wishes for a peaceful end comes to pass. And that the pouring rain stops soon too. I'm optimistic enough to believe that the sun will come out, eventually! --Slp1 (talk) 03:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Australian Green Tree Frog

I've looked at this article, one of our shortest FAs, a couple of times and thought "not quite." I decided to just do it myself. The prose is a bit wordy, but for the purposes of the citations list I think it's fine and can go. Marskell (talk) 12:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on the BBC: on-line news orgs do, it seems, drop content on developing stories. There may not be a static copy of the page you were once looking at. That's what I've deduced, at least. Marskell (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you with me on the frog :)? Maybe we cheated a little with Riel, but if you look at it's history, it's actually a good example of the hivemind keeping a page in a reasonable order. Marskell (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gotten there yet; I just finished dealing with Gettysburg Address. And I haven't bought my tree !!! And I owe Kablammo a response below ... and ... and ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, yea, we did a great job on Riel :-) I hope we can do the same for Gettysburg, because, wow, what a lot of work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation format question

Sandy:

Like a puppy, I will be returning to an article I worked on earlier in the year. It uses the footnote/source citation method. Before making format changes, I have two questions on citation:

1. Where there is no author stated, should an underscore __ be used when listing the work in a sources section? (as here) And where in an list of sources alphabetized by author should such works appear?
2. Repeated use of internet sources with the <ref name = "x"> method results in all uses linking to a single footnote, with superscripted letters to mark each occurrence. Where the internet source is paginated, I see no reason not to cite to the page in question, in order to avoid things like Hurricane Katrina, an excellent article with 25 uses of a single footnote (fn 1) which links to a .pdf document. This requires a reader searching for a specific point to read the entire 43-page report. Consequently I list paginated web resources in a Sources section, with inline cites to specific pages, but with the url also appearing in the footnote so as to allow the reader to skip a step and go directly to the url from the footnote, rather than going from text to fn to source. Examples are here (footnotes 23 and 25) and here (2, 4, and 8). This method seems particularly useful where a book now in the public domain has a separate url for each chapter; the title page or index url can be given in the Sources section; links to specific chapters can be given in the inline cites. Do you see anything wrong with this format?

I've let it languish for 6 months so there's no great hurry.

Regards, Kablammo (FOS) (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Gettysburg Address FAR

You left a message on my talk page asking me to address your concerns at the above article's FAR. I just nominated the article for review. I think you are looking for Kaisershatner who is the article's primary contributor. KnightLago (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations

You are now my go-to person for citations, especially now that I've saved myself a case of Carpal-tunnel syndrome by using the new PMID tool. I'm still in shock. What is the cleanest, best way to do citations for a book. Usually, a science book makes a poor reference, because you might take information from page 22, 37, 125, etc. Without re-writing the reference 4 or 5 times, how can we use something like WP:CITET, but refer to individual pages on the footnote? I watch your page, so you can respond here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Cite the book once in a general reference section (whatever you call that section in your articles, or at the top of your footnote section) using the cite book template. Give all the info there, including ISBN, but no page numbers. Then cite the individual page numbers when you source text by placing them in between ref tags, like this:
  • <ref>Author (year), pp. x–y</ref>
• (Don't forget that's an endash, not a hyphen.) Exactly what was present on History of evolutionary thought before someone told that poor bloke to do all that work converting the references to a mass of blue links, when what he really needs to do is massive MOS cleanup :-)) If you like all those blue links at the evolutionary article, you can do that too, but what a massive amount of needless work :-)) I'm so glad you asked; did I overuse the word "massive"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Unnecessary, but it was partly converted. Anyway, I finished making the sea of blue for the guy. Doesn't it seem a bit strange to put formatted Harvard refs inside ref tags? I would just put them in the text, so you could click once to get to the full reference rather than twice. Gimmetrow 19:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I dunno; I'm a simpleton :-) Careful or Orange will start asking as many questions on your talk page as I do!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Premier League

Is this what you were thinking for Premier league? Thanks for the suggestion in FAR. I had been wondering about how to tackle it, and your suggestion seemed to be the best way to deal with it. Any other problems? Thanks again. Woody (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Present

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		I Woody do hereby award this Content Review Medal to SandyGeorgia in recognition of the plethora of reviews that you have conducted in the WP:FAC process. Always civil, always helpful, your contributions are invaluable. Thankyou!!! Woody (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)