User talk:SandyGeorgia

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, 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.
Template:FixBunching

FACs needing feedback view •
Ethics	Review it now
Susanna Hoffs	Review it now
Aston Martin Vanquish (2012)	Review it now
Jozo Tomasevich	Review it now

Template:FixBunching

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

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

Need your opinion of the Lyme disease article

Hi SandyGeorgia. I was wondering if you could take a look at Lyme disease, which is currently a Good Article. I'm thinking that it should be delisted, but I would like someone experienced like you to look at it. I noticed that you reviewed the article a while ago when it was up for Featured Article status. I feel like the article has been slowly degenerating for the past few months, and I don't think that there are any experienced editors following it anymore. Among other problems, there seems to be too many assertions in the article that are unreferenced or poorly referenced, especially some of the more controversial ones.

I think that the main issue here is that there are opposing views of just about every topic in the article, including the frequency of the erythema migrans rash among those infected, the reliability of serological tests, and the recommended length of treatment with antibiotics of those infected. I am especially concerned about the Controversy and politics section, where there is strong disagreement by editors whether to include a description of the supposed link between Lyme disease and biological weapons research. If you look at the Talk:Lyme disease pages (including the archive), you'll see that someone always seems to raise a POV issue regardless of how the section is written. I was hoping that you would have some suggestions for resolving this issue. NighthawkJ (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will get to this next week; traveling now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine (sorry for the late response). NighthawkJ (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the article. I've had no time to work on it during the last few weeks (or even respond to someone questioning me on the talk page; it looks like someone responded for me). Fortunately at least one editor recently has made numerous changes that have significantly improved the article, although there's certainly more work to be done. I looked at the Good Article criteria again, and my only concern now is the stability of the article, primarily involving the Controversy and politics section. There's certainly an ongoing dispute about the content of this section. However, as I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, I'm not sure if the dispute is serious enough to delist the article. NighthawkJ (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to neglect you, NighthawkJ; it's on my list, but I'm in the midst of another big edit right now. I promise I'll get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn

Hi Sandy, could you please close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1947 Sydney hailstorm as withdrawn? I don't know if the bot only works for you, and don't want to break something (and I saw you were active). Thanks! Daniel (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot goes through to botify it to articlehistory. Hope to see you back at FAC soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sure, will do. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Vacation

Hey there. I'll be away a few days. If you or your stalkers have a chance, could you look in on Template talk:Reflist. Also I recently tried to clean up some problems at Sean Combs; it seems to get a lot of vandalism and may need some more attention. Gimmetrow 06:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a good time off, Gimme; I'll have my posse of "stalkers" help me watch those. Of course, I'll be eagerly awaiting your return :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC wobble

There's a new FAC for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song). The previous FAC was under the article's previous name Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song)/archive1.

This leaves a "spare" FAC page - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song), which was created ready for the new FAC - dangling. I mention this because it will probably muck up something somewhere down the line.

What best to do? Change the spare page to a redirect?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

um ... I don't want to decide that until Gimmetrow is back. I was going to suggest just maintenance deleting it. Can you see any reason not to? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the important links so it's in limbo. I can delete it altogether if you wish. I was thinking of this anyhow, the only reason I didn't was in case the bot needed it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, we really should be OK to go ahead and maintenance delete Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song); it's nothing but the move and clear redirect, and shouldn't ever be needed again. I'm sure the bot doesn't need it. Unless you see any reason not to, I say go ahead; if I had the tools, I would. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, done. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. By the way, see the message above from Gimmetrow, and my notes at User talk:Maralia; we're going to be botifying manually for a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, noted. I'll do what I can :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing/deleting. --Efe (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Being treated like a servant

Here and here. Are any other featured-content reviewers being ordered about like this? TONY (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Very strange stuff; I'm sorry the AN/I thread was closed, because I'm actually more concerned about the posts from Gwynand and JaySweet, and would have liked to respond to the misunderstandings there (the FAC closer?). Well, Tony, I guess you pay a price for being a good copyeditor when those are in short supply :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, that's... not ok, to understate. --Moni3 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, would you mind elaborating on what concerned you? I was trying to be prescriptive in addressing DMN's issue, not summarily judge Tony. I totally agree that FAC reviewers aren't required to further their work elsewhere, they aren't required to do anything. I also totally admit there is no way to compel Tony to respond to to talk page messages. That being said, it didn't mean that DMNs concern was silly, I was trying to help him address his issue as best he could. Note, I basically said in the beginning that it shouldn't be on ANI. I suggested going over to WT:FAC talk first because I believed the issue had directly to do with a FA review and how an editor goes about getting feedback... and what the etiquette regardnig that is, something I admittedly am unaware of. Lastly, I only suggested going to WQA after he specifically told Tony he was having a problem that he considered an etiquette issue. Anyways, thanks for any further input on this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Several things (and I'm still reviewing the situation so I may add more, but for now ... and you are correct that the place to raise it would have been WT:FAC). First, Tony1 is not the "FAC closer" as stated by someone on the AN/I thread; he was one reviewer, and as such is not under any obligation to copyedit the article (this was implied during the FAC). It seems the AN/I thread was comparing this to a situation like AFD, where the closing admin refused to discuss a close. Second, the FAC closed about a month ago, yet there seems to be some misunderstanding on the AN/I thread that Tony's response is somehow urgent to an ongoing Wiki process. If Tony chooses to review any article that is not at FAC, he would be doing so as a volunteer doing a favor. (When I ask Tony to help with a copyedit, I presume a one- to two-month timeframe, considering how much his talent is in demand.) Third, (and I haven't yet checked the article to see if this has been resolved), that particular article at one point had issues with reliable sources; since Tony typically reviews for prose, I'm not clear on the urgency there (still reviewing). And finally (again, I need to re-check history on this), I seem to recall that D.M.N. was equally demanding of the time of a volunteer editor who reviewed sources, so D.M.N. may not be clear about the volunteer nature of Wiki or that he might want to seek out uninvolved editors who may be able to help him bring the article to featured standards via consulting a list of volunteers. The strangeness is that Tony1 would be demanded to review an article that isn't at FAC and hasn't been for a month, and the notion on the AN/I thread that Tony was the "FAC closer", hence, responsible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] FAC reviewers aren't even required to review at FAC, let alone elsewhere. As I've said at my talk page, I can't keep up with FAC nominations, let alone the review of other articles. If DMN had just asked me again at the bottom of the page, I might given that article a quick look, but it just got buried and I forgot about it. You were out of order suggesting it had anything to do with Wikiquette. And now DMN has walked out of WP. Sorry to see that, but I hope I'm not being blamed. S/he is welcome back any time. TONY (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to a Wikibreak. Sandy, the reason why I contacted Tony was because he was the only person who said the prose was bad, the situation at that time was the majority supporting, see here. I do too want to see a conclusion that benefits everyone. D.M.N. (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he wasn't the only one. There are two prose opposes, unresolved image issues, unresolved reliable sources, and two supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be best do you think to do something like this on the article talkpage and work through issues one by one? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think all of that is necessary. It seems that you need to locate an independent copyeditor who will work with you, then recheck the image issues with either User:Elcobbola, User:Black Kite or User:Kelly, after you've made sure the sources are reliable and before re-approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(2xec)Tony, I apologize for making it seem like you were ripe for being taken to WQA. That wasn't accurate, nor my intention. If and only if there was a situation where a particular editor was being purposefully ignored, then maybe WQA would have been the best place. Taking a look at the whole situation, I don't think you were intentionally ignoring or trying to be incivil. The thread DMN recently started on your page wasn't what I intended... something much more along the lines of "Tony, Im feeling slighted by X... could you explain?" Not a threat to do something or be reported. I apologize for trying to be generally prescriptive at ANI when in reality I had to realize that those reading it would assume I'm saying "this is what needs to be done with Tony". I'm also specifically trying to avoid advising on proper FAC procedure... others are experts on that, not me. It was more of a talk page etiquette thing, which in the future I'll try to take in all accounts before publicly advising on ANI. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded again how much I dislike it when AN/I threads are closed too quickly; I really would have liked to have cleared up some of this there rather than on my talk page, when I'm still getting through my morning watchlist :-) Anyway, thanks for the help, Gwynand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To reply to SandyGeorgia's message on my talk page, yes, I saw the correction earlier that Tony was not the "FAC closer", but only a "FAC reviewer". I'm not sure that would have changed in anything in how I responded -- I never implied (or at least, I thought I didn't) that Tony was under any compulsion to respond, so in my mind the exact nature of his past role isn't all that important. Whether he was the closer, a reviewer, or whatever, he still didn't have to respond. I'm sorry if I ever implied that.

Since we are all trying to do the right thing here, I'll try to avoid stirring the pot any more than it already has been. I'll just leave you with this: I'm reminded again how much I dislike it when AN/I threads aren't closed quickly enough. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm also a little put out by your closing of that discussion. For three reasons: 1) You were an involved editor in the discussion itself; 2) Your closing seemed to suggest that consensus had indicated that it would be "appropriate" for Tony to be taken to WP:WQA, when I think that is far from the case; 3) You didn't allow for certain inaccuracies and misapprehensions to be cleared up. I don't particularly want to open the discussion up again at this point, although I did insert a note to address at least one misapprehension. Still, if I were you I would be a little more careful in closing such discussions. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I thought about this for awhile, and I think I see your point. My feeling was that since no administrator action was required, there was no reason to have a flamewar. I figured that any further "clearing of the air" could be done elsewhere. But I can understand how the failure to do at least a little bit of air-clearing could leave some people feeling stung.

I'm still not 100% convinced I was wrong to close the discussion when I did, but I'm no longer 100% convinced I was right, either. I'll take these points into consideration in the future. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, grand. Thanks for this. I'm happy to leave it at that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jay: the concern is that unfortunate impressions may have been left (although Jbmurray's post-closing comment may have cleared that up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've already left messages on a few users talkpages, but I'll contact them later anyhow. While I'm here, do we actually have a page with a list of people willing to copy-edit, I know we have WP:PRV, but that's just for reviewing articles. I know we have LOCE, but quite frankly, that project needs a rework and putting the article I'm working on there would require a wait of nearly a year probably. D.M.N. (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

LOCE is dead (someone should MfD it). The only recent list I'm aware of is the one at WP:PRV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Should I be bold, or maybe start up a discussion at WP:AN about it (after all; I doubt WT:LOCE will get looked out. Another brief thought. As for copy-editors, maybe it worth having a page in the future called WP:FAC/CE (CE standing for copy-editors maybe?). D.M.N. (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Raising the issue at the talk page of LOCE first might be better. No, I don't think we need a separate page, as the PRV list covers it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I think it might be worth posting a link from WP:AN and WP:VP to it to get the wider community involved. It seems like we're possibly undergoing a lot of changes in these parts; bringing in C-Class; abolishment of A-Class; although none of these are confirmed yet. There's even a suggestion of abolishing WP:ANI.... D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've put LOCE up for MFD. Your input it welcome. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

re: why is this at LOCE and FAC at the same time?

Because I requested LOCE months ago for GAC. In the end, I got some friendly wikipedians to do the c/e, and LOCE so far behind their requests that they have not gotten around to this request yet. I am not canceling it - I am sure the article can use another round of c/e-ing after my recent expansion :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Bradman pre-FAC

• Talk:Donald Bradman#Some pre FAC comments to deal with

Hi Sandy. Please see the first bullet. What do you think re ref 3? --Dweller (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, I've been intending to get there since this a.m. ... if I don't get there tomorrow, trout me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way...

I can't remember if I've offered this before, but I'm happy for you to whistle on my talk page if there's an FAC that needs another opinion. And I don't mind reviewing "unpopular" topics either. I'm also happy to help nominators get articles "over the finishing line" if you think they're close. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Start at the bottom of the list, where several have been dangling for weeks, as everyone has been tied up at RCC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Singular vs. Plural for a singular group name

I thought you might be able to help me with this question. When talking about a group in the past tense, in this case a team, do we normally use singular or plural?

For example, I would normally write:

"The New York Yankees were the best team of the nineties."

or...

"New York was the best team of the nineties."

but not...

"New York were the best team of the nineties."

I know there might not be a hard and fast rule on this, but I was looking for some general guidance. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This came up on either a soccer (football) or cricket FAC once, and there is a guideline somewhere. My memory could be faulty, but I think it's OK to use either, as long as you're consistent within the article. Since I can't remember where that guideline is, I suggest finding a soccer (football) Project and asking there (unless someone who watches my page answers first). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that basically answered my question... being that it can be either, depending on what you are talking about. For American baseball, I think what I wrote above is correct. My question came from Gran Prix / Formula Racing articles, where team names are McLaren, Ferrari, etc. Those team names are treated as plural. It is consistent with the sources and that sport as well. I'll look up some info on the football project. Thank you. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry to butt in here) From WP:PLURALS, In British English they are normally treated as singular or plural according to context; names of towns and countries take plural verbs when they refer to sports teams but singular verbs when they refer to the actual place (or to the club as a business enterprise): "England are playing Germany tonight" refers to a football team, but England is the most populous country of the United Kingdom refers to the country. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Julian ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Julian, that makes total sense. My confusion probably arose from the fact that I am American and was copy editing a Grand Prix article based on European teams. I've learned much! Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. :) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch35.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm really not interested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting way to use the talkback template... For a moment I thought you'd left it yourself, Sandy, as a joke.

If you ever see the Duke leave me such a message, it will probably be the final indication that we are suffering from multiple personality disorder. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 07:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy is what happens when life gets in the way

Naaaffff. I totally had a half-written things to address section for Assata Shakur. Ah well. That's what I get for getting involved with other issues. Stupid issues. I see you're giving out barnstars for comments that irritate me in particular. Thorough smorough. Whatev =) --Moni3 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

oops ... :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This week, Moni, it would probably be best to watchlist User talk:Maralia (she and Sandy are playing Gimmebot this week). I noticed Sandy said she was just about to promote and decided to avoid FAC until she was done. It's too bad we can't get one of those big message at the top of every WP page that says "Avoid FAC for now; Sandy at work [hide]". That would be much more interesting to me than some of the messages up there. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally I go through around 0:00 UTC, but I wanted to train Maralia to be a bot today :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I never noticed that before. Now if I could only figure out what that means in CST I'll be set... I have an overwhelming urge to make a good-bot/bad-bot joke but I am going to restrain myself. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I haven't figured it out in EST ! (In your case, I think it's basically just before the kids' bedtime :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Sandy needs a bat sign like Commissioner Gordon has. Whenever she needs more reviews she can flash it and I'll see it at night. Cept I can't stand wrestling, video game, or cricket articles. Though for some reason, I'm lurking on the Don Bradman article. Don't understand a thing about it. But I could shout, "Holy premature promotion, Batman!" and she would know that I wasn't done yet. Because she like, cares about my opinion and stuff. I don't know why I don't have Maralia's talk page listed. Off to fix that right now. --Moni3 (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I always need more reviews :-) If you're starting on one, you could add a note to the FAC to let me know. I try to remember (don't always succeed) to watch any FAC I'm about to close for at least a day, so I'll know if there's any late-breaking news. Oh, and I usually promote about mid-day on Saturdays because WP:GO has to be archived at 0:00 UTC on Sat night. I reserve the right to be erratic, irrational, and unpredictable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well. Fight the power. I'll put a note on the FAC page, if only to drive the nominator insane: "I have a half-written review of this article. I won't post it until that is complete. I don't know when that will be. Please continue to enjoy the hold music while you wait." --Moni3 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Crossed circuits

Is there any way to avoid this kind of problem in the future? I offered a review mere moments before you closed the FAC - obviously my time could have been better spent at FAC if I had known you were going to close the FAC so soon. I'm trying to be very efficient in my reviewing right now, so I would appreciate any tips you could offer on that front. Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Awadewit; did you read my talk page section just above yours? Also, any time a FAC has been up for six days and has three supports, and source and image clearance, it's on my horizon, so if you want to review, leave a note so I'll know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Thank you, Sandy. About RCC, I am looking very hard at Karanacs' idea at the moment, and my first responses were positive. When I return from a short wikibreak (interrupted because of a startling email about a closing arbcom case on the wiki-en-l mailing list) I will, I think, make a few suggestions. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't keep up with very much off-Wiki info, so please feel free to fill me in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a post about this ruling which has now been passed. It is discussed on the associated talkpage, and later where I commented, perhaps a tad strongly (I was irritated at being dragged back) here.

I edit mainly bios and fringe historical theories. I fear that the atmosphere is now such that some time during this wikibreak I will have to carefully consider how much aggravation this is likely to cause and whether it is worth returning. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. My concern (related to what I see happening at your talk page) is that a "super class" of enforcers is being (self?)-created, and that class has been empowered to interpret policy in unique ways. But perhaps the two issues are unrelated. I guess there always have been and always will be admins who are here to game the system, which is why I prefer to spend my time in an area that is strictly content related. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Funny going ons at GA

I passed these articles because I actually believed them to be GAs. I enjoy reviewing articles and like watching the editors rejoice. And if you take it any other way than you are wrong. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy, and I'm remiss in not bringing this up before. Mary Meader and Hell's Gate National Park should never have been passed as GAs. I can't speculate on your reasons, but I suggest you make your standards for GA much, much higher. --Moni3 (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at GAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all that you (and others) said at GAN... all I'll say is that not all GA reviewers are evil - Talk:Mechanical engineering/GA1 is a good example. :-) But yeah, as LB said, this is a problem (Awards Centre + People passing GAs for badges + Admin coaching etc.) which will probably find its way at RfC sooner rather than later. Shame. giggy _(:O) 06:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD draft

Sandy, could you please take a look at what I have so far? --Laser brain (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, I thought you were making lasagna! I'll review tonight; my brain is scattered right now and I haven't been to my garden yet today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought everyone had a "I hate Laser brain" userbox. Perhaps The Transhumanist should include a strongly worded warning to those prompted to run amok, perhaps gaining inspiration from this source. --Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lasagna does need time to bake! I don't have a problem with the userbox proliferating if it means only deserving articles are passed. :) --Laser brain (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't talk to me about cooking: forbidden on my talk page. (Isn't that why I'm married?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, I had a look because I was afraid you'd make me bake if I didn't :-) I suspect (could be wrong) it will do better if you avoid mentioning editor names, as that could personalize the issues unnecessarily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Or ... Wondering (unclear) ... should it be launched as an RfC instead of an MfD? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good points.. will slice out the names and consider sautéing at RfC rather than MfD. At any rate, I intend to let it marinate for a while before serving. --Laser brain (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to stay on a diet while watching this page - everywhere you look there is chocolate or (even better) yummy Italian food. Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. There is nothing better than chocolate. YMMV. Risker (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing? Risker, you worry me ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• LB, I'd say an MfD would be a better idea for an RfC. Many will argue that the issue is solely because of the AWC (I disagree but that's another story), so getting it deleted should hopefully solve most of the problems. If it doesn't, start an RfC on the problem editors (remember also that user conduct RfCs can only be focussed on 1 person, as opposed to a group... makes it work much more smoothly). giggy _(:O) 00:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Let me know when Gimme's back; I won't close any until then. Marskell (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Approximate word count

You surprise me. I get 14,667 when I divide 175,000 by 12, which is a very close approximation of the actual 12,000 - it is only off by 22%, which for all practical purposes, is right on the money - it's a ballpark you are looking for, not which side of a seat in that ball park. Oakwillow (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Only off by 22 %  !! LOL ... good one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When you are dealing with orders of magnitude, 22% is an excellent estimate. 100, 1000, 10,000 etc. Oakwillow (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We aren't dealing with orders of magnitude. We're dealing with your desire to alter WP:SIZE to include your unsupported, idiosyncratic ideas, without consensus. We have working measures of article size, including word count; we don't need to introduce 22% error. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How technical?

I'm working on Noble gas right now, and it's the most technical article I have worked on so far. How much jargon are we allowed to use before it gets too technical? Could you take a quick glance at the article and tell me what I should trim back on, explain further, etc.? Gary King (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wiki-dropping here, I'm science-literate but not expert. I've gone through it and made a few tweaks (improvements? dunno) but basically it's not so much "jargon" as the essential concepts needed to understand the subject. Orbital-filling, Van der Waals bonding &c are essential topics, as are radio-decay and the various thermodynamics, boiling &c. You could overlink it just to be sure, or try to provide an Overview section, but the article itself seems irreducible. Just my opinion of course - but it was an enjoyable article to read! Franamax (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Franamax (I've got a lot of irons in the fire today, so am a bit behind). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quid pro quo, Clarice

I nominated Draining and development of the Everglades, and I intend in return to review Dutch Empire, Cold War, National Museum of Beirut, and Polish culture during World War II before Saturday's promotion and archiving. I'll leave a note on those pages as well, but I'm being redundant. --Moni3 (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Moni, my e-mail inbox is filling up with requests that I barnstar you for entertaining the troops at my talk page :-) <Reminder to ask some creative type to come up with a Moni barnster> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha. I don't know about that. Every time I leave something I think is witty and gay, I come back and read it and it seems trite and freakin' annoying. But if I'm entertaining people I might de-lurk every now and then... --Moni3 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears as if the nominator of Dutch Empire abandoned the article at FAC. If you want me to review it still, I will, but I prefer to leave comments for nominators who will address my concerns. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just left the nominator a note about it. [1] If s/he withdraws then Sandy will be able to close at least one nom today. karanacs <signed wrong> 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be archiving several. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea! Karanacs (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Must be summer break; I've been herding cats on numerous FACs lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny

Been here 2 years and never been aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you :-) My idea of a Resource Exchange is e-mailing someone who has access :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What, you never knew of Jimbo's kind offer? Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That is hilarious. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

<gulp>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LIBRARY is Wikipedia's secret weapon - kept very secret for some reason. Spread the word to all and sundry, sign yourself up as a resource if you can be one. There are people just aching to use their multiple subscription access, work 'em to death! Franamax (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

FA

I have noticed the lack of quality in Augustan literature and I am a tad bothered by it. There are no academic resources that could back up most of those claims, and a lot of it is absurd, wrong, or just misconstrues the whole setting. Because of my self-imposed break, I couldn't really go forth to try and have this reexamined. Could you find someone who would be willing to put it through the review process? It needs a lot of improvement, and I don't think it will get such with it being deemed "complete" by some editors who see the star and are unwilling to accept change. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not likely to find anyone who would be willing to bring that particular article to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

:( --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen so many try so hard. Now FAC needs some reviewers back; there are 47 articles listed, and almost nothing I can close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment poll

Sandy, thanks a lot for your copyedits so far on the dispatches piece. I just posted the result of the poll, which is to adopt the new C-Class. I have updated the dispatches piece accordingly, but can you make sure it looks OK? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Primary/Secondary or Research/Review distinction over at WP:OR

I commented over here on that issue and I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Specifically, I'd like you to address what I consider to be 3 invalid conclusions: that reviews put things in context whereas primary studies don't; that reviews are easier to read; and that reviews are less biased. I've provided a counterexample. It seems more important to me to judge things on a case-by-case basis -- some reviews will be great, others won't. Same goes for "primary" articles. Thanks. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nguyen Van Nhung

Hi Sandy. Can you look at this FAC to see if it inherently inappropriate. Circeus thinks that the article shouldn't really exist/is redundant because the only known information about this fellow is from two coups that he was involved in. If it was just one event I wouldn't have bothered to have a separate article, but as it is, we're in this predicament. Is this FAC inherently intractable? If so I will withdraw it. Or I can rename it to something else like Nguyen Van Nhung as a military hitman or something. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather let that be decided by consensus at FAC, but I do have a question ... are there no other non-English language sources ? Is that truly all that is known about him? For example, Hugo Chavez was first known/published for the bloody coup he launched in Venezuela in 1992, and although there was little known about him in the English-language press, there was plenty more in Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Another query

Sandy, I've started working up Nuthatch, still a long way to go yet, but a referencing query. I've started with the book stuff, and many of the refs so far refer to the standard text by Harrop & Quinn. I've adopted a notes-and-refs approach, but added an indication of the content of the noted page eg

Harrop & Quinn (1996) Sulphur-billed Nuthatch p165–168

Having done that, I'm not sure how to format it - pages before or after content? Content in italics, quotes, plain or not at all? Anyway, please have a look and let me know. In the meantime I'll try to find that bar of organic fig and orange chocolate (: jimfbleak (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Jim, have a look at Ant, and let me know if you still have questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I take that to mean leave the content out, just bare page ranges. That's fine, I'll leave the content bit in for now because it's easier to navigate while I'm adding material, and put in back to just eg Harrop & Quinn (1996) p165–168 before GA. Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really know what you were referring to about content, since all I see at Nuthatch are citations. If you want to add direct quotes, I'd just put them in quotes after the citation info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(Not) Just another whiner!

Today morning I woke up and logged on to WP...yawning...but my yawn was cut short when I glanced through the watchlist. I asked why? I know the nomination was growing stale and had just 3 comments, 1 support and 1 oppose...obviously the oppose looked valid and weighty...but I guess you could have extended it a bit...even if the nom seemed on a death row. We all know the kind of inputs one gets at FACs is nothing compared to PRs or GARs. The amount of attention that FACs garner is hard to get...and I felt I needed more reviews.

I ain't asking you to reopen the nom or anything..nor am I registering a complaint...or doling out an advice... but its just a suggestion...let FACs grow stale no matter how retarded they may seem...I know its frustrating for you to see so many FACs lying unnoticed...

I have seen FA noms which had dismal beginnings and poor responses but eventually improved a lot and made the cut.

Regards, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC is not supposed to be a stand-in for peer review. The reviewer pool is pretty small at the moment, and if we were to leave every article that was languishing at FAC for longer the list would grow and grow and reviewers would never be able to keep up. This dispatch gives information about how to get more input at a peer review and this one provides information on how to be a reviewer at FAC. We could always welcome the help. Karanacs (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Knowledge; two weeks is a normal-to-long time to let a FAC that has not gained Support run. By archiving/promoting daily, I'm able to let nominations run much longer than they used to, but once a nomination has run that long and has gotten significant opposition, the article will likely have a better chance at achieving featured status by using the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to work issues out and re-approach FAC. Hope to see you back as soon as issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I just want you to know that I have done my best at Talk:Roman Catholic Church#Promised research (Comments posted by AWADEWIT). Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The effort is appreciated; see User_talk:SandyGeorgia#FYI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also now posted a plan. Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I've never seen so many people work so hard to advance a worthy article in such difficult circumstances, but in the meantime, FAC reviews are floundering and this month's promotions will likely be the lowest in a very long time; almost all of the editors who usually help review and bring articles to status have been exclusvely tied up with RCC for almost two months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not holding out a lot of hope [2], but kudos to you, Awadewit for taking the time to suggest something. Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm giving up. Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to watch the effect this FAC has had on all of you on all sides; I know you've all tried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, I am not strong enough to venture into this article because it frightens me on many levels. But it seems to me the priority of the editors of RCC is not really to get this featured, but the to keep the content they see that complements their vision. I don't think that's a bad thing. If they want to hang on to that vision, they're under no mandate to get it to FA. But if they want to get it to FA, then they'll have to compromise the vision. I don't know, in the tomes of FAC comments, if this has been illustrated for them. I'm very concerned that other articles are languishing while the best reviewers seem to be mired in this article, however. Is there such a thing as a cool-down nomination period? Just so reviewers can overcome their exhaustion? --Moni3 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understood it, that was Raul's intent when he archived; instead, we now have yet another 200KB of the same discussion we've seen on three FACs occuring across various talk pages, tying up all of the editors who usually work to bring many articles to status. Our FA promotes this month will be the lowest in a long time, and, well, people will continue to complain to me about FACs I'm forced to archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question, Moni, it has been pointed out to the editors literally dozens of time again that articles just don't pass FAC 100% the way they were when they got there (the explanations began at the first FAC when they refused to make changes to anything because that would mean the article would lose its GA status). I have a terrifying vision of this article popping up at FAC once a month for the next year with the same fights recurring until all the reviewers quit (several refused to come back for FAC 4 and several more have quit working on the article in disgust this week). Sandy, my review output is going to pretty low this month, which is contributing to the problem. I probably missed out on at least 10 reviews this month because of vacation, so I have been making penance by reviewing pop culture (even wrestling! articles) for you. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all you do; I hate failing articles, even more so for lack of reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad

I left a note at Template talk:FAC status for you and Willow. I'm definitely the one to blame. =) Thanks.. – Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I responded there (although it's a strange place for this chat, since it has nothing to do with the template :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Marlins best trade yet

Did you see this? World Series Champs 2008!!!!!!! So take that SG!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You really have to spend more time (like, 86 years) with The Fat Lady :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're a Cubs fan then? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Article size

Hello Sandy... I see the Article size talk page has continued to grow. I don't understand why all of you have been so patient with Oakwillow. I'm working on the solar energy page and it is coming up for its first FAC shortly. Oakwillow edits this page as 199.125.109.xxx or Apteva. It's hard to work on a page with this fellow screwing with it and he seems to step up his trash the better the page gets. Where would be the best place to report this guy for ignoring consensus and pushing POV material? Mrshaba (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you start with WP:WQA, and if that isn't successful, move on to WP:RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for FAC work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		We reviewers and nominators don't stop often enough to thank you for the hard work you put in at FAC. Your meticulousness and your dedication to helping people through the process, in addition to what must be the hours of tedious "paper work", are to be commended. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)