User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Mission: Impossible – Fallout	Review it now
Galileo project	Review it now
Worlds (Porter Robinson album)	Review it now
I'm God	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:42, 18 December 2008

Shortcut

WT:SANDY

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.

If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.

I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

User talk pages with the most edits

As of October 2008. Dragons flight (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1	OrphanBot	34634
2	Jimbo Wales	26347
3	SandyGeorgia	13766
4	Alison	13295
5	Raul654	13006
6	Bishonen	12621
7	Tony Sidaway	12135
8	RickK	11578
9	Durova	10407
10	Keeper76	10114

I should stop talking to myself so much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh.

Someone just created Thomas the tank engine and autism. Looking for spread, I found this: Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends#Popularity with autistic audience. I haven't wanted to stab myself in the eye with a fork this bad since Jenny McCarthy 'cured' her son. It doesn't take a medical degree to see how unscientific the two referenced 'studies' were, but this crap is certainly all over the internet, so maybe there's a (heavily skeptical) place for it here somewhere. Thoughts? Maralia (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new McCarthyism; parents who use their children as guinea pigs. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Voodoo polls as sources in medicine. When Raul was on ArbCom, we got strong rulings on science. That's the best I can muster today; you might want to folow up there to make sure something happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas the tank engine and autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expert images

Sandy, this was brought up a few weeks ago with no real consensus. Images in Quark, FAC here, are made by a user on Wikipedia, and there's absolutely no way I can tell if it is accurate. I know that GrahamColm makes his own images of viruses based on his experience as a microbiologist, and he did not seem warm to the suggestion that he verify them. I knew this was going to come up, but I'm not sure what to do here. The licensing for them appears fine, but... I don't feel comfortable verifying their accuracy. In these cases, would you just like to see confirmation that the licensing appears to be fine? Or does this need to go back to the FAC talk page? --Moni3 (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only logged on briefly today, Moni, and I won't be able to look at that until tomorrow. My house is flooded (yes, again), and my dog has pneumonia (yes, again). I'll look tomorrow, but in the meantime, hopefully others will pitch in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. Here's hoping the frogs, boils, locusts, and river of blood doesn't pile on. Don't anger God. If anyone else wants to pitch in this discussion, please give me your input. --Moni3 (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my butting in. When I drew an unacceptable image this was the response. Wikipedia encourages editors to upload their own images—in fact it is policy. There are even Wikiprojects to help editors who want to contribute them. What happened with my first diagram of an electron microscope is exactly how the accuracy of images should be judged. If a source does not exist for a home-made diagram, (and if it is truly home-made there should not be one), it would be silly to ask the creators to provide one. Elcobbola summed it up nicely here. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I asked for yours and anyone else's input into this, and I participated and and watched the conversation on the FAC talk page that you linked to.

Question: Since I'm reviewing images for licensing and sources, and sometimes for reliability at FAC, is it my job to be able to verify the accuracy of images? What's best is if I can see a link to a web-based source. After that, a reliable source like a book or some other publication. If the image is self-made in a drawing program with no source, I just don't know what to do. It is my personal belief that the site exists to answer the fundamental question of "How do we know what we know?" The ^{[citation needed]} tags are intended to make people more accountable for their knowledge. I have no problem with self-made images, and think more should be on the site, but my issue is proving that they are accurate. I can't do that for quarks and viruses. Should that be left up to the community to decide if they are accurate, per the link to the electron microscope image? Should I make commentary on the licensing only and add a caveat in the FAC that I am unable to judge the reliability of the illustrations? Is the responsibility of a self-made illustration on the uploader or the community as a whole? Many questions, but I value your input. --Moni3 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moni, I think we can rely on the community to verify the accuracy, (and usefulness) of self-made diagrams. Where you and I lack expertise there are many others who have it. We must not confuse "licensing" with "accuracy". I don't want to reiterate all the points I made in that long discussion we had—but I still stand by them. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Moni, I won't be able to look at that today; the perfect storm in my life got worse overnight, and I'm home alone, dealing with the "frogs, boils, locusts, and river of blood". And more. I took a break last night to run through FAC, and saw that there is still very little that I can close. I will spend a few hours now catching up, but I will only be able to pr/ar those that aren't too complicated, so I can get back to the locusts. Except for the image and source reviews, and the reviews from the steady few, there is nothing I can do at FAC if we don't get more reviewers; I saw lots of long FACs but almost no Support/Oppose declarations. It's not fair to nominators and writers for me to archive away half of the page for lack of input. I will leave a message to Raul about how we might address these problems after I get through this storm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Hopefully everything gets well over there, and take your time to deal with stuff in meatspace. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would be doing a few full reviews, but the house is in the last stages before being finished, it's the holidays, I'm trying to get my barn into shape to move the horses to the new place, my SO's daughter needs a visit three states away and the weather is not cooperating, and I've done no Xmas shopping.. ARGH! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've not been able to return to this discussion. It might help to have the role of the image reviewer defined a bit. It is my understanding that an image review entails checking the sources, licensing, and placement/aesthetics of images in the article. In checking sources, sometimes that overlaps with checking accuracy, just to make sure the nominator is aware that what is being listed as a source is reflecting the accurate link. Per Graham, accuracy is not a part of the image reviewer's tasks, particularly for self-made images. If questions arise about the accuracy of a Featured Article's images, they should go to the nominator. I'm worried that they would also go to me, when I am unable to confirm. If you agree that I should not be verifying accuracy, Sandy, I'll go ahead and check for the other parts in an image review. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moni, I haven't forgotten you. I was just getting to this, but my electrician called and ... well ... I'll be back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What, did something arc from the breaker box, waking up The Monster? Get to it when you can. I'm kinda doing the best I can, with the resources I have. I feel like I'm not doing such a bang up job here, and that perhaps Elcobbola is wincing as he reads through what I'm doing. So, you know...ever helpful, like The Blue Beetle. Doing deeds that don't need to be done. --Moni3 (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has probably happened, too; much too much to tell, over the few years I've been in this house, it's been one neverending thing after another. Long and short is I should have sued the builder a couple of years ago when I found out how bad things were, but ... I'm not the suing kind, and I didn't want to see that man in court for the rest of my life, thought I'd be able to fix it all myself for the same amount I was going to end up paying attorneys. Most of it seems unfixable, and every time something happens, everything happens. I kicked the guy off the property finally, have an utterly adorable new builder, but it's been a constant struggle, always something. Why the dog had to get pneumonia at the same time is the kicker, and then there's trying to get my tree finished still ... Why the steam shower that the dog needs to breathe also had to go out, unrelated, at the same ... sheesh ... locusts. There's much more, but that's the flavor ... it's the poor dog trying to breathe through pneumonia that is hard, and I haven't gotten the steam going yet, so it's a kiddie cool mist humidifier, not to mention rugs need to be dried out, furniture moved out then moved back ... that's enough, I don't mean to whine. I'm going to try to start reading that FAC now and see how far I can get. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catching up: frustrating FAC, I can't tell who wrote what and I'll have to step back through the diffs to add unsigned templates. Moni, I'm not seeing a discussion of images there; is there a specific image in question? The article still has an unnecessarily complex lead, common theme in our math/physics articles, where the problem is the prose, not the science, but they get support anyway. I found a SLAC site last time through that gave a simple, straightforward introduction to quarks that I hoped would be used as an example. Unclear why Ruslik says here that images are exempted from OR. The wording at WP:OR is circular; it says they're not OR as long as they're not OR, not a very well-worded sentence. Then it goes on to clarify that OR is not allowed.

WP:OR: Original images created by a Wikipedia editor are not, as a class, considered original research – as long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. ... Images that constitute original research in any way are not allowed.

The discussion here comes down to policy, WP:V, when to cite, and WP:OR, whether the image constitutes orignal research. As with text, sometimes that is not black-and-white and you have to toss it back to reviewers and domain experts. Quick look, I would guess:

File:Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg contains data and a source.

File:Quark structure proton.svg seems to fall under WP:V, that is, just a schematic, domain experts would argue whether it is likely to be challenged or needs sourcing.

File:Quark decays.svg schematic and quantitative data, concepts that are hopefully sourced or discussed in the article text.

File:Hadron colors.png schematic, domain experts would argue whether it is common knowledge or likely to challenged, may not need a source, but why not add one to show it's not OR ? Interestingly, discussed in text, but no source, so the image has same issue as text.

So, Moni, on the question of your role as an image reviewer, I have a whole 'nother concern. I don't want image or source reviewers to burn out, so the answer is, you do what you can, you flag what you notice. I'd not pigeonhole the "job", or "segment" each kind of reviewer's "job" too narrowly; this overspecialization at FAC is misleading, and sometimes results in other reviewers slacking off and not looking deeper. As Ealdgyth does when she sees anything she's unsure of, you just flag things for reviewers to check. Whether reviewers do check is another issue ... <sigh> ... but the person who is running through checking licensing and sourcing of images can't do everything, be everything, know everything in every content area, and I'm more worried about burnout of image reviewers than whether you get every single detail. If there's something that troubles you and you feel it needs verification, you can flag that and let reviewers sort it out (or ignore it, as they often do). Generally, flag anything that you're unsure of, let topic experts sort it just as they would WP:V, WP:OR issues for text. I hope I'm answering the question you're asking; this is quick because I'm so far behind, so I may have completely missed the point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the response, Sandy. Right now, I'll do what I can I suppose. I am clearly still learning and making a doof out of myself in the process. I feel a bit shifty commenting, for example, that the licensing appears to be fine, but in essence, I wash my hands of the accuracy of a self-made image. However, I don't see any way around that at the moment. Thanks for the clarification. --Moni3 (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom election

Hi Sandy. I can see from the above that you are busy. Hope all is well with the house and your dog gets better. If you have time, would you be able to look at what I've posted here (general comments in the form of a final election statement) and here (specific comments about your oppose rationale). Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC question

Greetings. Though I see you are very busy, I wanted to ask you a question. I have a current FAC nomination Meshuggah. It is a week there now and it got almost no comments. What I can say for sure already now is that I would not have any time for another nomination. What can I do to help this one to get some comments?-- LYKANTROP ✉ 10:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:SandyGeorgia#Expert images; reviews are lagging across all FACs. It might help if more nominators would take time to review other FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll be waiting. But please don't remove the nomination if it does not get enough reviews. Give it time please. I won't have any time for another nomination...I am too busy in "reality" already an I want to get this done :)-- LYKANTROP ✉ 22:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I hope your house gets well soon.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 10:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WT:TFAR

I've left a few suggestions on this page, as a basis for possible changes to the present TFA nomination system. Possibly similar suggestions have been made in the past and voted down, I don't know. Perhaps when you have time you could let me know, briefly, if you thing any of these ideas are worth pursuing. Thanks, and I hope your local troubles die down. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I get a free moment, I intended to formalize your proposal for feedback. It's best to start a new section and put up the exact current wording next to the proposed change, so others can opine. I will do it as soon as I'm able. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Proposal regarding high-point nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviews needed?

Sandy, I may have a bit of unexpected time over the next 24 hours that I could use at FAC to do two or three reviews. I just did one, but I see you're promoting/archiving now. Are there any FACs you'd particularly like to get reviews on, or should I just start at the bottom after you're done and work my way up? Mike Christie (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electrician is here; if you can wait a bit, I'll start at the bottom and see what I see. Thanks, Mike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to be able to get any more done tonight, Mike; anything that doesn't have a clear direction needs review. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll see if I can get some done in the morning. Hope the electrician did whatever was needful. Mike Christie (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The Tic Code

Dear SandyGeorgia,
Thanx for letting me know all of this.
He did a fabulous job on this article!
Just to let you know, I edited before he did that fabulous job!
Thanx for showing me this!
ATC (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian national football team, redux

You may get the article back on your hands soon, and it may or may not be FA worthy, but at least it isn't an embarrassment anymore. I pushed it into GAR, a couple of people did much of the copyediting and I got my hands dirty a little too and Domiy actually has a pretty good article on his hands, despite his best efforts to the contrary. The GAR will close once they come up with one more reference, I think, and then it's up to them. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking of you :-(

Check email.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have; you are such a dear. I'll be ok. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, my apologies for the "All About Me, Me, Me" response ... your heart is as big as your wit and your waistline. Thank goodness for Moni, to remind me of my manners. Mr. Porcine, hearty congratulations for your strong showing in the election are in order; for a non-admin to finish as strong as you did shows the esteem in which you are held among the cognoscenti. I regret that other unfortunate affairs prevent me from attending the post-election party, and I hope the good food and drink flow freely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo could always decide to go with someone not in the top seven. Of course, its possible that he may thing that there are too many skinny people on ArbCom and remedy it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency International

I don't try to keep up with Venezuelan articles anymore; they are all institutionally WP:OWNed, and no one on Wiki cares. I did some cleanup there. Separately, your website is still not a reliable source. That's why Chavez beat you all; he worked the media, learned from Castro, benefitted from Carter's sellout, and spent a fortune of money that belonged to the pueblo on propaganda, while you all still sit there, gozando de la vida buena, wondering, cuando nos van a mandar las marinas? Translation: que los jovenes gringos corran sangre pa'que el chamo no tenga que hacerlo. Right; we'll get right on that, when you all do something about it yourself, besides silly marches and ineffective radicalized websites. Cada pais merece su gobierno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow Sandy. Now is you the one sounding every bit as a fanatical zealot. There's so much lack of objectivity and contempt in your 'reply' that I truly wonder how you dare call yourself a neutral editor. I didn't even mention my website, which, BTW, is no longer online. As per the 'marinas' I don't want or care for them; the whole world can look at Iraq to see what they're capable of. But you did get one thing right: cada pueblo tiene el gobierno que se merece. 82.35.33.205 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Alekboyd82.35.33.205 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sr. Boyd, se te olvidó algo? Por nada; a la orden. I cleaned up Transparency International per your request, but I saw nothing there and made no edits that you couldn't have made yourself. Yes, you did reference your website.[1] You are welcome to question the neutrality of my edits to Wikipedia, but the contempt is for Venezuelans showing up on my talk page and in my inbox asking me to do their work for them when they do precious little for themselves. I'm short on patience with Venezuelan men at the moment, so unless you intend to do some productive editing, rather than asking me to do it for you, la puerta está por allá. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Sandy, I should have said thanks for editing out bias in the page about Transparency International. Allow me to be clear on a couple of things though : first, I decided to finish my website, no hard feelings about your discussion with Flanker about it, so my intention is not to have you, or anybody, revise your decision. Hugo Chavez is a known quantity by now, all that is required to realize who he is, and what he represents, is to read major news outlets, for they've figured out what kind of a 'leader' he is, so my work in that respect is already completed. Second, I am not a Wiki editor, you are, therefore I only wanted to call your attention on something in which you spend time: i.e. editing. Third, I can question whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want and whoever I want, so you're not exempt from criticism. As per having done precious little, I beg to differ. What I have done is on the public domain and recognized by chavistas, and their international cheerleaders, and opposition alike. Fourth, we agree, I am too short on patience on Venezuelans, that is why I decided to discontinue what I was doing. So I shall take my leave and leave you in peace. Thanks again for what you've done.Alekboyd (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vamos a estar claro, OK? Cuando estás en mi casa—and my talk page is my house on Wiki—pidiendo que yo te hago un favor, you can question whatever you want to the extent that I decide not to show you the door. You can question my edits on article talk pages anytime you want. As to who has done precious little, the results speak for themselves. The Country Club is still full of sifrinas whining cuando nos van a mandar las marinas, Centro Comercial El Tolón is still full, the Johnny Walker Black is still flowing, the pueblo is still hungry, and corruption and crime are at unbearable highs. Y el venezolano sigue siendo tan comodo como siempre, y le importa un cariso. Good job, guys. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accept my apology if you felt disrespected, honestly it was not my intention. I have never set foot in the Country Club and the last time I visited El Tolón, the place was sort of a theme park for kids. We're talking more than 30 years ago here Sandy. I don't drink whisky, and have better things to do with my life than hanging with brainless sifrinos/as, or those that you say wish for the marines to come solve our problems. However I do care about my country of birth, otherwise we would not be having this conversation, but you're right on the money with regards to los venezolanos in general and el pueblo is getting exactly what they deserve. I am not one of those though. Peace. Alekboyd (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted, Alek, and peace to you and los suyos as well. (El Tolón is a shopping center now, like most of Las Mercedes.) I'm always glad to help, but the problem is, when you show up and ask me to do what none of them/you will do, well, that's muy venezolano, muy comodo, y muy arrogante, and I've no patience for it. 'Ya gotta help yourselves before asking me/us to do the work. I've never heard of a Venezuelan who doesn't drink whiskey :-) Cordialmente, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Mysore

Hi. I have a question regarding rules pertaining to name changes to a sub-article during FAR of main article. Here in this article, I had attached a sub-article called Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore. As the article had expanded to include some Kannada language poets and writers from a larger area in the last few days (outside Mysore kingdom), I moved the sub-article to a new name which was more inclusve, which is Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE and nominated for Peer Review. I meant to change the sub-article link in this FA article to reflect the name change sometime today. Fowler &fowler, the nominator of the FAR, promptly revrted the move calling it a controversial, though I am not sure what the controversy with the sub-article is. Please advice how to proceed. Is there a rule that a sub-article's name should not change when the main article is in FAR? If so, does it mean that all sub-articles remain frozen when a FAR of a main article is in progress?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I am suggesting is not that the sub-article's name "remain frozen," but rather that when such a name change involves issues related to the FAR (and explicitly discussed in My concerns (#5)), it should be discussed on the talk page first. The page move certainly shouldn't be made without any explanation anywhere and with the "minor edit" box checked. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page move was not done with a minor box check. I explained clearly in the "reason box". How am I supposed to know that you have linked one of your issues to a sub-article. BTW, Fowler, how could you complain about a sub-article in the main articles FAR.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the move summary I left when I moved the sub-article.moved Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore to Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE: Covers poets and writers over the entire Kannada speaking region. Fowlers claim that it was a "minor" edit box check is a falsification of information.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/WrestleMania XXIV/archive1

Why was this closed so quickly? The FAC was very active, and I was working on the last set of comments from User:SRX. User:Giants2008 was also planning on re-reviewing after SRX finished his comments. If it needs to stay closed, do I really need to wait to re-nominate it? aye matthew ✡ 11:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination had been open for two weeks without drawing any support declarations and had attracted an oppose. While you were working diligently on the article, this generally means that it is not quite at FAC standards. Finish fixing the issues that were brought up at the FAC, then ask the reviewers to take another look at the article. Once they are satisfied that their concerns have been addressed, you may be in a good shape for a renomination. Right now there is a shortage of reviewers, leaving a large backlog, so wait a few weeks, make sure that the article is in the best possible shape, then try to renominate. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded further at IMatthew's talk page. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC maybe?

Hi Sandy,

First of all, Season's Greetings and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia!

If you have a moment, would you kindly take a glance at Towson United Methodist Church to see if it might be suitable for FAC?

Thanks, JGHowes ^talk 14:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson

I haven't been able to purchase this, but I am rather afraid of what this may say on Johnson's "tics and gesticulations". I'm weary of popular biographies, especially with their treatment of the more delicate aspects of a subject's life. "A central concern involves one of Johnson's darkest secrets, which Meyers says other biographers have evaded: his masochistic sexuality at the hands of his confidante Mrs. Hester Thrale. The biography also speculates on other aspects of Johnson's sex life, both during his marriage to a much older woman and after her death." It seems that the individual has misunderstood various aspects, and I am tempted to purchase the book just to sink it in review. >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kept promise

Dear Sandy, I'm sorry to hear about all your troubles at home and I hope life is getting back to normal for you. A few months ago, I promised you 200 FAC reviews before the end of the year, in return for your helpful reviews of the virus articles. I have kept my promise [[2]]. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, I know you'd be troubled that someone has characterized this as 'FAC quid pro quo!'. I rather think that congratulations are in order for your prolific article-writing and reviewing. Thank you for all that you do. Maralia (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:45, 18 December 2008 edit Graham Beards (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 34,552 edits →‎Kept promise: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:42, 18 December 2008 edit undo Maralia (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 34,723 edits →‎Kept promise: oh bother. Next edit →
Line 172:		Line 172:

	Dear Sandy, I'm sorry to hear about all your troubles at home and I hope life is getting back to normal for you. A few months ago, I promised you 200 FAC reviews before the end of the year, in return for your helpful reviews of the virus articles. I have kept my promise [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GrahamColm/FACs_and_FARs_Reviews]]. Best wishes, Graham. [[User:GrahamColm\|Graham <font color="blue">Colm</font>]] [[User talk:GrahamColm\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 16:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)		Dear Sandy, I'm sorry to hear about all your troubles at home and I hope life is getting back to normal for you. A few months ago, I promised you 200 FAC reviews before the end of the year, in return for your helpful reviews of the virus articles. I have kept my promise [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GrahamColm/FACs_and_FARs_Reviews]]. Best wishes, Graham. [[User:GrahamColm\|Graham <font color="blue">Colm</font>]] [[User talk:GrahamColm\|<sup>Talk</sup>]] 16:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
			:Graham, I know you'd be troubled that someone has characterized this as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mattisse&curid=10924019&diff=258832918&oldid=258648688 'FAC quid pro quo!']. I rather think that congratulations are in order for your prolific article-writing and reviewing. Thank you for all that you do. [[User:Maralia\|Maralia]] ([[User talk:Maralia\|talk]]) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates view edit
7 World Trade Center	Review now
Music of Athens, Georgia	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Polio	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now
Edward III of England	Review now
Doolittle (album)	Review now