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.

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

F-4 Phantom II - question about references

On your latest comments in the FARC discussion, you have commented on the use of "blue link unformatted citations to personal websites" (and mentioned Joe Baugher's Phantom website. I have commented on the FARC page on the fitness for purpose of tis website - re the formatting of the reference, what would count as the publisher for such a website? Would something like:

Baugher, Joe. McDonnell F-4K Phantom FG.Mk.1 McDonnell F-4 Phantom II Retreived 25 January 2008

be appropriate?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll do a couple of sample edits as soon as I get a free moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, Sandy, that a page can seem unencouraging. But you know the tightrope that needs to be walked at FAR. FAR closures are, sometimes, much harder than those at FAC. Nigel is still here, commenting. I want to be fair, even if it's extra generous. Can we do those publishers based on the example edits?

(Same thing happening at Macintosh, incidentally.) Marskell (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It will take me hours to clean up the citations: every one of them needs to be rewritten, and I don't know what to do about all the non-reliable sources. It's hard to know where to start. This Joe Baugher fellow is not a reliable source, nor is vectorsite.net, and they are cited extensively, along with other personal, hobby sites. <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Then don't fix them. I'll wait another week; if nobody else starts to fix them, then it will be removed. Marskell (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll chip away at them as I can, but it's a full-time effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the use of sites like vectorsite and Joe Baugher's site here. You may want to comment.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One thing worth coming back for

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For protecting Wikipedia by proving you really are SandyGeorgia by having more class and grace than anyone should ever ask of anyone else. Sometimes, when bad things happen to good people, the good people show who's who, and everyone wins. KP Botany (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PS You're still wrong about the Lassen article. Geologists study not only the sedimentary record, but the absence of the record--it's every bit as important to discuss where the stratigraphic column goes absent, as it is to describe the sediments and their history. Being wrong in this instance or any other doesn't subtract from your immense contribution to quality on Wikipedia. Thanks for showing everyone how it could work and how it should work if only you weren't the only SandyGeorgia. KP Botany (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

U2

Don't. Give us 24 hrs. Its fine. Ceoil (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually brought up my concerns on the U2 talk page and the editors are receptive to further cleanup. So while I don't plan to clean it up in 24 hours like our Irish friend promised, you shouldn't worry about it. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Tomorrow, or they the day after, or whenever, whatever. The main thing is nobody dies. And I'm thinking of you paticular WesleyDodds, when I say that. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans: I can work on Marskell's Otter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose we move Sea Otter to Marskell's Otter. Or better yet, move U2 to Marskell's Otter. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Move F-4 Phantom II to Marskell's Otter, Giant Otter to U2 and U2 to F-4 Phantom II. Then my day will be perfect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Who makes bad articles good and good articles awesome?

SandyGeorgia, of course. It's so great to have you back; the project literally suffers without your involvement. I don't have any pretty pictures or awards to bestow upon you, but I admire your resilience and energy, and I'm happy to see you doing what you enjoy once again.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

aw, just seeing your name grace my talk page makes my day !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thirtysomething (TV series)

Dear Raul654, There is a problem with the Thirtysomething (TV series). The name was chosen as "thirtysomething" not "Thirtysomething." WP: MOSTM state that it should be always capital when it's a Proper noun even if it was accepted "officially." I object that rule and changed it, because it was causing too many problems. I saw back-and-forth discussions about it on the talk page from a year-ago. The majority agreed with it being lowercase. I changed everything in the article that said it capitalized -- from "Thirtysomething" to "thirtysomething." But, there is a problem I can't fix, the title. I tried changing it and it said that it was typed the same and it didn't work. So I tried typing "thirtysomething (TV Series)" instead of "thirtysomething (TV series)." I was thinking maybe Wikipedia would pick "t" up and then I would of just changed "(TV Series)" back to "(TV series). But, it came out like this --> "Thirtysomething (TV Series)" so I had to change it back. Do you know why it isn't working? AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem someone reverted the edit on WP: MOSTM. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey ATC, how are you? Raul is pretty busy, so maybe I can help you on my talk page? I think Wiki articles have to start with a cap, even when the actual word doesn't; I had the same issue with the song by Nirvana, "tourette's". I don't think there's anything you can do about it, although correcting it within the article is the right thing to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear SandyGeorgia, Check out the article, eBay it's not using correct grammer and was accepted. "Ebay" would not look right. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good point, ATC. It's late for me to work on this tonight; will see what I can do tomorrow. Probably someone else who reads my talk page will have the answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Found the relevant MOS page here. Annie, this Manual of Style page explains the difference between something like iPod or eBay and k.d. lang or adidas, where we do follow normal capitalization rules. It looks like the cap on Thirtysomething has to stay. Will see if someone else differs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thirtysomething should remain capitalized due to the MOS paragraph found by Sandy. It is reasonable for encyclopedia style to rule even when the inventors of trademarks try to create catchy anomalies. We even have the poet E. E. Cummings with capitals. I think that each occurrence of thirtysomething within the article should be changed to Thirtysomething. EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. But if I made a book or news article on "thirtysomething." I would do it lowercase. But, I understand your point if view and will change it back. (P.S. A lot of articles on this TV series would normally write it like, "Thirtysomething", but every now and then I saw it written like, "thirtysomething", "thirty-something", and very rarely like this "thirty something.") This looks like news article journalists even made these mistakes. Thanx everyone! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add this section to the Thirtysomething talk page. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to copy it all over (you should say where it came from). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dones

I think I cleaned up the dones on the FA page for Introduction to Evolution. It certainly is easier to follow now. The mass transfer of text to the discussion page was done by an admin. because it was impossible to separate article issues from allegation against the editors. Sorry if that created a problem. If I was FA director I would take one look at that mess and flunk it. I am very much a newbie at this; all 10,000 edits have been on that one page. I would walk now, but I invested way too much time to bail and a lot of very good people have contributed so much. I am amazed how one negative force can create so many confrontations with so many different individuals. A wall of supports reflecting numerous compromises; yet it reads like theres been a bloody edit war since it started. Many good editors have left; rather than bog down in the constant strife. I can't wait until this is over so I can get out too.--Random Replicator (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It reads fine; it's decipherable now, and I've seen worse. I thought a summary was better than a restart in this case. Any progress on the page nos? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

An interesting change in formating on the books. Havard style? I trust my peers to the citation department; but I'm not certain, in that the new format is so different. I did track down all the page numbers for the books I used; unfortnately, there are still 3-4 which came from other editors. I've asked. All of the cited sections with books and no page #'s could be validated through other sources, which is my last option--- but I guess its getting close to mid-night on this FA. I'm personally biased toward web sites for accessability as the initial goal was to be a gateway. Not many visiting our place will be tracking down Journals to expand their horizons. Well off to address the undones!--Random Replicator (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What an inspired idea

[1] I had been wondering where these kinds of articles were hiding - the ones that are important but need improvement - and now I know! I see a few that might well be within my scope of competence; they may not wind up achieving FA status again right away, but it gives me a chance to focus on something a bit more intellectual than the children's books and popular music I've been spending my time on. Thanks! Risker (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Great; I always like to see an FFA save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Happyme22

Please accept my apology for attack post .

I still believe this article was written in a Non NPOV and that you can accept my sincerest apology for the attack post in order to move forward in addresing the more relevant issue at hand: the Nancy Reagan article. Multiple Non NPOV's have been detailed on that discussion page.

Thank you. 207.237.228.83 (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Question prior to real FAC

Hi SandyGergia, so glad to see you back and active. Sorry to bother you, but Awadewit and I are going to nominate Joseph Priestley House at WP:FAC on Monday or Tuesday and there is a small potential problem. The article was already nominated once (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joseph Priestley House). The nominator was a user who had never edited it, but was later banned as a sockpuppet of the banned User:Kitia, who started the article and made one more edit.

Both Awadewit and I asked that the nomination be withdrawn and Awadewit removed the {{fac}} tag from the talk page (which took it off the FAC page). Since the "drive by nomination" was withdrawn, we have expanded the article considerably and cleaned it up too.

My question is what should we do with the old nomination? I see two possibilities: 1) blank the page (perhaps moving the current content to the talk page?) or 2) delete the page (I am an admin now and could do this). There may well be other options here, but I thought it best to ask you before doing anything and before we nominate the article for real. Thanks in advance for your input here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I archived it in the standard way premature withdrawn FACs are handled; normally I do that when they are withdrawn, but apparently this one was withdrawn without my knowledge. I'm not sure how I missed that one, but if withdraws are left to me, I can archive them correctly. It's good to go now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I believe that you were on Wikibreak at the time and we did not want to bother Raul with it. Sorry for any extra work and thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv

Hi. I nominated this article last week and was working on it along with those who commented on it, and it was refused. Other articles have been in the FAC status for longer. I dont know why it was rejected so quickly. I have now managed to address every issue which the comments came up with so feel it is ready. Im not sure what to do.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Other articles which have been at FAC longer have garnered some support. On just a quick glance, I see that Tel Aviv is still sparsely cited, has reference format issues and MOS issues. I suggest you take a few weeks to work on improving it with another experienced reviewer or writer, and re-nominate when it's closer to ready. It's normal to take a few weeks between FAC noms. Best of luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks-Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick word of thanks...

...on Interstate 355. As you can see, my flailing attempts to MOSize the article haven't been altogether too successful. :-D —Rob (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad no one jumped in to help you :-) Done now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'm about ready to take a break from that particular article. Just in time to get into two more controversies! —Rob (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Otter

In a happy coincidence, Pharos has just added a mythology paragraph. It was the only real absence. I'll check the sandbox. Marskell (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost done, just have to add the Surinam woman (forgot her name). A lot of it may not be usable, and you'll have to massage my prose. It is what it is; copy over whatever you want as soon as I'm done, although you may not want to use it all. Almost done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask a stupid question that I should already know the answer to: why does & nbsp; matter? I have yet to open the browser where it makes any difference whatsoever.Marskell (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Go back to a very old version of 7 World Trade Center and see if you pick up any of those 7's on one line, rest of the address on the next :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. I just went back to five early versions of 7 World Trade Center and I see absolutely no difference in the numbers versus current. I know I should do it; but I often forget, because I've never noticed a visual cue. Maybe it's my eyes!

Your sandbox is excellent! Thank you. I need to wait 'til tomorrow to process it. Marskell (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Confused

Sorry, Sandy, I don't understand what the friction is over in Introduction to evolution. I suspect a POV. One thing is for sure; no article on Evolution can ignore that Nature paper by W&C. I seem to have caused a problem.--GrahamColm^Talk 23:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC) PS. Nice to have you back.

Hey. Several things happened there. It appears from a distance that the article just wasn't nearly ready when it came to FAC (remind you of another recent article?), and while Raul and I weren't looking, things got really out of hand and people got bruised, so there's a lot of tension. It looks like people are trying their best now, and people are listening to suggestions. There is consensus, and I hope they'll all get along and work together to iron out differences so we don't see the article at FAR or AN/I, as often happens in that editing area, which isn't known for exemplary civility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

re porque no te callas?

Why on earth was my entry removed? It is better sourced than most of the rest of the entry, and less biased - imagine using Time magazine as the sole arbiter of the motives of Chavez, ignoring what he actually said, and regarding this as 'neutral'! Bizarre.

manning53 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manning53 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page, thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Done/Template:Not done

Would it be appropriate for someone to nominate these for deletion? It seems like more and more these days the consensus is not to uses these at all in FACs, Peer Reviews, etc. One can just make their own bolded "Done." manually, if so desired, but since as you say, the graphic clogs things up - why not have a discussion to delete it? Cirt (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe they're used elsewhere. I tried to reduce their size once, and someone screamed. You'd have to check what links here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh Boy, you're right, it's linked to from lots and lots of pages. Oh well, just an idea. Later, Cirt (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution

I will try to, but I only have blocks of time on weekends that I can look at it. It would help if there were a general area on Wikipedia where a science article can be reviewed, instead of relying upon individual drop-in editors. A lot of what needs corrected is basic evolutionary science, or fundamental misunderstandings about the importance of certain events in the timeline of science. This might be what concerns the poster above (Graham), namely dropping the Watson and Crick paper, when it's an event in the timeline as big as Darwin, Mendel, Morgan, Huxley/Dobzhansky/Mayr/Simpson/et al. I don't think the proposal was to drop the Watson and Crick paper, but it's sometimes hard to figure out what is going on when the Wiki article mentions the double helix shape but not Watson and Crick's bombshell, A-T, G-C. It's like an A-bomb going off over your city and someone asking you to look at a flame. It is difficult maintaining a certain level of discussion about the article when editors keep throwing in omissions to that are fundamental to science, and every mention of the problem is either dismissed or attacked or seen as personal criticism. That sentence I quoted from Watson and Crick's paper is one of the most famous sentences from all of the 20th century's scientific literature. There's not an evolutionary biologist alive today who would not recognize its importance to their work. So, having to correct it is frustrating. But I tried to do it in a straight-forward manner, and when it was corrected, I accepted the correction, although I thought it was a bit complex.

I disagree with some parts of the format or topics outline, but I don't know enough about Wikipedia articles or have the time to correct that myself. And I'm not sure it matters as long as there is an excellent article that introduces evolution in a scientifically accurate manner. So I haven't posted these issues.

My concerns about basic science in the article, and references matching sources should be addressed, imo, before it goes on the main page. I've read some of the main page articles over the past month and they tend toward rigorous referencing. They're well done, in fact, even the popular culture articles.

The writers of this article are also at a disadvantage because of the one commentator who requested primary sources, which won't work well for an article of this nature. The attempt to appease everyone won't work.

I will try to check the use of primary sources, but I won't have time until next weekend, I work and go to school 72 hours a week.

I like the idea behind the article, and it looks like it could be rather good which is the only reason I'm putting up with the pile on shit directed at me every step of the way. Please don't include yourself in that. I raised an issue, it was addressed adequately, I crossed it out, RR indented to indicate he was addressing the same issue, after you had chided me about improperly indenting, and you obviously sided with him. I assume that everyone will side against me as has been happening. But Wikipedia has a lot of influence in web search engines and needs to be accountable to this. And, Wikipedia won't be publishing crap about evolutionary biology if I can help it. --Amaltheus (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with Matanikau Offensive

Thank you for correcting the hyphens in the article. I'll try to ensure that the articles I edit in the future are correct in that regard. Thanks again. Cla68 (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well

No more User:Random Replicator. I am pretty sure I know why.--Filll (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad it got so heated. I've left a note for Raul. Darn, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I knew better than to be too involved. And I warned RR as well by email, but oh well.--Filll (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Back - comment on intro to evolution

While I cannot comment on the scientific accuracy of introduction to evolution (I also asked TimVickers for an opinion on that matter - I guess he doesn't want to get involved), I can offer my opinion on the state of the debate on the page. There seems to be a push and a pull between those who want greater accuracy and those who want greater accessibility. These goals are rarely commensurate. It is difficult, for example, to use scientific terms accurately as well as to explain their meaning precisely in an introductory article. I think that initially the editors of the article had envisioned sacrificing accuracy for accessibility (I always thought of the article like the planetary model of the atom - in many ways wildly inaccurate, but a good heuristic). However, over the course of the article's development, it became increasingly sophisticated - partly as a result of some writing choices and partly as a result of some additional material. During the FAC this came to a head as even greater accuracy was demanded and other editors pushed back, demanding that the accessibility be at least held at the current level or increased. In my opinion, this tension is the root of the problem. Each editor has a different idea of how much accuracy and accessibility they are willing to sacrifice. I don't know if this helps you at all - perhaps you realize all of this already. If you have any other questions, feel free to drop a note on my talk page or email me. Awadewit | talk 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is time to put Introduction to evolution up for deletion. Enough is enough. It was never wanted anyway, to be honest.--Filll (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of editors worked very hard to get this far; it's time to have a beer :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it would be for the best, given what I have learned.--Filll (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Miserable time

I have never had as miserable time on Wikipedia as these last few weeks. I saw Introduction to Evolution on the FA Candidate page and 'supported' it. I then contributed my time to tweak it further. I have never experienced a page go sideways so badly. I believe that the artilce should be deleted because of inevitable content forking as the article is constantly under pressure to converge to the sophistication of the main article Evolution. There is - almost - no natural constituency on Wikipedia to maintain - let alone to write - a simple straightforward explanation of evolution. 'Introduction to Evolution' is not supposed to duplicate 'Evolution'. I think we are re-writing 'Evolution'. I can not see this article ever being stable. It is unnecessary and grief causing. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Translation

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		For the second time, you have come to my aid at FAC with your Spanish language skills. For this and your many other efforts, please accept the Rosetta Barnstar. Marskell (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)