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.

FACs needing feedback view •
2023 World Snooker Championship	Review it now
Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945	Review it now

Featured article removal candidates
Bernard Quatermass	Review now
The Slave Community	Review now
Exosome complex	Review now
7 World Trade Center	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

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

Malraux image

Hope this helps! ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm working on a criterion 3 guide I hope will help people achieve some level of comfort with the admittedly convoluted image policies/laws. PD is actually pretty straightforward; the trick is FU, especially getting folks to exercise due skepticism regarding the significance of an image's contribution. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC List

I note that you removed the link to the FAC list from the FAC instructions. That link has been there since 31 December and I don't see the justification for removing it now.

It will be rather difficult to establish whether these lists are useful if no one knows about them. Given the difficulties you had last time you had to access FAC over a slow connection, I'm surprised you don't see the benefit. Geometry guy 15:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss at WT:FAC; I've seen no indication they're being used, and a list wouldn't have helped me promote/archive over a dialup, because accessing one FAC at a time would take as much time as waiting for the entire page to load (also, that problem was solved by getting rid of the awful "done" and "not done" templates, which were the real issue slowing down the page). I don't want to clutter the FA pages unless we're certain there's a payout in terms of utility (for example, the dead link checker has been a real help). If a lot of people want the lists, the extra verbiage on the page could be justified, but I want to avoid the page becoming so packed that it becomes hard to negotiate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: FAC nom

Yeah, thanks, didn't see that, will nominate once RON gets more support. Hello32020 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Hilary Duff from FAC

May i know why u removed Hilary Duff from FAC page???? Gprince007 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I came to know that u failed the article but may i know the reasons behind it??? the objections raised were minor prose issues which i had addressed a few days back. Since the opposing editors didnt respond, I left a note today on the opposing editors talk page to let them know that their objections had been addressed (see[1] and [2]). Without giving some time to the nomination to garner support and without giving any opportunity to discuss this issue, how can you arbitrarily remove the nomination without specifying any reason??? I hope u reconsider ur decision Gprince007 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gprince; the nomination had run a week, gaining three opposes (all focused on prose). It can be hard to come back from three opposes, and a fresh start a few weeks later after addressing issues is usually more successful. I also take a look at articles to see if there are further issues that hadn't yet come up at FAC before I archive them; if it's only isolated issues, and reviewers are likely to be satisfied easily, I may leave the nomination open a bit longer in spite of the preponderance of Opposes. For example, the reviewers of Duff focused on prose issues, but there are also non-reliable sources (about.com), incomplete or incorrectly formatted citations (missing publishers) and several WP:MOS issues to be addressed (I saw on a quick glance an endash issue in the infobox and caption punctuation to be dealt with). Addressing all of these issues before re-approaching FAC will give you a good shot at gaining featured status the next time through. Many articles take more than one FAC to gain featued status, but you're half way there. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ganymede

You should add his name, because Marskell significantly contributed to this article. Ruslik (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources question

Sandy, would you have a minute to provide a third opinion on a reliable source issue? If so, please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/If (magazine). Awadewit has raised concerns about two sources:

• Internet Speculative Fiction Database. This is a database which allows open data entry, but the data entry is moderated by administrators. Hence it's not quite clear if it is subject to the restriction on sites anyone can edit. An additional point is that the reference is not being used to source anything that is not also sourced from the magazine issues themselves; the value of this source is that the ISFDB provides an online index that is useful to readers who don't have access to the magazine itself (as of course most won't). So it's a convenience, and is not the sole source.
• Magazine Datafile. This is definitely self-published, by a bibliographer, Phil Stephenson-Payne. It is used only for one fact: the name "Clifford Hong", who is the editor of an issue of the magazine. The only other source I know for this information would be to go to Addall, put in "Clifford Hong" in the author field, and search. You'll find one copy of the magazine for sale, confirming that Hong was the editor. Is either of these a reliable source? Stephenson-Payne's site is widely used as a reference work, and in fact he is now hosting a major index of anthologies put together by William Contento. (I am also citing that index, but Contento is an acknowledged expert in the field, and his indexes are regarded as critical references; Stephenson-Payne is not self-publishing those -- he's publishing Contento's work -- so I feel those are OK.) Stephenson-Payne doesn't have independent reference works referring to him as an expert, though, as Contento does.

Awadewit has reasonable concerns about both the above, and we know you've spent a lot of time thinking about reliable sources; we'd like your opinion if you have time. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Mike; thanks for asking. I wouldn't promote a different FAC that used cleary self-published personal webpages (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oliver Typewriter Company), because that is so clearly spelled out at WP:SPS and because I thought that the original sources were accessible in that case. In cases where there could be some ambiguity, I'd prefer not to be judge and jury, and suggest that you raise the same question either at WT:FAC or WP:RSN (or both) to assure broader input and consensus. In terms of precedent, have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, posted at WP:RSN as you suggested; and I see you have already fixed a typo of mine over there. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Krust closed too early

Can you please reopen this FAC and allow for other people to give feedback? There are zero opposes, and I addressed all of the comments that were brought up in the FAC. One person even changed to "Support". I really wish you could reopen the FAC, and wait for more input on the article, comments/supports/opposes. At this point, closing it with one support and some comments and no opposes is actually closing something that was leaning more towards "Support" than anything else. Also, The Simpsons WikiProject really needs 2 more FAs for Season 9 to remain a Featured Topic due to recent changes in the Featured Topic Criteria. If we had to wait another 3 months before even being able to try for FAC for this article, it would really hinder the process. Thank you for your consideration to reopen the first FAC. Yours, Cirt (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just double-checked at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Last Temptation of Krust/archive1 - 3 editors left a "comment" - all points from all comments were addressed and notes were left on those editors' talkpages. One editor came back and changed their comment to "Support". So in the end there were 2 "comments" (with all points addressed) and one "Support". Cirt (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Cirt; the nomination was open for more than two weeks, and listed for a very long time on the Urgents page, without gaining consensus for Support. Three months is not needed between nominations (I'm not sure where you got that idea?); a few weeks is a normal interval between nominations. Re-opening a FAC involves undoing a huge number of steps, so a new nomination is preferable. Because the nomination was listed so long on the Urgents page without gaining support, I'm not sure an immediate renomination would yield the best result; perhaps checking with reviewers to make sure they are satisfied before you re-nominate would give you the best chance for success. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but I would really appreciate it then if it is too hard to reopen the previous FAC, if you could do what Raul654 (talk · contribs) sometimes does which is a "restart due to lack of input" or something like that. I find it unfair that the FAC was closed after only 2 weeks - when Raul654 (talk · contribs) in the past has left some of my FACs open for over a month and a half, the FACs gained more comments, and he was able to promote them. Cirt (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I, too, will leave FACs open for months if they've garnered sufficient Support and outstanding issues are being addressed. This article hadn't garnered support. If you insist, you can submit another FAC; my recommendation is that might not yield the best result, and that you take time to figure out why the first nomination didn't garner support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

But it did garner Support, and there were zero opposes. The FAC had more "Support" than any other type of leanings, especially after all comments were addressed. And as you suggested, I stated above that I had already left notes at all commenters' talkpages that I had addressed their concerns - only one came back to the FAC. I really wish the FAC had been left open for longer, 2 weeks seems really too short. Are you saying I can start another FAC now? Because from my perspective judging that the last FAC was closed with one "Support" and no opposes, there wasn't a lack of "Support", there was a lack of editors who commented, a lack of commenters who came back to address my responses to their comments, and a lack of time given. Cirt (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I really do appreciate your advice, please enlighten me, what else could I have done differently? Cirt (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm regularly updating the Urgents page, and reviewers are following it, when an article fails to gain support, there could be a reason. Because there were no outstanding opposes, I'm not saying you can't open another FAC right away; I'm recommending that opening another right away (without determining why the first failed to garner support) might not yield the desired result. The choice is yours. Good luck either way ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You and I seem to have a cordial disagreement about this. You state that it "failed to garner support" I feel that it did "garner support" - it just didn't garner enough editors in general to comment at all. Update: Per your recommendation from above, I left notes at the talkpages of the 3 editors that commented in the FAC - Hurricanehink (talk · contribs), Indopug (talk · contribs), Laser brain (talk · contribs), regarding a potential new FAC. What else can I do to assess if people will support a new FAC? Cirt (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have said garner consensus for promotion. Asking those who previously commented is a good start, and you might also query any relevant WikiProjects. (I don't recall if the article had a peer review?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The article did have a peer review, but not too many people commented. I had debated during the FAC putting a notice at the talkpages of the relevant WikiProjects to grab some more attention, but as the FAC nominator I did not want this to be viewed inappropriately. In the next FAC, if I say something neutral on the WikiProject talkpages like "X article is presently undergoing FAC, please see the FAC page, here, and comment if you like" - is that okay/neutrally worded enough? Cirt (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Many WikiProjects have templates for notifying articles that are at PR, GAC or FAC; as long as you do no more than notify, there should be no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so do you think I should do anything else at this point? Wait for feedback from the previous 3 commenters? Cirt (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Update: I've gotten some feedback from the editors that commented at the FAC, and from the initial GA Reviewer. One of the FAC commenters suggested to wait about a week and that person would do some copy-edits in the interim, so I think that's what I'll plan to do. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just Like Heaven

Indopug's concerns have already been addressed; he's just been too busy to reply, from the looks of it. I've addressed Tuf-kat's comments to the best of my ability. His final contentions concern phrasing and the passive voice; I've enacted most of his suggestions but did not do others because I felt the phrasing worked there. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your first comment at Mantanmoreland ArbCom

A couple of editors have expressed concern that your comment here has not been addressed. It has been suggested that other editors comments around the same time be reformatted, but I was wondering if it would be easier if you were to move yours to some clear space so it may be considered by those who may have missed it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

nah, no drama, I'm not worried about being overlooked :-) Moving things around can just make it appear that I take myself too seriously. I'm just one small voice (with a big e-mail inbox :-); if ArbCom wants to hear my voice, they will. I appreciate the thought, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this comment really hit home to me.[3] Thanks for saying that; it's why so many people have stuck it out. Risker (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Too bad my prose stinks, and I can't say it more eloquently, but WYSIWYG over here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:GO

I see you're still archiving WP:GO. I'll see what can be done. Gimmetrow 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it's irritating. If you can cook something up, it would be stupendous, and I'm sure the community will give you a standing ovation and thousands of Barnstars.  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic-style diet

Hi, I've been meaning to ask someone... A couple of weeks ago, an administrator removed the following source from the article on the grounds that it was not a reliable source (User talk:Hu12/Archive6):

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/paleodietcavemandiet/p/paleodietintro.htm (The webpage a also links to several other similar pages.)

Do you consider this to be an unreliable source? I find it quite useful, as it summarizes the differences and similarities between the dietary prescriptions of various advocates of Paleolithic-style diets (see linked pages).

Thanks for your help. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No; about.com is not a reliable source. Anyone can sign up and write for about.com, and they have some really marginal writers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, me again ;) Do you think this sentence from the article is gramatical? Not sure... "Cooking is widely accepted to have been practised at least 250 000 years ago, in the Middle Paleolithic." Thanks.--Phenylalanine (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a good judge of grammar, but it sounds a bit weasly ... I believe Karanacs plans to run through one more time tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi Sandy, as a fair editor and a person who takes a non-POV stance in subjects, could you please take a look at an acussation against my person made by an editor here: Talk:John Melendez and express your opinion. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, "muchas Gracias" for your valued comments and suggestions. Cheers. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaner?

Sandy, Could you take a gander at the first paragraph of the behavior analytic model of child development -- I tried to make it an easier read...am I going in the right direction? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback?

Sandy, I was hoping to get some feedback on my edits -- I'm going to try to do what I've seen others do...my edits are[4], [5], and [6]). Thanks!! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gotten through my morning watchlist, I'll check when I can. In the meantime, have you read and understood WP:MSH, WP:MOSNUM, WP:DASH for example ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read them...my behavior'll demonstrate whether I 'understand' them :) how do I make an Emdash? I've ben using -- (which I now see is not proper at all!) I'll wait patiently and edit some other articles thanks!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok -- my behavior in respect to WP:DASH is here [[7]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk • contribs) 21:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Josh, but I've looked at that article, and it's in such bad shape that I don't know where to start, and it's not worth the effort if someone doesn't do some basic cleanup first. Is Wiki being used, perchance, as an experiment in some college class or something? The same incoherent mess is being introduced across all of those articles. No punctuation at ends of sentences, massive amounts of typos, no regard for footnote placement, no attention to WP:MSH, incoherent sections and rambling, and the article you have directed me to not only doesn't have a WP:LEAD, but has glaring typos and errors in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not an experiment...its a zealous contributor -- I'm trying to get up to speed on how to wikify things and such...but am having a difficult time keeping up! Maybe WLU can help make sure what I'm doing is on the right track! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another student undoing corrections as fast as I do them: User talk:Ginamarie112. Impossible to keep up with; there should be some standard for college classes unleashing people on Wiki who don't read talk pages, edit summaries, or Wiki guidelines. Too much to keep up with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

References?

Sandy, I put a commenton WLU's page, and meant it for either of you: User_talk:WLU#References. Thanks for your time Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Ford

I think it was a little over a year ago you and I worked on the refs here to keep its FA status. Check this: Gerald_Ford#Electoral_history.7FUNIQ1c1a13438a94de6-nowiki-0000016C-QINU.7F110.7FUNIQ1c1a13438a94de6-nowiki-0000016D-QINU.7F. A ref for a whole section in the section title? Seems wrong. How should this be done? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, I've been fixing FDR's refs, he can use some work too. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Whole thing needs cleanup again;[8] who's watching that article? I'm only one person. I'll chip away on it as I have time over the next few days. <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep chipping at Ford and FDR too, Sandy. Thanks. The three of us can knock it out, eventually, ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Allrighty; three's a charm :-) I'll work on them both after I get through my regular stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy: I was going to work on Ford again, but saw you have that major edit tag on it. COOL! I'll look it over. Now I'll go to FDR and hope you find time soon to do a major edit there too soon. Thanks. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FDR has entire sections without refs, oy vey. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When are you going to be done here? I can remove the blank fields in cite templates rather quickly. Gimmetrow 01:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

RAD

It's nearly there. I only have a couple of concerns left. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're done. I left Fainites a question regarding a dead link, but a (still somewhat cursory by my standards) final read revealed nothing... un-FA-like. This one has certainly come a long way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't check those. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And late to the party :( I can't believe I missed supporting this by nine minutes. Damn. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Zeanah

Hey, give us a break! I've just copied them from the Attachment measures article to which I had added material before I went to the school of Anally Retentive Article Writing. I promise I'll fix them properly in half a tick. Fainites ^barley 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My to do list...

I'm sick and just back from a week's absence but I'll try to keep an eye, drop me a list of the hottest fires if you want and I'll try to get to it. I noticed the child abuse page got a dump of non-notable child protection services, so perhaps I'm already familiar with part of the problem. Sorry, I apparently managed to piss off a bunch of people the week before last, so I'm trying to discuss with them. Have any names or IP addresses?

Have you brought it up on AN/I? WLU (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if that was necessary, but the editing patterns appear identical to me. I'm not really interested in sorting that mess out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI. Crap, I hate it when teachers think it's a good idea to use wikipedia for pedagogy. User:Thelmadatter might have some insight - she's running an official wikiproject that aims to teach with wikipedia, and has been blessed by some official entity. WLU (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I thought so. There is too much garbage across too many articles for it to be a coincidence. I don't have time for it. Count me out, but someone should do something (like call in an admin or contact the professor and get them to at least read WP:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We'll get it up to snuff and ask you to look at it--did my edit links above work properly? I see people use them (I think you call them 'diffs'?) and wonder if I did it correctly. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I see that you are brave! I wonder if the behavior analytic theory of child development should have its own article and just have a summary on the Child Development article linked to the other? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't even tried to read what is there. Before asking me where content should be moved, why not clean up the content that is being indiscriminately added? Sentences need punctuation and spaces, paragraphs need to make sense, and citiations need to be correctly written. Is anyone reading and copyediting what is being added to all those articles? I'd rather not see any more articles created until whatever university class is experimenting on Wiki comes forward, identifies themselves, and gets proper guidance on how to construct and write Wiki articles. I don't enjoy doing daily cleanup when it doesn't appear that the involved editors are making any attempt to read edit summaries or learn Wiki gudelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the content is from a class...I'm trying to cleanup that content, but am not sure I'm very good at it either. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, has anyone read it? The new content added across all of those articles has fundamental copyedit needs like punctuation at the ends of sentences and no spaces between sentences. I am always willing to help new editors learn, but when I'm typing the same thing over and over (for more than a month), and nothing is changing, I'm starting to feel like someone is intentionally pulling my leg. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pulling your leg -- I've been off-line for a while and just got back a week or two ago and have been working on other articlesapplied behavior analysis, and just came to this one -- I did rework this section...is it ok? [[9]] Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Ok -- I'm dealing with the advertisement for Cooperative Learning Institute and have put a speedy delete tag that was taken by someone who evidently didn't look at the website...I've posted something on its talk page...am I going about this the proper way? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin already declined the speedy, so you can't replace that tag with the same rationale (did you ping the admin and ask why it was declined?). If an admin feels it doesn't meet the speedy criterion, next you have to place a {{subst:prod}} tag, wait seven days, and if that doesn't work, then next you have to take it to WP:AfD. (Unless you can find a different speedy tag that might work.) Josh, I suggest you follow this up with the admin who is already involved; that person can help. I'm not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok -- I put a new speedy delete reason (spam) supported by the cut and paste from that weird company site. I left a message on the admin's talk page -- is that pinging? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Ask him/her to help you through the steps. If speedy isn't successful, try prod. If that doesn't work and you have to go to AfD, let me know when it's at AfD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Its gone :) Yay! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! (It was cruftispamisizement.) Which tag/rationale did you end up using? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I used the {{delete spam}} tag...its obviously a poor cut and paste job from that weird commercial site. btw -- what's 'cruftispamisizement'? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahh! very cool. Well, I'm off to edit the messy articles :) I'll let you know when they're ready for a look-over. I have 3 other folks working with me now...hopefully we can get it in shape. Do you like the applied behavior analysis article? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt prose

Hi SG, I'm seeking your opinion on a matter of style. A GA reviewer thought the following passages were "overblown," "flowery," and "bombastic," and suggests they have an inappropriate tone and need to be rewritten. Are they?

• "Middle Kingdom literature featured sophisticated themes and characters written in a confident, eloquent style, and the relief and portrait sculpture of the period captured subtle, individual details that reached new heights of technical perfection."

• "The ancient Egyptians were skilled builders with expert knowledge of basic surveying and construction techniques. Using simple but effective measuring ropes, plum bobs, and sighting instruments, architects could build large stone structures with accuracy and precision."

• "Because of the rigid rules that governed its highly stylized and symbolic appearance, ancient Egyptian art served its political and religious purposes with precision and clarity."

Thanks, Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the sourcing: if you can attribute it to someone, then it's not opinion, and it becomes what it is (beautiful, compelling, delightful prose). If it's your own interpretation of the sources, then it's a different story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks. I do have the sources to support. Jeff Dahl (Talk • contribs) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

I'm not going to able to do anything. In fact, I'm checking out for three days. The dispatches have alternated between Karanacs and I. If Karanacs can come up with something in the next 24, that would be good. If not, I guess we have no dispatch. I really am checking out. Marskell (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to rethink my disappearing on weekends policy. It makes Mondays kind of icky some days, and Mondays are bad enough on their own. If I don't get back to all of the FACs that I commented on today, then I will definitely get to them tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OTC

Thanks again for your help and comments on OTC; the FAC process was most enlightening. Although I'm not sure who this Elcbobbola fellow is, I’ll be sure to pass on the message if our paths cross. ;P ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Former featured article

It's ok now. I think the bot hasn't move it into archive so the link was "dead" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

DOI

OK, you've saved my fingers with the Diberri tool. But a lot of science articles aren't in PubMed. Is there a similar tool for DOI? I'm editing a science article that has nothing to do with medicine, and most articles have a doi number. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no tool. Sorry :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bummer. You were my hope to saving me from carpal tunnel.  :( OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

John Melendez

Well, no, "good" isn't exactly the first word that comes to mind. Let’s assume good faith and ignore that the uploader has had a few vandalism warnings (albeit quite some months ago) and that the image doesn’t have any camera Metadata. Beyond a poorly-worded and limited scope “encyclopedicity” section at WP:IMAGES, I don’t know that image policy is being violated. Per WP:BLP, however, “Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects”. I’m forced to think, if I were John Melendez, that I’d most certainly object to the use of that image – especially on such a high traffic/visibility site. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, notice the stubble ends so abruptly and with such a "clean" cut off at the neck. Something about the hair looks wrong, too. This one doesn't feel right. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A blatant, copyright-violating ripoff. Our friend filched it from Google images.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, there's just not enough brain power hangin' round my talk page :-) Now what (and that's where Elcobbola comes in) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's tagged! ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of unflattering photos of Howard Stern Show staff members, I heartily suggest that you take a look at the lead image for the Baba Booey page. This image is a bit trickier; like the Melendez photo, it was ripped off from Google images; and like that photo, it makes poor Gary look like a buffoon. However, I don't know who holds the copyright in this case. The Fat Man's sizable gut tells him it is an unauthorized still from the E! show.... perhaps we could make a fair use argument??? But this is unlikely, if we don't know exactly where it came from.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use for living people is pretty much a non-starter. Per WP:NFCC#1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" (emphasis added). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What to do with the picture, then? It sure ain't free, but I can't pinpoint the copyright holder.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd tag it the same way as Johnny; sound like a plan? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Same uploader for Image:RobinQuivers.JPG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Fat Man is trying to teach me to be funny and the Cobbola is trying to teach me images; my money's on ... neither to win. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That gave me a laugh; I'd say the fat man is winning. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Stick around; even his weeks-old stuff leaves me in stitches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Basic human dignity.

Why did you just remove my entries and not the part that mentions John's poor language skills and work pronunciations of names such as "'Nicolas Cage' becomes 'Niggaless Cage'"?

John Melendez

I deleted your entries because they were recent uncited additions. Until yesterday, I had never heard of John Melendez, and there are still sources I have to read through. Thanks for pointing out that more needs to be deleted; when you see something that you know is a WP:BLP violation, you should delete it. I don't have any idea how much of his bio is true. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

re: FAR

I promise I will help out at FAR tomorrow. My pesky grad school professors have a habit of demanding I turn in work. Imagine that? :) --Laser brain (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like those profs should getta life :-) Thanks, Laser! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:

Ok, I'll not so fast ;-) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, only for completing the article (that's perfect ;-) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 16:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Español?

p.s. Je prefère le français au l'espagnol ;-) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No hablo frances, Mojska. Agradezco el mensaje, y lo que sugiero es que tomas tiempo para ajustar a las normas de WP:FAC, entrando sugeriencias como commentarias para mejorar los articulos mientras tanto. Por ejemplo, la idea de secciones separadas para controversias o criticas no es bien acceptado en el en.wiki. Bienvenido! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not Spanish :-D, but I can speak it (nivel básico...) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 16:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Qué bien que hablas español, Sandy ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Too lazy to add diacritics when I'm on my laptop :-) Embarassing, but I decided I don't care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I just expected so much more; I mean, I'm working with a QWERTZ here and I can pull off the Spanish diacritics. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I'm still complaining about the surprise Christmas present laptop that took me to a new touchpad that makes me scream and I can't make work. Going through the extra steps of getting the accents isn't gonna happen :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitals - MOS example and other house styles

Hi Sandy. In the Zwingli FAC we have a question concerning capitalisation of "...the Church..." if it refers to particular church group. WP:MOSCAPS under the Institutions section indicate for the case of of universities it should not be capitalised ("...the university...". Do you know which way it should go? --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I would trust Awadewit and say to post a question over to WT:MOS to ask for an explanation of the difference in interpretation. But Tony1 (talk · contribs) has been tied up in real life, and WP:MOS has become a den of ... something ... unpleasant. I wouldn't suggest going through a lot of bickering over an uppercase, and if you go to MOS, that's what will happen. If you want a second opinion, short of digging in to MOS to get an adjustment or clarification there, how about leaving a question for Noetica (talk · contribs)? You *might* leave a brief note for Tony1 (talk · contribs), but he's got a "real life busy" index of 10 on his talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder

Many thanks for all your patience - which you really needed! Bit of a steep learning curve. Unfortunately I was educated at a time in the UK when such things a grammar, style and punctuation were considered elitist - though how not knowing these things was supposed to assist the disadvantaged I never could work out. Hopefully, now I think I've got the hang of the basics, I can have a go at the others. The field is full of nutters though. When will it appear on the main page? I'd like to put the word around among a few non-wiki psychs in the hope that others may feel Wiki is worth the effort. Fainites ^barley 09:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Fainites. A bit of history you might not know: it has long been a concern that there is not a single other psychology article at WP:FA (unless you consider parapsychology), and there has long been a need for a well written psych article to lead the way, compounded by a lack of knowledgeable WikiProject members to work on collaborations. I hope you'll keep it in excellent shape so it will provide a good example for those who will hopefully follow and begin to bring psych articles to standard, not only of the writing standard and comprehensive coverage of the topic, but also of correct citation and conformance to Wiki's manual of style. When Colin (talk · contribs), Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs), Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs), TimVickers (talk · contribs), Tony1 (talk · contribs) and I worked together to bring Tourette syndrome to featured standard, all of the other neuropsych featured articles on Wiki were dismal: autism, Asperger syndrome and schizophrenia. Tourette syndrome helped set a standard for improving those articles, Casliber (talk · contribs) and Eubulides (talk · contribs) came on board, and now we have solid neuropsych featured articles setting the standard for future work. Reactive attachment disorder is now in position to lead the way for other psychology topics, which is partly why so many other editors were willing to give so much time and effort to helping it achieve excellence. (I'm sorry I had to close the FAC before Fvasconcellos had a chance to lodge his Support, but it was time :-) Looking back at the peer review and the version that passed GA, you can see how far the article has come and how many others generously helped along the way. This might be a good page to visit, in terms of all the people who gave so much time in peer review and at FAC :-) Congratulations again, now can you go try to clean up some of the mess at child development?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I forgot to answer your question about the main page. If there is a specific date that has significance for the article, you can request it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, subject to a five-article limitation there. Raul654 (talk · contribs), the featured article director, schedules the main page. Many articles have to wait a very long time to appear on the main page, as we have more articles than we can feature on the main page. In your case, I doubt you'll have to wait long, as diversity on the main page is a goal, and we've never had a psych article; I imagine Raul will be excited to schedule it as soon as it fits with the other mainpage scheduling constraints. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people have been very kind and helpful and have concealed their (no doubt entirely justified) exasperation well :-/ I just hope we really have got it right. I thought of asking JeanMercer to get one of her professor buddies to have an outside, non-Wikipedian read as well. Fainites ^barley 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Casliber is a practicing professional, and he Supported, I'm not concerned. I'd not be in too much of a hurry to have non-Wiki professionals work on it; they don't always understand the difference between encyclopedic content and the other kinds of writing they may engage in. I'd hate to see the article gummed up again with a bunch of psych jargon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Patriots

I will provide...certain kinds of favors if you work on the Patriots page :) — Deckiller 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm sunk. I hate football. Darn, why couldn't it be baseball? OK, will do. hmmmm ... I know just the person I can put on to that task. How do I do that on one household IP without sockpuppetry issues ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Your husband? Oh, BTW, I posted my two cents on that FAC you left on my talkpage. — Deckiller 17:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, DK, how do I deal with the IP concerns? I've always been worried when certain people show up here, laptops in tow knowing they are Wiki editors and the entire house is wireless, or when they get on my computer. I've been known to pull the plug on my cable modem when my basement is full of adolescents ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way to approach this is to have them leave a notice on their talkpage stating that they are using the same wireless as you, and that they are completely different editors. — Deckiller 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain FAC

Sandy, I was hoping you saw the note I added at the top of the McCain FAC a few days ago. This article is being heavily reworked to reduce it per WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. It's in an inconsistent, messy state right now. I was presuming that the FAC was about to be closed as "no promotion" anyway, but it certainly should be now, since it won't be the article that all those commenters reviewed. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The FAC is currently stalled with more support than opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to say ... what are the rules about heavy changes during FAC? ... my intention was to try to bring the new Early life and military career of John McCain subarticle to FAC fairly soon, since it's a self-contained subject that ends in 1981 and clearly doesn't suffer from the alleged "instability" of the main article. On the other hand, I think Ferrylodge wants to bring the main article back to FAC, or keep it in FAC, you'd have to ask him. In any case, as I've stated on the FAC page, I never did the formatting/endash/nbsp/etc run on it that the article needed, that you're now trying to do. I mishandled this driveby nom from the beginning, I guess ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The normal course of action for a FAC at that stage of confusion is to restart the nom. There is no consensus, but it has slightly more Support than Oppose. As stated at WP:WIAFA, changes made in pursuit of FA status are not a stability issue. I'm unclear why you haven't Opposed if you feel it's not ready. I can't just ignore good faith supports; as the significantly principle editor, your view is worth considering, but you haven't entered a declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've now added my "oppose" at the FAC page. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WTR said: "I think Ferrylodge wants to bring the main article back to FAC, or keep it in FAC, you'd have to ask him." Yes, I'd like to get this article shortened and then made a feature article. Most of the shortening is done.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A peer review, and a lot of MoS cleanup, will help prepare the article adequately for an FA candidacy; driveby noms are never optimal, and FAC doesn't function well as peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd really like a bit of "soak" before it gets renominated. Doing the reduction has been painful and I may well have made wrong decisions in places about what to leave in, what to leave out. I want to see what comments we get in the normal course of events, not just from a peer review or FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope to see a co-nom from the two of you when it's ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks Sandy.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi Sandy, sorry, I thought I was indenting. I didn't have the time to respond to all of her points (most of which I feel are very valid), just spoke to the few I could probably help with and I'll start on them after I get out of the gym tonight. Hope you're doing well! Looks like FAC is keeping you busy!--Mike Searson (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• No problem, Mike; at least in your case I knew if I left the comment in an edit summary, you'd see it and not be offended, and in my busy-ness, I didn't have to drop you another message. I imagined you didn't realize they weren't indented. Hope you have/had a great time at the gym! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Contributions

Why do you link my contributions in every page where I vote? --Mojska666 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I linked them in one FAC, as explained on your talk page; please take time to familiarize yourself with the criterion on the English wiki and to review each FAC according to WP:WIAFA.[10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FA housekeeping

So, in summary, I should look after the following:

• Add maindate tags
• Add external link checker (on those that have previous FAC; rest are preloaded)
• Check dead links at ca. 3 supports

Correct? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And if you do all that, careful, I'll find more :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For example, without biting, you can add a note whenever a brand new (as in first ten posts) editor enters a FAC declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought the preload was self-evident. Clearly now I'll need to add redundant checkers out of spite. :) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Careful; once you get up to speed on all that, I'll turn over the pre-Gimmebotification tasks to you, and then I can stop tearing my hair out over all the errors that GA leaves in articlehistory :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

oh, gosh, here's another one (sigh) ... zorglbot hasn't run since March 3rd at WP:FA. I always have to watch that, and now it has to be done (retroactively) manually,[11] and we have to figure out what happened to the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What did zorglbot do (i.e. what should Elcobbola do?) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It added that weird code daily to WP:FA, to bold articles that have already been on the mainpage. It ran at 00.01 every night. Do you have time to ping the bot owner? Sometimes they're busted and don't know it. I need to go eat dinner :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, Done. You mean Wikipedia isn’t sustenance enough? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I was stuck in a hockey arena all today today, but I can't help save your hair if you beat me to the tasks. :) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I left you a little something at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WT:FAC? I'm not seeing it? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's your 4.43 average quality score; thanks for the good work :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that (thanks, because I'm really more of a 4.42999). It's not fair, though; Karanacs is a machine. I don't know how she does it. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you wanna get decimal-pointy about it: 4.428571429 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Elcobbola, vanity be thy name. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I assume the "minimal edits" note would apply for the recent contribs from Slicedpineapple (talk · contribs)? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes? No? Maybe so? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

AGF, and consider what reaction will yield the best long-term outcome for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don’t think they’re necessary here; I just wasn’t sure whether you were a mechanical thinker (e.g. if x, then y -> if <10, make a note) in this regard. I’m always perplexed that pure statements of fact (e.g. “user has x edits”) can precipitate offense and assumptions of ulterior motives. Ah, the complexities of human behavior… ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your pet peeve

Sorry about the dead links in DotA. My issue is that the dead link check is not loading... whenever I try and run it I get a 'server not responding'. Is there another tool available ('sides just checking them one by one, I think I'll have the dead links fixed in this one but with many more references it would be a pain.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead links aren't even close to my biggest pet peeve :-) The dead link is:

• http://www.bndestem.nl/columns/article791368.ece SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Perverted discussion

I've never tried to make an article good before. I'm going to request peer review on an article I've been working on tonight. Other than the generic suggestions on WP:PR, do you have any advice oh how to maximize the likelihood of a productive, intelligent response to my peer review request, while expending a minimal amount of my own energy? I do, of course, intend to diligently respond to the reviewer and edit the article according to his/her suggestions; I'm just not prepared to enter into a quid pro quo agreement where I have to review someone else's article (for I lack the skill to do so).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, long day here, brief response before I hit the herbal bath. Peer review is dysfunctional; the key to a successful peer review is that you have to go out and find the good reviewers. There's a new list of volunteers, but I'm not sure where it is (see if it's posted somewhere on the PR page). If I knew the topic, I'd send some good reviewers your way :-) You have to contact individuals, relevant WikiProjects and browse similar FAs at WP:FA to figure out who knows the territory, and then beg them to come review your article. It's not that article that you promised not to post on my talk page, is it? I don't know any topic experts :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Or is it the M article? That's easy; list it at the announcements template of WP:MED, and I can find people to help review that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one  :-). Please, please hook me up when you have a chance! I swear I'll be nice. I will post on WP:MED straightaway; I hope the contributors there will see it as medical article. BTW, I have begun experimenting with bowdlerized links to avoid sullying the talk pages of classy gentlemen and ladies such as yourself with the incurably crass topics that occupy my imagination. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just had a look, and I can give you a list about a mile long that will keep you busy for weeks and get you started, and later you can bring in other "content experts" ... but I'm tired tonight. Nasty day. Where do you want me to put my review ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh Sandy, would you, could you? I've created a user subpage called User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back/Firing the Surgeon General (a reference to some funny unencyclopedic garbage I deleted).[12] Do you want to put it there? Or would it be better to work outside of userspace? Don't think about it now. Go take that bath.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it there as soon as I can; I owe Deckiller a look at the New England Patriots first, but I can give you enough to keep you busy for a while. I'll get to it as soon as I get a second wind and do some ... ugh ... football. WLU (talk · contribs) might help out, but he's got bronchitis, so don't ping him today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC) By the way, Firing the Surgeon General isn't that funny; you should hear the ones that get tossed around here sometimes. Once I was outnumbered at Thanksgiving dinner and got the full dictionary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

True, true; it just made me smile b/c I had forgotten about the whole Jocelyn Elders thing until I stumbled upon that article tonight (Wikipedia is great for reminiscing). That poor, well-meaning woman. I grew up in a very conservative little town; people wanted to burn her at the stake.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And feel free to move/rename that subpage to whatever page strikes your fancy, funny lady.  :-)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you want me to move it to the ones I hear. Tired tonight. Too much demoralizing news in Wikiland lately, too many nasties, too much whining. More tomorrow. By the way, the problem with me doing peer review is that I'm geared towards WP:WIAFA, while WP:GVF is a whole 'nother level. I may give you more than you need, if you're aiming for GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop worrying. Start relaxing. Ignore the ugliness for a while. Anything you come up with tomorrow, this weekend, next week, next year will be appreciated. I don't care if your suggestions result in the article being upgraded to okay, good, great, featured, magisterial--I just want it to be better. Let's not split hairs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fat Man, I'm afraid my review was all over the map, and may leave you frustrated. It wasn't very well organized; I found so much that needs work that I just slopped it all out there in no good format. Hope it helps anyway ... the first start is gather the research and organize the article, the rest can follow. That's just a first pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Frustrated????? I'm thrilled! This is great stuff. The better question is will you be frustrated with me if I can only elevate this D-level monstrosity to C-level mediocrity? I'll do some work throughout the weekend, starting with the easy stuff. Seriously, I'm grateful.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But did you have to single out this reference in your review? Don't we portly gentlemen have it hard enough?

I could find other bad things in that article title :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Really, Fat Man, I'm begin to suspect you of feeding lines: Don't we portly gentlemen have it hard enough?. Difficult is a perfectly acceptable synonym. And I struggle to accept that you are having trouble finding experts in this particular field on Wikipedia-the place is crawling with them if we are to believe the trolls. Yomangani^talk 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pending the Fat Man's answer, I may frame that alongside the TimVickers and Yomangani quotes in my box of chocolates. (So, Yomangani, give the man a coherent TOC so he can get to work ... I'm sure he has lots of time on his hands and just needs better direction ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the volunteers page can be quickly found at WP:PRV. Woody (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

For a moment, I misread your link and thought you were directing me to the friendly volunteers over at WP:PERV. If only such a resource existed!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You only need five or ten members to start a WikiProject; I can't imagine that would be hard ... er ... difficult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is everyone whispering about masturbation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Because wikipedia is censored don't ya know. Woody (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I had a username like Woody *and* I was listed at PRV, I might stay away from this topic, lest The Fat Man start using you for lines :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Sneaks off and hides, no wait... Woody (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't take too much notice Woody, Sandy is hardly innocent in the line feeding department. Look at her demands concerning the g-spot and her recommendation on where to get information "regarding when to use digits". Yomangani^talk 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Digits are free: never demanded, always recommended. Now get thee over to FAC and deal with some dead explorers, and leave my youthful confusion between punto g and hilo dental out of this (I still haven't figured out how the English language gets a G out of a thong, but it sure messed me up when I moved here). And if you poke any more fun at me, I'll throw some Yo Manuelita jokes at your username :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any dead explorers in the queue unless they are hidden among the musicians and video games. Did I miss one? Yomangani^talk 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

To my displeasure, the dead explorer was had by the video game featuring a dinosaur which is based on The Simpsons episode in which Gwen Stefani sings about Ethelred the Unready and Mary Wollstonecraft failing to join the expedition after they were blown away in a hurricane during the battle of Pearl Harbor. I've tried to be subtle, but I'm only one voice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, I've been laid before, but it's been more than a year at least. I need to get a certain someone to start producing :-P — Deckiller 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me my talk page is getting a wide audience; someone should change the section heading. Heck, just put a name on it; that should do the trick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Admin

What do you think about becoming an admin? You seem to know WP policy very well. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They tried to make her go to RFA. She said, "No, no, no" (with apologies to Amy Winehouse). Yomangani^talk 11:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If I had a penny for every time... --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

But if I had that hair, I might have to consider it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We need a process whereby editors may be promoted to administrator, bureaucrat, arbitrator, etc. against their will. I think I'll call it Wikipedia:Non-consensual adminship or some such.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What is that quote about if chosen, I will not serve? Sorry. I like being over on this side, where we have to follow the rules that are supposed to govern this place. Guess what I did today? I accidentally hit the stupid rollback button with this damn touchpad that I hate. That was scary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought being over on this side meant we didn't have to follow the rules. I think the quote for admins is "Once chosen I will not serve...If I, [insert name here], want the birds to drop dead from the trees... then the birds will drop dead from the trees. I am the wrath of god. The earth I pass will see me and tremble. But whoever follows me...will win untold riches...etc. etc." Yomangani^talk 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What he said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good lord, that stuff was supposed to happen when I got +sysop? Is there some sort of form that I have to fill out to start the earth trembling and all that untold riches stuff? A template? - Philippe | Talk 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you silly goose; you just have to have the right friends :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Geez, I never have problems getting the earth to move for me...who needs adminship? Risker (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, for that, we have The Fat Man. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Earth.... tremble.... as I pass.... are you trying to say... Hey!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I heard the strangest rumor today that some people think there's no longer a strong community on Wiki. Weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Krust

Thank you for the edit summary notice - though I was actually in the process of adding the FAC to the noms page and the article talk page, but thanks for staying on top of things. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

FA reviews review

That sounds like incredibly tedious work, but I love the idea of potentially getting feedback on my reviews. That will hopefully help us to improve as reviewers and maybe identify trends of what we're missing. Karanacs (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:query

No, I wasn't. We came to the conclusion it was a good idea to wait until StarCraft II was released (or cancelled) so that the information would be fully up-to-date and stable before submitting to FAC - the addition of new information after SC2's release is likely to reduce the article's quality until it is properly codified. Plus, half the primary source weblinks are currently down, and I've yet to give it a thorough copyedit to ensure its wording is up to standard. It wasn't my intention to go for FA so soon, but I'll sort out my own personal concerns regardless of the classification of the article. -- Sabre (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

February FACs

No problem at all, it was interesting looking at those stats. I have had reviews from most of them in the past so I felt quite happy to give them pieces of shiny metal. They all deserved them! It is a shame that Epbr123 has gone into semi-retirement, another quality reviewer disappears... Woody (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, could be interesting I suppose. I think there would be a wee bit of trouble/grumbling if that happened. Could be useful though. ;) FAC doesn't seem that backlogged, everything's relative I suppose: I remember the dark days of 100 noms! You are doing a good job at pr/ar! I will go and have a look at Heuschrecke 10 now. Woody (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it is hard. I know that those who consistently review will eventually reach a breaking point, especially with some nominators being less than receptive. I think this comment by a newbie to FAC is the exact thing we need to be aiming for. A sort of Defer (my issues have been resolved, defer to experienced reviewer) That is what I had one of my recent ones, someone was very sensibly waiting for another reviewers approval. It is hard, nay on impossible to enforce that, especially to new people to the process who skim read and say support, seeing that other reviewers have. It is a fine line. Woody (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think a Defer would be a good thing for all, I just don't think the more experienced would use it as there would be a psychological barrier to put that you aren't sure. <tongue>We do have a problem if experienced reviewers think this is a fix ;) </back in cheek> Perhaps you should just leave a note with the appropriate reviewers saying that there might be a concern. If I was one of them, I would want to know about, though there is a huge scope for aggravation and DRAMA over it. It is tricky.

I have reviewed an article quickly once with my eyes glazed over with football glasses. When another reviewer came along, I came to senses and retracted my support. We only see what we want to see, especially in our own specialisations. There are certain projects that almost bulk support articles every time. That is why one solid oppose can fail an FAC, that is what the clause is for. I don't envy you though for having to invoke it occasionally. Woody (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi: I hope you don't mind me chipping in but I am really curious to know whether I scored positively or negatively (though the February window may have corresponded to my time out from FAC). I'll use this opportunity to mention that I've become slightly disillusioned with FAC. There are two reasons for this. The first is the constant warring at MoS and the growing realisation that it reflects the views of way too small a group of editors. (I started to lose faith in MoS during the hard space fiasco, which has probably damaged its credibility in the eyes of many editors.) The second trigger was Tel Aviv, on which I spent a great deal of time. I peer-reviewed it, and then commented twice at FAC. It was amazingly disheartening to get no positive feedback at all on this, just to be repeatedly told that my concerns had been addressed (they hadn't been). With so much other stuff happening (RfA, Milhist elections, two featured article candidacies, many peer review requests, real-life building work at home), I just thought "I don't need this" and walked away. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Roger. Once I got the spreadsheet sorted, I only calculated an average for reviewers who had more than five reviews; unless I missed one, your only review in February was Tel Aviv, where Tony1, Maralia and you all expressed ce concerns, so I didn't need to do the math. Since the article wasn't promoted, that would give you a net positive. The numbers didn't reveal anything I didn't already know (several reviewers Support often and indiscriminately and then other reviewers have to roll up their sleeves and spend a lot of time assuring the issues are fixed -- a few solid reviewers are making sure we put our best foot forward). The MoS wars aren't really part of FAC, but they certainly are disappointing since we have to know how to interpret an ever-changing target, and some of the disruption over there appears intentional. I also ignored the hard space fiasco, until I realized we had editors actually having to take the time to add nbsps on citations, which really troubled me (grand waste of time), so I stood up on that one. Tel Aviv wasn't promoted; for example, Tony1, Maralia and you all had ce concerns, so I'm wondering what disappointed you about that outcome? Did you feel that it should have been promoted? I understand your frustration over the lack of appreciation as a reviewer; for featured articles to truly represent Wiki's best work, dedicated reviewers have to put in a lot of time and they get little reward. I was hoping Epbr123 was going to help me put a system in place to recognize our good reviewers, but he retired after a very ugly and personal RfA, leaving even less volunteers for us to count on :-( I'd sure like to have more reviews if you feel you can wade back in, and I appreciate hearing your views. Let me know if you think I can do something differently. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've only just realised that the spreadsheet only covers February, when I hardly FACed at all. I was under the impression it covered a three-month rolling period which had started with Epbr123. I was much more active in the previous quarter, (about forty reviews) and was interested in the analysis :)

• Now that I've got a methodology set up, I could try to do it regularly, but I can't promise anything. I'll be busy for a lot of March, and unless someone replaces Epbr123 or s/he comes back, it doesn't look good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think it was right not to promote Tel Aviv. My feeling was that the whole business was abuse of process. Perfunctory peer-review (less than twenty-four hours) with issues raised left unaddressed; then straight to FAC. At FAC, responses were swatted "done" with a perfunctory fix rather than addressing them comprehensively. Straight back to FAC after the first refusal, and then more swatting responses. (As far as I can tell, the only token of appreciation - uncharacteristic genteelism there - given to anyone for Tel Aviv was a barnstar I gave Finetooth for their heroic first effort at copy-editing.) I don't know what the answer to this but it irritated me immensely that reviewers - and the many editors who helped improve the article - were treated so indifferently. There's a strong argument for a mandatory time-out between FACs to address issues, though there's no guarantee, of course, that editors will actually address them during that time. So I don't know how you resolve this. Perhaps the answer is a Quick Fail mechanism that previous reviewers can use.

• Abuse of process (FAC is not PR or GA) is an ongoing concern, a serious concern, and one that consumes too much reviewer time. Swatting "done", though, may make the nominator feel good, but doesn't/shouldn't affect the outcome, so don't let that concern you. I'd like a mandatory timeout for several editors that keep bringing unprepared articles back to FAC, abusing of reviewer time and clogging the process, but the community needs to enforce that, not me. I don't agree with global rules, because there are editors who can turn an article around quickly (consider a recent FAC of Woody's); we need editor/reviewer input on the individual instances where this is happening, so I can close those FACs quickly. There are several up now; I shouldn't be the one to tangle with editors who persist in using FAC as peer review. The community should bring this up on the individual FACs. I don't agree with "quick fail" because I've seen conscientous editors work hard to overcome what would be a quick fail, but I do agree we need to be able to remove articles that come back immediately without having addressed issues, without a peer review, without seeking other methods of review. The only way to solve all of these issues is for reviewers to be more involved and lodge concerns; if enough reviewers say, "this FAC came back too soon, it shouldn't be here yet", then I can remove it, but I need community consensus, feedback and input for those decisions. I shouldn't be a one-person judge and jury, even when I can see what's happening, and right now I can see three or four editors abusing of and backlogging FAC, using it as peer review and supporting articles at FAC that don't even meet GA standards, causing extra work for other reviewers. A light should be shone on this so that the hard working reviewers aren't burned out.
• On another note, one way to help avoid FAC becoming PR is for reviewers to not get sucked in to rewriting a deficient article for the nominator. Identify first if there are fundamental deficiencies like failure to use reliable sources before doing more extensive and time-consuming work on the article. If the nominator responds quickly and is positive, then it makes sense to invest more time in helping correct other issues. I see many reviewers investing days into fixing prose issues, without having looked at whether the text is even sourced to reliable sources. It's sad to see reviewer time wasted when no one raises the issue that an article doesn't meet policy, WP:V. I always reviewed first for that, before investing time in the prose, although I also mentioned if there were prose issues as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• My MoS concerns are that it is growing increasingly remote from reality and placing absurd burdens on volunteer editors. (Be aware that our MoS is more demanding than those of publishers I write for professionally.) From a personal point of view, I spent at least ten hours of tedious editing adding hard spaces to citations for two FACs of my own plus another couple I'd copy-edited, plus input on another half-dozen I'd peer-reviewed. For instance Emily Dickinson has 160 citations. To put this into perspective, I spent more time on hard spaces in January than I did putting together last week the new logistics dept for Milhist. As you say, a grand waste of time. (Incidentally, the logistics dept will interest you: one aim is the delivery of higher quality articles at FAC. Coincidentally, A-Class reviews at Milhist are getting more probing, with far fewer nod-throughs, so that should ease things at FAC a bit.)

• When I was reviewing, I *always* checked the MilHist A-Class review, as it was the only pre-FAC indicator of quality. There were some being pushed through during a certain phase, and the quality dropped, so I stopped watching them. I'm glad they're coming back. The hard spaces on citations issue was *absurd*; that's why I jumped in hard to add my voice to putting a stop to that. I missed when it crept into MoS because I was otherwise entertained with ArbCom, but it's an example of why we unfortunately have to pay attention to what is going on over there. There is a lot of good in MoS that needs to be enforced for quality articles; hard spaces should only be a matter of common sense. The first time I read the article, 7 World Trade Center, there were dangling 7s all over the text, so I asked for nbsps on them, but only because I saw a problem in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Sorry about the rant :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The rant is needed; I'm concerned that good reviewers are abused of and will burn out. I'm concerned about the abuse of process, FAC is not PR. I'm concerned about who will fill Epbr123's shoes. More feedback from the community on the FACs that are coming back too soon without correcting deficiencies, clogging FAC, wearing down reviewers is needed. We have one up now that I already closed once with serious deficiencies, it came back two days later, I've had to restart it, it still has serious deficiencies, but there it is still, six weeks later, because reviewers don't speak up and don't oppose. Lest you be discouraged that FAC is broken, please be assured that the work I put into the spreadsheet revealed what I already knew; this is not a systemic FAC problem looking for a radical or global solution. It's only a few editors, and the community should enforce that so I don't have to get into tangles; I'm supposed to be neutral. I can make unilateral decisions at FAC only to a certain extent; I prefer closing FACs with community consensus solidly behind me, so that I don't have to make exceptions too often, so if reviewers aren't speaking up about the abusive sitatuions, my hands are somewhat tied. Sorry for the rambling answer; I've gotten a late start this morning and haven't had my coffee yet. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I will try and be more active this month. Last month was extremely busy for me and I didn't really have any free time in February. On a sidenote, have you been following the turf war at WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM. It is indicative of the serious malaise over there at the moment. Woody (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been following minute-by-minute, but yes, I'm aware of what's happening. I think the issues at MoS are only going to be resolved by someone finally putting up an RfCU and getting the disruption off of the MoS pages and elsewhere (it also feeds over into FAR and FAC). I've not seen yet any indications that the new WikiProject is equipped to get its arms around the problems or do anything more than create more beaurocracy. Several FACs have become unintelligible because of the same, and I may restart them. As far as I can tell, it's a personality problem that needs to be addressed globally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Roger, that was a seriously irritating FAC for me too. I raised major issues with prose, verifiability of rather outrageous claims, reference formatting, and reliability of sourcing from the very beginning. The nom responded with prose fixes but repeatedly failed to 'get it' where RS and the outrageous claims were concerned. I spent an enormous amount of my time on everything from research (anyone care to know the top 5 cities believed to be the oldest port in the world?) to copyediting and finding references, and continued working on it after the 2nd fail, too. If I had noticed that the nom had other prior nominations, and had the foresight to look at those and the resulting FAs, it would not have taken me a week to realize that I was being taken for a ride. I'm certainly more cautious of process abuse now; if I wanted to write a damn article, I'd be writing one, not reviewing.

Sandy: I know you're concerned about filling Epbr's shoes. I've seen you reassign a few processes that he used to handle; are there others pending? Maralia (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be back after I get through my morning watchlist and coffee; I could spend some time on this answer :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent response to Maralia) Thanks for asking and commenting, Maralia, Elcobbola, Roger Davies and Woody. Prepare for a disk dump :-) There are some things I was reluctant to say when I was "newer" in this role, as I recognized I needed to observe for a while and try to understand why Raul did or didn't do certain things in certain ways. Now that several of you are asking, and I've been doing this for a few months, I feel more comfortable responding. Raul and I don't correspond off-Wiki on FAC business, and I think that's a wise approach. I needed to find my own way, and what I say here is based on my own impressions.

The "job" of the FAC closer is to judge consensus vis-a-vis WP:WIAFA, and occasionally make difficult calls when consensus isn't clear or isn't founded in WP:WIAFA. Yes, I sometimes have to make the difficult calls (I closed Britney Spears against "votes" this morning because I believe the preponderance of non-reliable sources not only probably violate BLP but can't be overcome during a FAC), and I'm prepared to do that, but I shouldn't be a one-person clerk, administrator, judge and jury. The FAC closer needs to maintain neutrality, not be judge and jury at the same time, hence has to depend on the community to provide sufficient input for consensual decisions. If the community isn't providing sufficient input into every aspect of the process, 1) FAC gets backlogged and 2) the closer becomes a one-person judge and jury. There were *many* routine aspects of FAC that I always did as a reviewer; tasks that (I like to think) helped make Raul's job as judge of consensus easier (maybe he disagrees :-) Who is doing those tasks for me, so that I don't have to enter into conflict with FA writers, reviewers and nominators, and so that I can remain neutral as often as possible?

Who is calling it when a nominator brings an article back to FAC after a recent close, without addressing issues? Who is noticing that four editors with multiple nominations and significant unaddressed issues are taking the bulk of FAC resources and reviewer time right now? Who is noticing and flagging the multiple back-to-back nominations so they can be withdrawn? Who is checking articlestats to highlight fan and contributor support relative to independent reviews? Who is noticing when a driveby nom puts up an article that is hugely someone else's work (according to articlestats) and checking to see if the principle editor believes the article is ready? Who is addressing the nominators that are attacking reviewers (this really angers me, but I can't be the one dropping notes about personal attacks to FA nominators)? Who is running through the FACs that look ready for promotion to make sure the trivial MoS issues are addressed at the end (Epbr123 was doing that, now I'm having to flag them myself) and that sources are reliable (I am having to do this myself, when I really shouldn't be the one flagging this)? Who is pinging a reviewer and asking them why they supported an article which clearly relies on a preponderance of non-reliable sources? Who is noticing invalid opposes entered by new reviewers, flagging those on the FAC, and working with the new reviewer to try to prevent that? ALL of these (and many more, including those I already dumped on Elcobbola) are "tasks" that I routinely did as a reviewer, and that (I like to think, perhaps deluded) allowed Raul to avoid entering into discussion or conflict with nominators and reviewers, and only be the judge of consensus. I shouldn't be in a position of doing all of this, as I should be neutral. I should rarely have to comment on a review; someone else should do the tasks I used to do, so my neutrality isn't questioned. Others need to begin doing the tasks I routinely did when I was reviewing.

There are numerous troubled FACs up right now, that haven't received solid review and a close look, and while a handful of FACs and editors are taking the bulk of reviewer resources, I have had to close FACs on very decent articles because no one has even looked at them. This isn't right. The FA community has to fill in the gaps so that I am mostly a neutral closer. Otherwise, I become a one-person judge and jury, and FAC remains backlogged as three or four editors run through articles based on non-reliable source and take up the bulk of our reviewer time, while excellent work goes by the wayside. I wasn't delegated to be a one-person judge, jury, clerk and adminstrator; I was delegated to be a judge of consensus. March stats are likely going to show a high percentage of FAC fails, because articles that should have been withdrawn a month ago, or should not have reappeared at FAC right after a fail, have accumulated and may end up failing after taking more reviewer time than is fair to the rest of the FA nominator and reviewer community. I believe this has happened partly because someone needs to routinely do the tasks I used to do. Sorry for the long answer, Maralia; I should learn to keep my mouth shut more often, as Raul does :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I am butting in here, and feel free to slap me down if I'm out of place, but what would you like someone like me, who is still feeling her way into FAC reviewing, to do. I would be glad to help, but I don't think I've established enough "cred" with folks to go around saying "You're taking up too much time" or something like that. I would be glad to be pickier on sources (your note on the WikiProject page struck home, and I'm sure the folks who get reviewed by me over at GAN after this will know their sources have been hit hard) and will try to look harder at pictures for reviews, but dang, I don't think I can step up all the way to Karanacs level of reviewing. (I have hopes of actually getting an article I worked on TO FAC someday). For me, I function best with a clear set of instructions and goals, and would be happy to help if I knew what I could do best. And I can SEE how much you do Sandy, and perhaps I should find some chocolates for you or something? You do deserve more praise for what you do, so consider yourself praised, and I'd be glad to pick up some tasks. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The more the merrier :-) Thanks for popping in, Ealdgyth. I'm not sure I want to be passing out duties, as much I just want to highlight that others should be encouraged to fill in the gaps, and let's not let Karanacs burn out on us ... she's doing a lot :-) This discussion has probably highlighted to anyone following the kinds of daily things that can be done at FAC, and I know you'll find a niche where you feel most comfortable ... reviewing reliability of sources is always key :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC edits

I noticed a comment about first edits at FAC. I am inferring that you feel it is highly probably that this is a sock or a secondary user ID. I probably would not deny such an objection. Isn't there a way to do some sock check on that though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI

I re-wrote every section of the article, so take a look and see if its prose has improved enough. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opeth

I'm sure you have been following this FAC, but could you please state your opinion on whether or not the bio source is okay? Thank you, —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Multiple noms

I've notified all opposes that I believe I have addressed their concerns: [13][14][15][16][17] --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Defense of the Ancients

Thanks for the suggestion; I've gone and copyedited the article again. Hopefully this helps end the FAC that little bit quicker. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Opeth

This is my new username. I got it after getting bored with the old one; is it necessary to disclose the old one? Its not like I've used it afterwards or anything. indopug (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DotA FAC

What are your thoughts on the reliability of GotFrag sources? The authors are, for example, “Robby” (born 1990) and Kevin Tok (born 1987) . I’m truly not ageist, but I have to question one’s ability to accumulate true expertise in such a short life. That notwithstanding, how could a determination of whether they’re experts be made when, in the case of the former, we aren’t even given a last name? In context, these folks really seem to be nothing more than avid game players. Do you share concerns, or, if your need to maintain neutrality prevents such comment, do you think there would be validity to flushing them out? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ageism" aside, reliability of sources is laid out at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SPS. Anyone can put up a website; age isn't even a factor. It's up to the nominator to demonstrate if they are experts published in the field, by reliable secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

So, enter that on the FAC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Patience, my dear Sandy. ;) I have concerns about a lot of the articles up at FAC now and I'll have to disappear to hockey again tonight. So much typing, so little time. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's good news; methinks reviewers are starting to realize that the FAC community needs to get on top of things, so I can settle in to the role of mostly only judging consensus, as intended :-) It has probably taken a while for people to realize that I needed others to do the jobs for me that I used to do for Raul, so that he didn't have to enter into conflict with FA writers. Don't lose any teeth tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain taggings need review

Sandy, a few days ago you tagged both John McCain#Formative years and education and Early life and military career of John McCain#Naval Academy as unbalanced. A long discussion in Talk:John McCain#Imbalance and cherry picking ensued; the short version is that I fear you completely misinterpreted what the material was trying to convey. Since then, the main article section has been changed by Ferrylodge and the Early life subarticle section has been completely reworked and expanded by me. Both of these need your review to see whether your concerns have been addressed. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I boldly removed the tag from John McCain#Formative years and education after re-wording, but the tag remains at Early life and military career of John McCain.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to get over there today (and I haven't been back since the day after the FAC closed); whatever you two decide is fine with me. I think you both can be trusted :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature

Hi Sandy. Shall I move the entire discussion starting from the "oppose" by MOJSKA 666 including your comment into the talk page? Or shall I leave your comment there? Thanks. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dinesh, I didn't move it myself as I wanted to hear from you; do you want me to do the move? After several days of conversation with Mojska, I can't decipher his rationale, and the entire thing is invalid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead with the move.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple noms

Well, Final Fantasy XI has all its issues (so far) fixed, and I think Deck is going to copyedit Final Fantasy V's plot, though I think it looks fine and was about to tell the reviewer that. So I thought I was in the clear, but I'll wait :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither of the previous noms are resolved, and both of them require input from Deckiller. As soon as they are resolved, you can submit another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry about the edit conflict at Dirty Dancing. Please feel free to wipe out my changes, and do what you think needs doing. I was surprised to see the FA nom close so quickly? The last one I did lasted a month.  :/ --Elonka 02:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The last one might not have garnered four opposes; what was it? Sorry about the edit conflict, the kind of ref and MoS cleanup I do is tedious, so I don't really want to do it again. I had a spare moment, so thought I'd give a sample, but the moment is gone. Anyway, there ref cleanup, missing information, no accessdates, wrong dab of Time magazine, MoS issues like WP:NBSP, and textual redundancy to be attended to: I had tried to provide a small sample, but lost it to the edit conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll dig in and try to reconstruct. And yes, the most recent nom had four opposes, but my impression was that they were mostly minor formatting things that were in the process of being addressed. I was in the process of notating a recent fix, when I ran into an edit conflict myself as the nom suddenly closed, even though it was only a few days old? I guess my impression was that an FA nom would stay open for at least a week, and/or as long as there was productive discussion, and then would close either when it "went quiet" or it was obvious that an article had no chance in hell. What do you recommend I do at this point? Clean up the formatting, and re-submit? Or would you be willing to reactivate the nom so I can keep working with the reviewers? --Elonka 03:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at it, and reconstructing the samples would be hard; that's why I just reverted my changes, since the goal is to give samples of the amount of work needed throughout. Yes, I found your old nom (during the Leranedo phase), and see that it didn't garner opposes, but just took a long time to garner support. Four opposes is a lot to come back from, and besides the ce issues mentioned, there is also cleanup needed on refs and MoS issues. You might ask the WikiProject Film people to help out before re-submitting in a week or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it already went through a WikiProject Film Peer Review,[18] and I'd addressed everything they came up with. It's also already at GA, so I'm surprised at all the Opposes. Getting to FA seems to be getting harder and harder! Thanks though, I'll work on cleanup, and try again in a week. I'd like to see if we can get the article to FA, before Patrick Swayze dies.  :/ --Elonka 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

GA means (less than) nothing at FA (it's not a community process and the standards are highly variable, from excellent to damaging), and the peer review is old. The idea of the sample I had done was to show how much basic cleanup it still needed, so I'm sorry I lost it all. Gak, some day I will learn to put an inuse template before I start ref and MoS cleanup, because it is such tedious work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Also, you only got peer review feedback from one editor; for an effective peer review, it helps to recruit the good FA writers from that area, and ask them to participate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Which of the "Film FA-ers" do you most recommend? --Elonka 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know their names off the top of my head, but since you're in an (understandable) hurry, I would just post to the WikiProject Film talk page. I remember someone named Erik (?) who worked on the Fight Club film. And, I'd also be very nice to Tony :-) My mother liked Swayze a lot, so I hope you make it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)