User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Weise's law	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:40, 19 August 2008

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.
The current time is Thursday, 04:39 UTC.

Template:FixBunching

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition	Review now
Helium	Review now
Martin Keamy	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

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

ungainly plural

Hi Sandy—Can I go to Ral and say Sandy agrees that it should be "Dispatch"? It's been irritating the s... out of me for some time. Tony (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh ... never thought about it before ... the name may have come from Raul, who suggested the Dispatches, so you might check with him. Anyway, I always defer to you in all things grammatical. Is it going to screw up all my archives? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno; is it? Tony (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take an example:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-01-28/Dispatches

Are you proposing that

we change the 1) article name and 2) article byline from here forward, or that

we go back and fix all the old ones as well?

If we have to fix all the old ones, we have to move all those files. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it affects the footer template, so I'd have to ask Ral, but we may have to change them all, as well as the Signpost archives. I wish this had come up sooner. :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're time-stressed, and it doesn't matter much. It's a nice little project for a willing person to do some time. Tony (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop page

Hi Sandy, I thought you should know that there is a typo in your comment of the Minor edits section on the Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop page. - Epousesquecido (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thank, I'll go look. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I guess I saw a typo that wasn't there, my mistake - Epousesquecido (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

FYI---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FU images

Hi, the people at NFC are quite insistent that there's no such thing as a fair-use image; only non-free. A fair-use justification is sometimes upheld. Tony (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, still catching up this morning, will ask Elcobbola how he can factor that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mosley

I made a comment at the talkpage regarding the articlehistory. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said you were unwatching, then came back and unfixed a fix. I've refixed it. Cheers, Geometry guy 23:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could not have unfixed a fix when there were no changes to articlehistory between my first edit to ah and my subsequent edit to ah :-) But I'm glad you're on it! The new articlehistory doesn't sync with what I found in articlehistory, but since edit summaries were lacking, hard to tell and ... not my problem :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, not your problem. It was fine until your last edit. Now, unfortunately, it is my problem. Geometry guy 23:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's delisted twice now, two weeks apart. Is that how it works? I believe I left it correct, but hard to tell when there are no edit summaries, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone listed it without leaving a review, without following any process, and without any accountability. In doing so, of course, this editor screwed up the article history as well. Helpful reaction: undo everything this editor did. Your reaction: beloved article history is messed up and this is another example of GA crap. I've fixed the two delists so that one is "not listed". Sorry I sound so pissy, but I really did not want to have to deal with this stuff right now. Don't worry, I'll cheer up tomorrow. Happy editing, Geometry guy 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to give you the bad news, but I just found more problems :-) In all of that mess, GimmeBot was fooled and removed it from GA. Cheer up! I do wish we had never added so much to ah, because I'm afraid this sort of stuff wore down my favorite botmaster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolute listed it : here, and then somewhere in all of that, GimmeBot picked up a delist. Still suggesting a gatekeeper panel ... sorry for the trouble ... if someone checked the error cat daily? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's currently marked "delisted" on the talk page, so naturally it would get removed from WPGA. Gimmetrow 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw GimmeBot picked up the delist, but that was a good thing. The article is not a current GA, and it saved me some trouble that GimmeBot delisted it automatically. Everything is working fine apart from the erratic behaviour of individual editors. So, what else is new? Geometry guy 00:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely clear on the erratic behaviour ... I thought anyone can list a GA, and Resolute listed it?[1] But then he built the AH wrong, which caused GimmeBot to delist it because it showed in ah as delisted even thought it was listed,[2] before I corrected the ah error. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can list a GA, but only if they follow process and leave a proper review. In this case process didn't happen, so another editor undid the listing on the talk page and quite rightly so. GimmeBot picked up on this and removed the listing from the GA page. That worked very well and I was hoping I would not have to intervene. Unfortunately, you then relisted the article on the talk page. Geometry guy 00:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G guy, I see you aren't in a happy mood. And it's not worth making it worse by asking you to step back through the diffs to see that's not what happened, so let's make like husband and wife, have a glass of wine, and drop it :-) I promise that next time I unwatch, I won't go back at the end of the day to see if it was fixed, and as long as the errors don't trigger the error cat, I'll leave them there anyway. Until the article comes to FAC, and then I'll fix the history. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the edit history before, but okay, good plan. A clink with my glass :-) All the best to you too. Geometry guy 00:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought ... someone built the ah wrong even though they listed it at GA (which according to G guy was also wrong) showing it as delisted even though it was (wrongly) listed, so then GimmeBot picked up the wrong ah, which was actually the right ah ... oh my gosh. Then I built an AH which agreed with what happened at WP:GA, but apparently was out of process ... A day in Gimmetrow's life :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also another day in the life of those of us who are pissed off with all of this sniping at GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone making invisible posts to my talk page? I re-read the entire thread and don't find that. But I did look outside and see a full moon coming up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That must be it then, I'm a lunatic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I agree with Sandy that the underlying issue here is not GA sniping; instead we need to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems of article history error management. But I'm still enjoying that glass of wine, and would rather discuss it another time. Geometry guy 01:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy one for me, too ... full moon rising elsewhere :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

huh

Was really about this line: 'New reference feature: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#New references feature. Which is about the new ref =group feature. If you like, I can move the comment to the proposed topic list. --mav (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'll fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your hard work at FAC. It's a tough job but somebody's got to do it.Dave (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like Tony's thanks better :-) Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really =-) I assumed you had so much bling the jewelery box was full. In that case, I'll make the thank you message a little more formal =-)

		The Utah State Highways Barnstar
		For your tireless referee work on FAC, and helping us roadgeeks get some articles to FAC. Dave (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That better? =-)

Can we help out this hero?

The British Bangladeshi article has developed into a formidable piece of encyclopedic article all because of Miah's heroic efforts. But, unfortunately English is only his second language, much like poor old me. The article needs a copyedit (especially when you consider that what has been written in 40 words can probably be reduced down to 12 words without removing any information). Would you lend a hand? At least in the form of counsel? It would be greatly helpful if the comments are made on the article talkpage. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a terrible copyeditor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you suggest someone then? It really needs a copyjob. With one done it may even graduate into an FA, I believe. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting my head around monobook

OK, I have no idea what to do now. I made a page and copied the script and nothing happened...am I missing something really obvious? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to "reset the cache" to force it to load. Holding some special key like shift, control, or cmd while reloading will usually do it, but see also WP:BYPASS. Gimmetrow 07:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And after you do that, look in your toolbox on the left-hand side of your screen, under the Search box, for a button that says Page size. (Thanks, Gimmetrow!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh duh (feels like a prize noob) got it now ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart to SummerSlam (2003) FAC

Thanks I guess? I'm guessing it was the right thing to do, but I really appreciate it. Can I ask the previous people who commented on the FAC to take a look again or would that be against WP:CANVASS?--S_RX 17:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask as long as you stay within WP:CANVASS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avoid weasel words

seems to have been floating in some digital limbo for the last 6 wks. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. How did you find that? It doesn't show up in the category, which perhaps only checks article talk pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I say on the "FAC", I went to the talk page to moan, & saw the header there. Having the name of the article as a redlink is an impressive first. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you just happened to find it? None of our tools pick it up, because it doesn't get categorized. I guess it's rare enough that it's not worth worrying about ... I dunno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scary - who knows what long debates may be going on out there? Best just to pull the bedcovers over the head & not not think about it. Cheers! Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedcovers ... no, I punted it to Raul :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Limerick

Do you mind if I talk to you here a bit about the History of Limerick FAR? I could do with some specific advise before replying on the FAR page. Your comments about the lack of citations is correct, though it now has 39 as opposed to 1, but I was not going to remove uncited yet information until I know I absolutely cannot find a citation. I had been hoping that Ceoil was going to come in on this as he has access to the Spellissy book that I cannot get access to without sitting in the NYPL and read it there. I don't have time for that. I am sure I can fix the format and MOS issues but need some guidance with those as I really am not well versed with some of those like you are. TIA ww2censor (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a more general note, I'm wondering why you and Ceoil have to clean that one up when the original editor is around? There are so many articles that you two can do good work on, why isn't the original editor bringing that one to standard? We need you two on so many articles; can't you prod the original nominating editor to do that? FAR is suddenly up over 30, meaning need to focus on what is really salvageable ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why he is not getting involved. I see the 2 short notes he left but no significant contributions. I am happy to keep working on this but as mentioned above I have an inexperienced in certain areas. To be honest I would like to devote my time right now to the complete revamp of Airmail which has been enhanced with some German translation that I am working on for citation and expansion before updating the main space. I hope this will become a FA in time. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and appreciate working to salvage FARs when the regular editors are highly involved, appreciate the help, or have moved along so there's no one to do the work, but I can't understand working to source work for someone else, when the person who wrote the text is still around and should be able to easily source it themselves ... there are so many articles worthy of that attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Literature in the Hoysala Empire

Hi Sandy, how are you. I am back from India and am back on the hunt for FAC's. The above article has gone through a thorough PR, Mos check (Epbr123) and image clearence. I need one solid round of copy edits to cap it. Can you suggest someone from your long list of acquaintances on wiki. Risker seems busy and the copy editors league is generally a long wait. I have left messages on a couple of user pages. thanks. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wackymacs (talk · contribs), BuddingJournalist (talk · contribs), Dank55 (talk · contribs), Deckiller (talk · contribs), Maralia (talk · contribs), Moni3 (talk · contribs), Jbmurray (talk · contribs) (who is traveling now), Awadewit (talk · contribs) (who is always very busy with requests) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in, there are also people willing to do copyedits at WP:PRV, although the quality there is not as high on average as Sandy's list. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lankan Tamil people

Hey, you had commented elsewhere about restarting the FAC of the above article. Since I am not sure what the problem seems to be, can you let me know what your specific concerns are ? Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is on the talk there now; that should cover it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

week-old query

* ... 0.6-mile-long (1.0 km) path ?

If it needs another hyphen, the convert template doesn't deal with that, so what should editors do? Do they always need to recast the sentence, or should they just do the convert manually?

I'd discourage the use of the template in the first place.

Sandy, the triple hyphenated expression is always going to be a problem when inserting a conversion. The simple solution is to remove the redundant word:

... 0.6-mile (1.0 km) path. Tony (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you, I will make the needed changes next, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I already made the changes, but I will paste Tony's comment into the FAC page and see what Dincher and anyone else who is interested thinks too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing phrases like 0.6-mile (1 km) long path. Should I change them, then? Waltham, The Duke of 07:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	<font=3> Thanks again for your help and comments - Leonard Harrison State Park made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good topics

I've half-expected to see such a proposal for quite some time now. Well, here it is, now. Waltham, The Duke of 11:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depersonalization disorder

Can you cast an eye? IP removing citation tags and repeatedly submitting to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can semi- the nomination page...what a clever idea, I just have. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I think of that ? Thanks you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite news

Sandy- You can still use the template fields. Change accessmonthday and accessyear to accessdate. Example: Change accessmonthday=August 18 accessyear=2008 to accessdate=2008-08-18. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That causes them to be linked; the other templates allow for delinked dates (see Ima Hogg and Samuel Johnson; both have consistently delinked dates, but I had to fiddle with cite news by moving the date out of the template). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about rewriting the citation in "clear" as in written out information following a style guide, e.g. MLA, and simply dispense with the autodate linking entirely. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Because we want to fix this mess and stop kludging. As a first step: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Citation_Task_Force. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget, I'm coming into a really busy period, and I probably can't add much over there until mid-September, which is really disappointing, since this is such a long-standing and serious concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy

We first traded "barbs" over a GA review of the Boeing 747 that had been largely based on the use of a particular set of electronic references by Joe Baugher. Eventually, all concerned editors relented and replaced the largely "fan"-based site information with more reliable secondary sources. But, as Steven Colbert would say, I then sized you up as a "Formidable Opponent" (in grudging testimony, I acknowledged your expertise in certain formatting issues, although I am loath to ceed that honour to anyone as I have been a reserach librarian for 30+ years and have a considerably enlarged forehead and ego to match). However, I have recently had a conflab with an editor who has a very distinct understanding of research terminology who reverted everything I did on the article Howard Hughes which drew me into the MoS Cite/Layout wars that are presently underway. There I noticed you again, wending your electronic sword and noted that you were actually championing some of the same causes that I hold dear- the #@$%%^^ cite templates, the ##$%&%^ autodate formating and the complete lack of consistency in referencing that is a natural adjunct from the "too many cooks" phenomena of Wikipedia. I just wanted to make ammends for any past misdeeds or mispeaks, although I too, couldn't remember whether any real discord had taken place. FWiW, count me in as one of your "legions". The strangest part of the GA Review was that it was initiated by one of the most nefarious vandals who somehow weaseled into an admin position but who was summarily banned for a serious of nutzo actions, shortly after. Bzuk (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Gimme

His bot is still running right now, correct? A bunch of closures today, as you're never-sleeping eyes have already noticed. Marskell (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching; I thought Gimme was gone, but I saw him in action, so I'll wait a bit. Gosh, I hate manually doing FARCs, so if I must do them, I'm going to park the old (pre-bot) templates there and wait :-) I'll keep you posted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Millington Synge

John Millington Synge is on your FA without citations list. I went through and added 5k worth of information. The citations were expanded from 4 separate entries with 4 total citations to 20 separate entries with 34 total citations. I hope that is enough to temporarily remove this article from the list. It is not "fixed", but I hope my adding of this finger to the dike will plug it for a little longer. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans, I'll have a look tonight and consult Marskell on citations talk (I don't unilaterally remove from the list, we wait to hear input from others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can add more, but Synge has been someone I haven't worked on in a while, so I'd need to dig up more. Just leave me a message, or I'll try to look out for a response, on what else would be needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sandy, I would like your feedback please

Due to your role in the featured article process, and our work together over at WP:FT, you are an editor I respect greatly. I see you have already been notified of Cirt's proposal over at Wikipedia talk:Good topics. Firstly I would like your feedback on the actual proposal over there.

Secondly, I would like to express that I am not completely happy with how this proposal came to be. It was borne out of an initial proposal I made here, where I first came up with the idea of good topics, but as an integral part of the existing featured topic process, as opposed to as a separate process. While I realise that despite being the initial proposer I have no right over the idea of good topics, I still feel that the rug of this was somewhat pulled out from under me by Cirt, and am somewhat unhappy with how he has particularly chosen to implement it. I also acknowledge that the conversation at WT:FT? appeared to be drawing to a close, however I do not think it had not come to a close (probably not in the short run, and certainly not in the long run).

The vote over at Wikipedia talk:Good topics appears to be quite heavily in favour of such a project, but (and I don't want to put words in others' mouths but I honestly think this is the case) I think many support votes haven't actually thought about the intricacies of such an issue, how large parts of such a fully separate project from WP:FT would be redundantly separate from WP:FT, and how the particular details of the proposal Cirt has drawn up (specifically, the lack of audited articles) are illogical (and make WP:GT? inconsistent with itself). Instead, they are merely supporting the idea of good topics, not any particular detail of this implementation.

So, my requests are these. Firstly, as I already said, I'd like your feedback on Cirt's proposal. Secondly, I would like to ask, are there any rules about courtesy with proposals? For example, you can't nominate an article you didn't write for featured article, and I feel this is kind of what happened here, in that I quietly made a proposal, only to have Cirt take it, before it had run its course, modify it slightly in a way I strongly don't like, and expose it to a much larger audience, therefore making any decision there voiding any conclusions that would have been reached for my original proposal.

I realise I may in places have been somewhat aggressive at WP:GT, but this is largely borne out of frustration at a situation where it appears that Cirt has overwhelming support for his particular implementation of this idea, when actually many people seem to me to be supporting the broader idea of two tiers of topics, as opposed to any particular implementation (and in fact are not looking at the specifics of his implementation, or the alternatives, at all) - rst20xx (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, things seem to be improving, but I'd still like your feedback on both of the above - rst20xx (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social psychology (psychology)

Hi SandyGeorgia. I spotted your assessment of Social psychology (psychology) as a "C" and wanted to comment. From what I gather, this style of references (APA style, a variant of Harvard style) is acceptable on Wikipedia. There is talk about switching over to in-text citations, but that will be a lengthy process, given that there are so many references. In any event, one can hardly say that the article is lacking in citations!! If there are particular citations needed, maybe you could suggest them. Also, could you clarify what you mean by "listy prose" and how it is a problem for this article in the talk page. Thanks much! --Jcbutler (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, inline Harvard-style citations are fine and acceptable, but the article is still mostly uncited. And, a lot of the article consists of lists. (Also, have a look at WP:MOSBOLD; there are several breaches.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1964 Gabon coup d'état‎‎

Nishkid and I have replied to your concerns at this page. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. You must not be viewing the article correctly. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry I did not get the issue at first. Anyway, problem solved. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WBFAN 2008

Sandy - I've created Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/2008. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 Thanks for your hard work at FAC. It's a tough job but somebody's got to do it.[[User:Davemeistermoab|Dave]] ([[User talk:Davemeistermoab|talk]]) 03:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 : I like Tony's thanks better :-)  Congratulations!  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 03:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
+::Oh really =-) I assumed you had so much bling the jewelery box was full. In that case, I'll make the thank you message a little more formal =-)
+{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
+|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar UTSH.png|100px]]
+|rowspan="2" |
+|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Utah State Highways Barnstar'''
+|-
+|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your tireless referee work on FAC, and helping us roadgeeks get some articles to FAC. [[User:Davemeistermoab|Dave]] ([[User talk:Davemeistermoab|talk]]) 03:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
+|}
+That better? =-)
 == Can we help out this hero? ==