User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
Roswell incident	Review it now
La Isla Bonita	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:03, 14 May 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.
Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark	Review now
Rudolf Vrba	Review now
Michael Tritter	Review now
Middle Ages	Review now
Emmy Noether	Review now
The Notorious B.I.G.	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

You rock

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		To SandyGeorgia, I award this Barnstar of Diligence for going above and beyond the call of FAC duty. Thanks to your efforts, the FAC process is running smoothly without a large backlog. Your attention to detail and willingness to spend large amounts of time analyzing FAC comments are a testament to your desire to improve the process, and as a reviewer I am very grateful for all that you do. Karanacs (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You tend to get all the &*%# comments, and we forget to thank you often enough. I'm amazed at how much more smoothly FAC is running now and I can't tell you how grateful I am to see the active nomination count hover around 40 instead of 60 or more! Thank you, thank you, thank you. Karanacs (talk)`

Thank you ...

... for the gong. It's my first for FAC, so I shall treasure it :) Anyhow, I'm off to France for a meeting shortly: catch you later! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..and for mine. Did I really review 27 articles!? That's nearly one a day. It's a great birthday present, thanks Sandy. Graham. GrahamColm ^Talk 06:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of saying "me too", me too. What a lovely shiny thing. I hardly get any Barnstars any more (have they gone out of fashion?) so very much appreciated. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Many WikiProjects languish, and sometimes it's just one person who picks it up and carries it. You go above and beyond the call. Your work is appreciated, and you make me want to help out. I rarely know what I'm doing outside my articles, but let me know if there's something I can do to take off the weight of what seems to be one of the most stressful projects on the site. --Moni3 (talk) 12:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy! But you deserve one as well! :) BuddingJournalist 18:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Japanese Grand Prix

I was going to renominate this for FAC, but I take it you still have problems with one or two sources on there. What are the ones (so I know what to remove, or to explain how they are reliable) you think are very unreliable? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I really don't like the fact that (despite the fact that we have disagreements and that they are evident) you are continuing to ignore my comments yet comment on other comments below. It's like you have no interest in continuing to discuss this matter. D.M.N. (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, D.M.N., I am a very busy editor, and I just saw this message. Second, I have already answered this query as many times and ways as I know how to answer it. Third, I am not a one-person judge and jury at FAC. If you still think those sources are reliable, after all of the dialogue, and if you can defend them per WP:V policy, then you should go forward with them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA split

About 70% of Able Archer 83 was moved to 1983 nuclear war scare. Original featured in 2006. Gimmetrow 15:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a wreck: the hat on the new article isn't even grammatical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be the luckiest editer here; as this will be my last login before finals (last of class requires me to use wikipedia to answer a few questions). I have filed a requested move for the article asking that the fork be put back into the original article; you can comment on my proposed move on the talk page at 1983 nuclear war scare. Thanks for the heads up. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thanks go to Gimmetrow ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, we've got a real mess now. I can't find a featured article or a featured article history; need an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1983 War Scare

All I did right now is move the history with the new article. If the consensus is to move it back then they can by just editing here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esemono (talk • contribs) 22:45, May 1, 2008 (UTC)

Please stop and let an admin experienced with FAs sort this out. We need to get back to some semblance of the featured article and recover the articlehistory, and the article is now incorrectly named. Please wait for someone else to fix it correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article history is still there look. -- Esemono (talk) 22:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about {{articlehistory}}; please use the article talk pages to try to contain this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that looks much better. Thanks to both you and big G for keeping an eye on the article while I was working on finals. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Stuck my toes in with Gangtok. Let me know if I'm on the right track. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good start; as you read more and follow more there, you'll gain more confidence :-) Thanks for the help ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I plonked a message on User_talk:Anonymous_Dissident#AK-47_FAR asking him/her to contact several users about the AK-47 FAR. (Still feeling my way!) --RegentsPark (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xzibit FAC

Is this actually back to stay or should I not bother to engage? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not willing to edit war over it. A conversation with the nominator might work; hard to tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'est la vie. No image issues, at least. That's almost enough to get a "moral support" out of me these days...almost. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

try minerva

...look again Ling.Nut (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL ... like I told G guy, you have to speak to me in short clear sentences when I'm busy :-) Will do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. A scribe. Ling.Nut (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty, but what's with the Joan of Arc-ness ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)you mean the image name? That's just 'cause the first image was joan... and i didn't change the name.. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for that to go away? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then it all needs a pretty box and name? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An admin can delete images,. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask Gimmetrow? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Sure. I may need to template it... I dunno. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-author}}? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) try try see. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

service with a smile! Ling.Nut (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme is one of those "never misses a thing" types :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you've got mail, again. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are such a busy body :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J. R. Richard FAC

Alright, I've addressed all of the oustanding concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard. Thanks for being patient. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how would you plan to close the FAC in its current state? It has a lot of commentary, but only two votes (both support). There's nothing yet from TonyTheTiger, but I suspect he might offer his support or oppose after his review is complete . Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Nish, I will look tomorrow, but it would be unusual for me to comment beforehand on how I plan to close :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar"

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I'd like to award you this barnstar. I hope that receiving this barnstar from me is a big surprise to you, since every time we converse you always seem to be telling me what not to do on Wikipedia, or what I'm doing wrong ;) I had a minor epiphany today after meeting some people that I hadn't seen in a while, and realizing how much Wikipedia has improved myself, especially the encounters that I have had with you and your work on Wikipedia. Everything you do is a major plus for this project, and I hope you continue doing it for as long as you can and for as long as you are loving it. Thanks for everything you do for Wikipedia! I hope you keep disciplining me when I get out of line, because I'm sure it will happen a few more times (it's my personality! I'm trying the best to cope with it myself :p) Also, I chose this barnstar since I'm sure (or, I hope) that no one has given it to you yet. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 06:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Graffiti

Hi Sandy, most, (if not all), of the strike-outs here are by the nominator, who has continued to do so despite Indopug's protest. Graham. GrahamColm ^Talk 13:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NYB

Hello SG. How are you? Why did you removed this? Piotrus is right: the public has the right to know why one of the top editors retired and the details of the wikipolitics behind this event. NYB was not just an admin, he was probably the most respected admin on Wikipedia. We have a right to know what happened. I think there should be an article in the signpost about this. What's your view? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that 1) some people have a remarkable capacity for selfishness and attention seeking, and 2) some people should read what's on the page, not what they imagine in their minds: nowhere has the Signpost said they won't be covering the story, they only said posts about it shouldn't be added there (no need to spread the fire). And third, I answered this post only because it asked about a specific deletion I made: in general terms, please don't post to my talk page about this situation anymore. If there's at least one thing we can give back to NYB, it's respect for his wishes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! You got angry! Ok, I will not post anything about this on your talk page. You are right: we should respect his wishes. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured list director

Do you think it's worth promoting the poll again? --Dweller (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it got prematurely archived at the Village Pump: I will do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you were active in the nominations. I would have nominated User:Sephiroth BCR who has the second most WP:FLs and User:Circeus. Is it too late?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's not too late, but at this stage, perhaps you should ask Sephiroth if there's an interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savant syndrome

Thanks for fixing the tags on the savant syndrome article, I am not sure how I feel about the removal of the famous and speculated savant sections, but it looks a lot better. --Aetoss (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP you are on has been vandalizing the article and the talk page even after several stern admin warnings: I've submitted a checkuser at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aetoss. The article is still an unsourced essay, and the editors working on it don't seem to understand that Wiki is not a free webhost. Edits need to be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Computing FAC nom

I'm going to be traveling until Sunday and I'll have limited internet connectivity. So I won't be responsive to any FAC comments for the time being. Treat the parallel computing FAC nom like you would any other. I consider all the objections responded to except Laserbrain's, which I haven't not had time to address completely. (I've addressed them partially; regardless, they are fairly minor points) Raul654 (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAL

It is pretty difficult to find failed FAC and removed FAs in logs. Should their be a summary similar to WP:FLL?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question or the confusion, but if it's the featured log and the FAC archives you're looking for, they are both prominently linked in all the FA pages, for example, WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nomination question

I've never done a nomination before, and I was wondering about some things. How long do nominations tend to last? And how long do you think the Hillary Clinton one will take before it's accepted or rejected? QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the instructions at the top of WP:FAC; sometimes consensus is determine in two days, sometimes two months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POT?

...but it's okay if you do it? Unbelievable! Pardon me for following the example you said was acceptable... — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replies at User_talk:BQZip01#FAC input and Wikipedia talk:FAC#Restarts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

checked it twice

Your name is on a list. Yeah, I think you need to have more people asking you questions. –Outriggr § 04:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more :-) Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul of FL criteria

I've re-started the process here and am notifying the four candidates for director as well as advertising at FLC talk and FAC talk. Your input would be valued. TONY (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preity Zinta

Your thoughts on the Preity Zinta article would be much appreciated in the discussion particularly in response to Tony's comments. Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will get a quicker response if you supply me with a direct link to the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked: I don't see any process problems, so I'm not sure what you want me to respond to? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to join in the discussion and identify any flaws or suggestions that could be made to make it FA standard. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zinta FAC

Hey!

I must say I'm tired. I have absolutely no problem with editors opposing the article's promotion, it's fine by me. But I believed the purpose of this FAC was to improve the article, and help make it a better article, not just try hard to make it fail again. I thought there would be collaborative work, with editors commenting, giving opinions and suggestions in order to make it a FA. One editor gave only four examples, very critically. I tried my best to address them. Another editor has since copyedited the article. I turned to the reviewer and asked him to come and check whether his comments have been addressed, but my message was not responded.

Now, another editor comes and opposes. IMO, this oppose is not actionable. Many other FAs do the same, so how can an article become an FA if there are no rules? Again, I don't mind people opposing, but seeing people who don't want it to get promoted from the very outset, saddens me a lot. I'm not sure I want this article to get featured. Comments? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you described is more like peer review, although FAC often becomes peer review. The purpose of FAC is not to improve articles, rather to determine if they meet criteria, although it usually does improve articles as well. There are at least 15 FACs that need input: there are only two FACs I can close right now, so it's not worth it for me to fire up six open tabs and promote/archive. How many FACs have you reviewed? See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches. When FAC is stalled because reviewers are busy, the people who want reviews might think about how hard reviewers have to work, and engage in some payback on other articles. As to Tony1 not revisiting Preity, he is one of Wiki's hardest working and busiest editors; he'll get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I'm moving my message, because you may not have noticed it. Sandy, is it OK to leave a message on one editor's talk page and indirectly ask him to oppose the nomination at a certain FAC? That's what the only editor who opposed at the Zinta FAC did. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's referring to this. John Carter (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and to this also. He says, "Would you also be able to weigh in on this FAC? imho, it is bad enough not to be FA." Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See another one. What is this? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After the hard work it took to see Tony and Laser withdrawing their opposes and the latter even supporting, we will now get new opposes. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should go and warn him? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to handle canvassing is not to create more drama. FAC is not a vote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Hello Sandy!

I must say I think the boxofficeindia.com issue gets out of proportions. I can't see why the FAC should be failed when actually the source is reliable. The only editor who has ever raised any concerns against this site is User:Sarvagnya.

When he first raised his concerns, I was told by some editors (User:Nichalp and User:Spartaz, to be precise) that the best way to prove the reliability of a source when someone challenges it, is to find an evidence - meaning, to find if some reliable site cites it. And it wasn't that difficult. Reputable newspapers/websites in India (The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Rediff) as well as western newspapers (such as Times Online), use it as a source of information.

Spartaz, Nichalp, John Carter, Relata refero, Blofeld of SPECTRE wtc., all of them agree with me. As said, Sarvagnya is the only one who has ever raised any concerns against this site (which is important considering that it's used in almost 300 Wikipedia articles). Newspapers use the site as a source of information, and if they can, clearly so can we. Please see also User:Geometry guy's very important note on the FAC regarding this site. What do you think about it? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another oppose seems to be...

One editor, Lahiru k (who is BTW a friend of the other editor who opposed the nomination) says, "Oppose - Prose still needs work. Also the sources do not look the best. I note that at least one of the sources seems to be not WP:RS."

Is this actionable? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, prose and sources are actionable opposes. You can ask for clarification on the sources. Karanacs (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user does not cite any examples for neither the prose nor the source. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:The Naked Brothers Band

Dear SandyGeorgia,
I made a comment on the talk page.
I was wondering if you could answer my question.
Thanx! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annie, I replied there and will follow there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tutelage Requested

Hi, I'm interested in becoming much more involved in WP:FAC and WP:FAR, which I know you help coordinate. The thing is I feel like I need someone to help me with the details, and perhaps some pointers to who process; in short I want to help but don't think that I'm capable of doing as much as I should. Its just that I truly believe that these processes are some of the most important and would like contribute as best I'm able.

If you are too busy for this, I'd be most apprecitive if you could forward me to someone who might be willing. Thank you. Zidel333 (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zidel, thanks for the interest ! You could start with what is already written at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-07/Dispatches and Wikipedia talk:FAR#Wake-up call, thoroughly read the instructions at the top of WP:FAC and WP:FAR, observe a number of FAC and FAR pages for a while, eventually begin to weigh in with some comments, and perhaps make a post at WT:FAC if you still have questions. Thanks for the offer to help !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Taylor

The article's top contributor hasn't been active for about a year. It has gone through 2 peer reviews, and is currently a GA. I took care of just about everything in the last peer review. Would you permit me to nominate it for FA? Thanks, Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you inquire on the article talk page, per WP:FAC instructions, to see if anyone says the article is or isn't ready? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The peer reviewer(s) think it is... Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 17:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question (per WP:FAC instructions) is, did you make a post on the article talk page? (How sad that Quadzilla is gone.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have one responder on the peer review, btw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilberto Gil

A quick look shows me a very short article and a rather glaring mistake (Gil was a Salvador alderman in the late 80s, but never mayor). I'll see about a more in-depth review later :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me barging in.. :) I'm from Salvador (Gil's hometown) myself and I have to agree with vasconcellos, its pretty short for a man of his cultural and political significance. I couldnt find where its mentioned that he was mayor in the article though. Acer (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Acer. Too short isn't part of WP:WIAFA; comprehensiveness was my question to Fv (is there anything significant from Portuguese sources missing?). I have a hard time imagining writing a comprehensive article on an equivalent Venezuelan figure without going to the Spanish-language sources, but it's possible that Gil's life is well covered by English-language sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Fv already fixed the mayor error, which wasn't sourced by the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I have a question: if the article is not found to be comprehensive, taking into account reliable information from Portuguese references, what should I do? I can't speak Portuguese, so I couldn't be the one attending to issues raised by reviewers. Would it simply default to fail? --Kakofonous (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get nervous on me, now K :-) Fv is the kind of editor who will help, and so is Acer :-) I wouldn't have asked Fv to look if I didn't think his input would improve the article :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(:. All this weekend free time gives me more time to worry... --Kakofonous (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see what Fv finds, but in the meantime, maybe you can get Acer on board. But please don't worry: my goal is not to fail articles :-) If Fv finds glaring deficiencies, you can decide then what to do next, but don't worry now :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more of a jazz man than an MPB nut, and (shamefully) know fairly little of Gil's life. What struck me as odd was the article's condensed, almost excessively straightforward tone; I haven't found any other major inaccuracies (i.e. major enough to jump at me without my having to do any research), but to me this article cries out for expansion. I'm sorry I couldn't be more specific yet :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go out so I can't comment right now, but yep I'd be willing to help out. I'll post something more substantial when I get back Acer (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my two cents. There's plenty missing from English-language sources, let alone Portuguese! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 02:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy, answering your question: is there anything significant from Portuguese sources missing? unfortunately yes, there is. Please see here. Acer (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it would be the best way to go, I'm fine with changing the Harvnbs. The only reason I chose to use them in the first place was so that they would link to the books and produce that little blue highlight when clicked. (: --Kakofonous (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. --Kakofonous (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small note on FA list

I was roaming around thinking about our FA list (after debating on GA talk) and noticed your sandbox proposing splitting Biology. I think the split is inevitable, as the section continues to grow. But I think it should be Tree of Life, not Flora and Fauna. "Vegetables and animals" is actually archaic, even if people still think of "two kingdoms". Tree of Life is more inclusive.

Just a note, in case I miss you or Raul splitting it. Marskell (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given my recent editing habits, I'll probably miss the discussion if it comes up again. So do ping me.

"Flora and fauna", strictly speaking, excludes Fungi, and clearly excludes Archaea and Bacteria. Tree of Life is both appropriately vague (all life) and appropriately specific (all life). Viruses would be one difficult issue (AIDS?), as would bio's of people focused on taxonomy. I would suggest leaving both viruses and bio's in Biology, and having a Tree of Life that only lists existing categories in current alpha taxonomy. (Of course, the semantics involved are impossible for anybody to follow :) Marskell (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I just redacted both of our posts to a new thread on WT:FA. Marskell (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to care about where we put the Tree of Life :). Might see my comments on G-Guy's talk. Marskell (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a split is probably inevitable, but not necessary right now. I think the natural way to split it would be medicine from biology (which includes all forms of life, your so-called "Tree of Life", as well as viruses, prions, and other quasi-life forms). Raul654 (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Scientific classification isn't a sub-discipline of medicine. And I don't think it's my so-called Tree of Life. It's a fairly widespread umbrella term, including here: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Tree of Life. Anyway, we can wait if you both want to. Marskell (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have misread what I said. Under the way I described, life forms (and viruses and alike) would go in biology, not medicine/health. Raul654 (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes more sense. (I should've taken "which" for the last noun :). Part of me wants to reward the wonderful folks on the Dino and Mammal projects with a dedicated section. But it would be strange to remove the TOL from Biology proper, so splitting medicine as you suggest is possibly better. Marskell (talk) 20:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help Request

I just created the page on Operation Killer and was wondering if you could help out expanding it. I was looking for a reliable Wikipedian with a history of article building and I thought you might be willing to help out for this article. If you could take a look at it, I would be most appreciative. Thanks! --Sharkface^T/_C 02:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK

Re this, can you point me in the direction of your previous bad experience? Also, what'd be the page on which the article would be written... I'd probably write directly into the article, rather than sandboxing. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the temp work page over at the workshop, but perhaps wait for a few more to weigh in. The previous experience would be very hard to find, simply because I have so many edits and I don't even remember which month to look in. It's no longer needed, since the AN/I thread gives us a current experience, which exactly mirrors the problems I had. Will that work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See here for a start. Tell me what you think. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've successfully made the connection to Dispatch goals (I also forgot how appropriate the timing is, considering Mr. President will have just run on the main page). Still catching up on morning work, will review in greater detail in the evening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya see, cinco de mayo proved a marvellous choice! ;) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ! We'll see :-) If we get a lot of complaints, it could mean we have an educated, multi-culturally aware reading audience. If we get no complaints, I'd worry about the systemic bias in our readership :-)) Oops. WP:BEANS !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Ha!. Does this mean I'm now an old hand?! :o --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. Three FAs, a reviewer award (which is what I really care about, the "gift taht keeps on giving" :-) and a couple of Dispatches. Whatdya think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I have to say, I must be easily pleased, but the little reviewer's reward did give me a warm glow. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good gosh, man, I just looked at FAR and was on my way to leave Marskell a note about what good work you've done. FAR has really been neglected lately, and without Tony looking at prose, we're in a deep hole :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Hogg

Thanks for revering the article - I noticed the additions earlier and was going to revert them myself, but I got distracted and forgot about it. Cheers! —Travis ^talk 20:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I revere the article also. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, y'all stop revering on my page :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - Okay, I guess that’s what I get for leaving a message in a hurry. And not previewing it. Now Ima done posting here, I think! —Travis ^talk 20:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

(Nighttemptation (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)) Marskell (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will ping Collectonian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priory of Sion FAC

Hi Sandy, I'm sure you've noticed that the FAC has grown incredibly bloated what with the nominator's bolded replies, extensive discussion and an argument between conflicting WP:LOGO and NFCC criteria all happening within my review. Fact is not even I know what's going on now, which of my concerns have been addressed and how much progress has been made. I was wondering if I could move my entire gargantuan review to the talk page, and then once again list the concerns, but this time more succinct and brief? (For eg: I won't list out all the prose/MoS defects, but rather just a "prose needs tightening from independent copy-editor") I'll make sure to tell the nominator to not interrupt my comments. indopug (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was having quite a hard time negotiating it myself, but I didn't say anything because I 'spose I'm more sensitive than most to talk page order :-) I'm not sure though, that, moving it all to talk will solve anything. Perhaps just start over below all of that? I used to do that ... I would just say, I can no longer make sense of where things stand on my review, so I'm starting over here ... with a continued oppose. Would that work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting a talk page move (or even a capped comment with "Remaining issues listed below") so that the clutter wouldn't scare off potential reviewers. But this is fine, indopug (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always cap resolved issues, if you can figure out what they are :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kemp

You are among those with over 100 edits at Ronald Reagan who has edited it this year. You may want to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Jack Kemp/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Venezuela relations

Hi Sandy

Regarding the Israel-Venezuela relations#Accusations of anti-Semitism section, wouldn't it make more sense if it were in the History of the Jews in Venezuela article? Also, shouldn't the History of the Jews in Venezuela discuss this? I'm interested in your thoughts. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, first I've heard of the History of Jews in V article, I didn't realize it had been created. April Fools Day took a lot of my time yesterday, and I'm behind today, will need a day or two to look at all of that after I catch up. As I last recall the I-V relations article, I was left very unsatisfied at its unfinished state, and realized long after the fact that I had been enticed to help there by someone who later turned out to be blocked for sockpuppetry ... anyway, perhaps the unfinished state of the I-V article can be solved by a better rationaliation between the two articles. The police raid had been covered once in the I-V article, and should still be there unless it's been removed since I unwatched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it's a new raid; the previous one was at the Jewish school, this was at the main Jewish club. I'm going to move the material to the proper article for now, and perhaps I'll be able to work on content in the next few days. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I missed that; then I really need to catch up. I should get there by tomorrow latest, but I've got to read the Venezuelan press first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I read that now; sorry, I completely missed that when it happened. It probably got swallowed in all the other news out of Venezuela in December. I need to do some digging, but yes, the two articles need better rationalization. The problem is, this is not Venezuela and not Venezuelans, who are as un-anti-semitic as any of several cultures I've lived in; it's Chavez and his foreign policy. It's hard to do business anymore in Caracas if you're not Arab or Russian or Libyan or ... and so on. I have a lot to do today before I can look at those articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted out the articles in terms of material and fixed the broken refs for now; the stuff about Israel is in the Israel-Venezuela relations article, and the stuff about the Jewish community is in the History of the Jews in Venezuela article. Both still need work. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the I-V relations article and did some basic cleanup. It's still a lousy article, parrots some biased unreliable sources, but with all of the text related specifically to Chavez moved to the other article, it should satisfy those who called it POV, so I removed that tag. It will probably come back, but since the Chavez articles are owned, I don't have much interest in trying to do any more work there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media

I'll get through the History article in a day or two, after I've had time to look for more sources. I suspect that raid got overlooked because 1) it was announced to the press a few days after it happened and 2) the news of the Chavez defeat overshadowed it. The international press doesn't seem to have picked up the news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some English sources that discuss it:

Regarding the copyvio, I see what you mean, but I'd have a hard time re-wording it myself - it's difficult when the text is in front of you. Perhaps most of that section should just be deleted for now, aside from a couple of summary sentences. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hugely interested in dealing with that copyvio issue, created by an IP, because any work I do on Chavez articles is likely to be reverted and it just leads to headaches. I try to stick to cleanup. The broader story is covered in the haaretz article at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/908072.html ; I've not seen much mention in the press of the school curriculum issue. If you can make any copyvio cleanup stick and if the articles remain stable, I'll try to work on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh

Oh Its a formatting thing. I thought you were telling me to read the FAC guidelines for policy reasons. --Lemmey talk 02:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kemp FAC close

Just for the record, would you mind correcting your five oppose summary to four opposes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can look again next time I'm in archives, but I distinctly recall five; how do you come up with four? (As the instructions at the top of my talk page say, you'd get a faster response if I didn't have to go dig up the link myself :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

entering the dark ages...

Also known as ... going out to some ranches, so internet access may or may not be happening. May be able to deal with the dialup (if some of the ranches have it), may not. May have access next weekend, may not. It may be early next week before I can pick up the pieces. I'll be on in the morning, but if I don't come online, I give you permission to hide/cap any resolved issues left hanging. I will TRY, I just would rather you have warning than leave you hanging. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. My horsie scored a 62+ today in his first show back after two years layoff. First time showing dressage too! Good boy! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CU

Blnguyen, I submitted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aetoss last night, but nothing is moving on it; did I submit it correctly? That silly article and those IPs are occupying tons of my time, and just preparing the CU took me an hour. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't see this last week. How did I miss it? Yes, they seem to be the same guy. Do you want a block? Duration preference? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the same, so it appears. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blnguyen; I'm not sure if they should be blocked now, as they have recently subsided, or if it's best to wait and see if they continue to vandalize? I'm not that sure on blocking policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS is the same person. I've blocked Aetoss for 14 days and the rest indefinitely. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Dancing

Okay, the article has been through another peer review, and a copyediting pass by Ealdgyth, and I think it's ready for another run at FA. Do you agree, or is there anything big that you think we may have missed? --El on ka 13:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall who the principle opposers were before, but you should doublecheck with them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted most of them when I went back to Peer Review, but got no reply. :/ --El on ka 13:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you provided a link to the FAC so I didn't have to go dig it up myself, I could give you a faster answer :-) At this point, I don't remember who the opposers were or what the issues were. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted the opposers again, but right now I'm asking you, not about how the FAC went, nor the peer review, but for your opinion on the article. :) Last time you had a lot of concerns about sourcing, and said the article needed "extensive cleanup".[1][2] Do you still think this, or have your concerns been addressed? --El on ka 13:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am comfortable commenting on what reviewers found after there is already consensus to close a FAC or when a FAC has already been closed; opining on an article about to come to FAC would compromise my position as a closer. Checking with the previous opposers is the way to go; try to imagine how my time would be spent or how I could maintain neutrality if I pre-screened every FAC, and became a one-person judge and jury. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and agree. The reason I asked you, is because you did offer comments about "extensive cleanup" being needed, so that's what I was checking on, as to whether your concerns had been addressed or not.[3] Frankly, I just don't want to go up for FA again if it's going to be "Oppose/oppose/oppose/oppose, nom finished", where the nom gets closed within minutes of an oppose, before I even had a chance to fix things. I found that experience enormously frustrating and demoralizing. Some people might find that kind of experience motivating, but for me it makes me not want to try to get any articles up to FA status. For me, what is more motivating is to get feedback about what I'm already doing right, and how I can do it even better. Specific comments such as "Fix this sentence" or "don't use past tense" are also good, because they are concrete things that I can fix. But vague comments such as "not good enough", "flab in the prose", or "needs sprucing up" just make me want to throw the computer through the window. --El on ka 15:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a nominator challenges a FAC archival that was based on (I think?) four solid opposes, I don't mind providing examples that illustrate the concerns, after the FAC is closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exploding whale

Exploding whale has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: I've notified a couple relevant parties. The editor who made the most edits to Exploding whale has retired, and you were second in line. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Glitter

What exactly would you like me to do, friend? (Reply on my talk page, if possible, so I have it all in one place) Thank you. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! :-) (If anything does appear you can e-mail me, it'd be a lot quicker as I'm not as active anymore) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hey Sandy, I just saw your !vote over on Peter's RfA, and it reminded me of how much I value your input over there. When I see your support, I know that the candidate has won the respect of a person I highly respect. I know that you have absolutely zero interest in becoming an admin, but I was wondering if you knew of any qualified people who might be interested in becoming an admin? I don't think nominating people for RfA's are your thing so if you have any ideas, let me know and I'll vet them.Balloonman (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always have a ton of ideas, but the folks I usually think of usually aren't interested (for all the right reasons :-) ... while the folks who are engaged in aggressive admin coaching and engaging the GAN and FAC processes on their climb towards RfA always seem to appear there a bit too soon. I'll give you a list later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thanks.Balloonman (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, I will surely forget someone, but that's the risk you take. I previously suggested a long list (months ago) to TimVickers, but most of them declined: Colin, Qp10qp, Dr pda, Ling.nut, Outriggr, lots of others, so I won't suggest them again. I believe Epbr123 should be an admin, but he was mauled in his last RfA, so it's probably too soon and I wouldn't blame him if he never went anywhere near the place again. Others include Elcobbola, Laser brain, GrahamColm (should be a co-nom with TimVickers), Karanacs, Kablammo, Mike Searson, RelHistBuff, Ealdgyth, Maralia, BuddingJournalist, and Jbmurray. I would co-nom any of these people, but most of them are likely to decline. Any one of them would be superior candidates to the rush of admin-coached and prepped RfAs that have been cropping up lately, and which frankly give me great pause for the future viability of this Project. Forgot Happyme22, Tvoz and Wasted Time R, will think of more. BrianBoulton (not sure how long he's been on board though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC) <red-faced again> ... forgot Moni3 !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin coach, I agree with your comment about many coachees being rushed... I hope you don't feel that way about mine... most of them take at least 2-3 months of coaching before I'll nominate them! I want to get them exposure to several areas of the project.Balloonman (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be interesting to get your input on WT:RFA... a lot of people who frequent the RfA process are clamoring for more candidates.Balloonman (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, if I knew you were an admin coach, I'd have held my tongue :-) But now that I have your audience ... I'm not sure which are yours, since I didn't know you were a coach, but I absolutely cringe at what is going on at RfA, as do most of the editors I most respect. No point in opposing, since they mostly come with enough fan support to pass anyway (often the same buddies passing each other's GAs). And why exactly are they clamoring for more candidates? The more unprepared candidates they rush through, the more problems Wiki has to deal with, the more new admins we need to deal with the problems created by abusive, power-hungry, immature and unknowledgeable admins. Vicious cycle. Wouldn't more problems be solved by having a higher proportion of mature editors who don't crave adminship and actually <gasp> contribute content rather than playing social power games on a website? There's one up now who's been on Wiki for four months, and it will go through. I've been on Wiki for more than two years, and I'm astonished daily at how much I don't know; I'd really like to know how someone who's been here for four months can use the tools wisely. Interestingly, I see the same crowd supporting most of these candidates, and it doesn't bode well for Wiki's future, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that point at least we are agreed Sandy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what they are looking for is a different type of candidate, Sandy. Perhaps the RfA regulars are starting to notice the same thing that others of us have spotted. The RfA trend changes from time to time; perhaps the pendulum is swinging back? Risker (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope it's swinging back, I hope this entire notion of admin coaching will STOP (you either have the qualities or you don't, and being told to accumulate a bunch of GAs, DYKs, push through a FAC, dabble a bit here and there in vandal fighting and XfD, doesn't confer admin character) and I hope we aren't going to be dealing with the problems from the recent crops of admins for a very long time. <Red-faced> Add Risker to my list; darn, I knew I'd forget some! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, someone went through last month who blatantly dissed and attacked Yomangani once on my talk page, and since I couldn't find the post, I didn't oppose. <shudder> I am certain that person doesn't have the right character even if he has a gazillion GAs, DYKs and an FA. Now, when someone disses a respected editor, I'm saving the diff to my hard drive, unless they apologize, so I can find it when I need it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooohhh, who was that? I must add them to my enemies list. Yomangani ^talk 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I told 'ya I'd have to kill 'ya :-)) It was during your absence. Let me put it this way: not worth losing a minute of sleep over :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Sandy, and thank you very much for the compliment! :-) I have to say, I look at the "qualifications" some people set up and just shudder. What ever happened to good old common sense? Risker (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, if you are interested, I would be happy to take a look at your contributions. A recommendation from Sandy carries a lot of weight in my book.Balloonman (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded Risker; I would very much like to see you take the plunge...we need more content people getting the tools, and using them for the purposes of content (rather than the professional cops seen all too often at RfA). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blushes* Aww, thanks guys! I've responded to Balloonman on his talk page. Your willingness to consider me for candidacy is incredibly appreciated. Risker (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy; for your watchlist: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Risker. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See below for an example of one of our fine new crop of admins leaving a personal attack on a talk page over a GA review (within months of gaining the tools). Honestly, something needs to be done about what is going on over at RfA; more eyes are certainly needed on that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I can only say that was before I became active in the RfA process (January/February are my busy seasons at work, and I was uninvolved then.) I do, however, think your input into the process would be interesting, because the talk on WT:RFA is that the process has become too difficult. I'm of the opinion, that the bar has been lowered and those who should be admin's aren't running because they don't participate in "the right areas." I want to see more candidates like Risker/Peter/CapitalR. People who have gained the trust of the communities where they work, regardless of how many XfD's/CSD's they have. Balloonman (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I'm with you here. Admin coaching stinks of mandarin careerism. And it's function smells more like social networking of the patron-client variety than anything else. I would prefer if the good "coaches" hunted down and nominated highly experienced users who have built their experience in content contributing rather than user talk pages, private emailing and ircing, whose main qualification is their ambition to gain the mop. Promotions of the latter have had a detrimental effect on wikipedia. I really wish some of those guys understood this, as they wouldn't do it so much and they'd think beyond "hey my mandarin mate is voting for/opposing this guy....support/oppose". It's frankly appalling some of the users who get through this (and some of those in line too...so tempted to mention names here), while great users like Malleus who offer their service don't, and a bunch of the rest are so estranged and contemptful of it that they don't even bother. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the detrimental effect has trickled down to GA and FAC, as these "admin coached" types are encouraged to engage those processes, are passing and reviewing GAs with little qualification, digging up someone else's work and putting in a few edits to bring an unprepared article to FAC, causing work for reviewers where we're already stretched thin ... when they have little experience or reason to be engaging those processes ... and the mentality over at RfA these days seems to be, support everyone so they'll support me when it's my turn. Very very bad for the Project. Balloonman, one thing you (and others) could do is take down those checklists; I found those yesterday, and admin character can't be created via checklist. I have no clue about XfD or a whole lot of things on those lists, but I'm fairly certain few people think I would abuse the tools if I had them. Now I understand why the path from GA to FAC to RfA is so easily predicted ... pass a bunch of buddies' GAs to accumulate goodwill, do a trial run through FAC (leaving a lot of Supports to garner good will and a wake that has to be corrected by other serious reviewers), and then head for RfA ... they're going down the checklists. Much more alarming is that, whenever I read some of these recent RfAs, I'm not seeing the names of many of the editors I respect; have people given up and left the page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think that you're right in surmising that the RfA checklist has contributed to a significant number of very poor GA reviews by admin wannabees. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a new hobby: lurking on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and discovering new things I never knew existed. For instance, yesterday I linked through a bunch of comments to get to the Essjay controversy that I never knew happened, but did not surprise me. One of the criticisms in that article is that the administrators' lack of oversight, of questioning the way things are. Wikipedia is fascinating as a study of group dynamics and how people behave. And as someone who detests politic of any sort, yet recognizes they are inevitable once more than two people communicate, it's becoming clear just by reading this talk page that admins are an insular group that have created their own sub-culture (the t-shirts and mops as symbols, for example), that separates them from normal users like li'l ol' me. The admin process, as I understand it (that's dubious, you know), requires users to work for the reward of number of votes whenver the opportunity arises for RfA. On one hand, that imposes civility, but on the other, it silences questioning of why things are the way they are. Once people are accepted into an exclusive group, they become cheerleaders for its maintenance and are less inclined to upset the people who have accepted them into the group. Why do people spend so much time writing these articles when they get no reward other than the self-knowledge that they wrote a damn good article and thousands of people are reading it? Should admin come with any different reward? What if there were non-admins who had access and input into the process, people who just asked, "Why are you doing this?" Or what if admins where required to do that? --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Oh my gosh, red-faced again! I forgot Moni3 on my list above !!! Please accept my humble plea for forgiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moni, if you are interested, I would be honored to check you out on Sandy's recommendation as a possible candidate. (I can't say that I would nom you---I generally spend 2-5 hours checking out people I don't know before noming them. You can see my past noms on my talk page.)Balloonman (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, darlin' - you can check me out all you want! I don't know how successful any of that would be, though. As I stated, I despise politics and bureaucracy, and the admin system seems to cherish it. I would get opposed on SNOWBALL alone. I spent my lunch hour thinking of this. Would it be fruitful to point out to a group of folks their own patterns of behavior? Or are people destined to participate in groupthink no matter what? I don't know. I do know that I can no longer afford to be involved in systems like these, and I would say so right up front. Plus, I think my computer hacking skillz are kinda low. --Moni3 (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I recommend that Balloonman check you out just so he can read your edit summaries; he'll find it the best three hours he ever spent :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this comment will get me canned pretty quick. Well, if I'm good for anything, it's entertainment... --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gosh, I must show that one to Ceoil :-) Is that the worse dirt we can find on you? When I was a complete newbie, somewhere I gave myself a GA. Didn't even know what GA was, but it sounded good :-) Then when I figured out what it was, couldn't find where I'd done it so I could un-do it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that and some "brisk" comments on James I of England's talk page and the Gay talk page. Kee kee...gay talk page... I suppose I'm lucky in that I'm too dorkus to figure anything out, so I ask people what am I doing?? But the snowball is my almost complete lack of experience in dramatic froofaws. I just don't like them and I enjoy the majesty of putting the computer down and walking away to look at the trees in my backyard. I can only imagine trying to get into some arbitration to say something like, "Y'all are fighting over what now? wtf?" And I like writing articles. --Moni3 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... um.... yeah... I guess you would be an ~~interesting~~ ~~challenging~~ different candidate... but nothing is impossible! I take if you're not interested ;-) Balloonman (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strikethroughs say so much more than a Hallmark Card ever could... I would consider the nomination process an interesting intellectual exercise, and am interested in it if only to be able to challenge any prevailing opinions of what makes a good admin. I do not expect to, err, "win" anything, and will not attempt to persuade anyone that I am a good candidate for the position. I think that's where the harm begins. Rather, I would be honest about who I am and what I do, and if they don't want such a person as part of their organization, who am I to judge that? It's their club. I'll still be writing articles anyway. You decide if it would be worth it. I think at the least I can offer SandyGeorgia a snort or two, and if that's how I can pay her back for all the crap she puts up with I think that's more than fair. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What matters to me at RfA: is the person trustworthy, civil, an AGFer, do they add to the Project (not only content areas, but that helps), do they handle stress and conflict well, have they been around long enough to demonstrate these qualities and maturity, and will they abuse the tools. In short, do I know enough about them to know I can trust them. I don't think I've supported one yet that later embarrassed me. I don't care about all those other checklists that candidates who aren't any of those things are completing to get through RfA. And I'd much rather snort at Moni's edit summaries than read the pontifications of the admin postulates who are completing a checklist so they can gain the tools so they can flex their admin muscles to feel like a big cool dude on the 'net. Moni would be a good admin even if she pooped on a bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BOINK! Ok let me axe you a question. I'm not entirely sure what the conversations refer to in these references to the "latest batch of admins". Can you point me to what their transgressions have been? Also, clearly I'm a content editor who's in her own tiny little world sometimes while doing the article thing. What can a content editor do as an admin that would help their project? I don't even know. I've asked admins to protect the Harper Lee article, and that's pretty much the extent of my requests. (One pooter decided it wasn't a good idea after I spent 2 hours reverting vandalism from the same IP address). He hath caused me to rend my garment. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the reason why I asked Sandy for her recommendations. There are tons of qualified people out there, but they are overlooked because they don't fit the "mold." I think the type of admin that has been passing over the past month or two is different than the type that passed even 3-4 months ago. 3-4 months ago, there was a lot of focus on XfD's and ant-vandalism. If you weren't involved there, you might not as well apply. Right now, there is more of a push for civility and trust among the community. (Dihydrogen, myself, and a few others have been noming some atypical candidates lately that are passing with flying colors, while the anti-vandal candidates are facing stiffer opposition.)Balloonman (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people used to have a 1 FA criterion for adminship. That would have sunk me. I'm as guilty as anyone for not watching RfA. I tend to support the people I know, and know will make good admins, when they come up, and only oppose those I think I need to oppose (ie. if the nomination is not already failing). The others I just let slide on the assumption that they can learn on the job. Probably a dangerous assumption, actually, but not many people have the time to hang around RfA. BTW, I came here from the "joke oppose" thread on AN. My RfA had one of those: see here. It did make me realise what effect even a joke oppose can have, and this one was edited in as an already struck-out one! It also made me realise that RfA is too much of a popularity contest, but that is a story for another day. Carcharoth (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for this, too, if anyone else thinks it's worthwhile. Not that I'm entirely sure which admin tools I'd use. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really have to use any. Even if you only use the them once a year thats still a net gain for the project. You should definetly run, with your editing record you shoulnd't have any trouble Acer (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jbmurray, I recently had a chance to observe how you handle conflict, and I'd be glad to co-nom, although I don't really know how to put a nom together very well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, here is my essay How to Nominate Somebody for RfA. It has my observations on what, IMHO, makes a ~~successful~~ effective nomination.Balloonman (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I just created a nom for Jb.Balloonman (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, just saw another one I missed: Slp1 (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slp1 if you wanted to conom...Balloonman (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red-faced again: I also forgot Eubulides (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at a RfA some months ago and I saw some poor soul facing the "Spanish Inquisition", having to answer questions like "how do you explain this edit?" and so forth. I thought why would anyone want to suffer this? I saw my name on Sandy's list and I took this as a compliment. But I have to ask myself would it make me a better editor/reviewer? Of this I'm not convinced. GrahamColm ^Talk 05:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Trumble

I think you tend to flit over the FACs before Raul (could be wrong) so I'll bring this to your attention. --Dweller (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Dweller. It would be great if some folks could run through the Urgents list and give me something to work with :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm off to bed and then my morning routine. I'll be back in about 10 hours. Will take a look after I've dealt with Trumble. --Dweller (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw I'm done with that. I've started reviewing Blnguyen's article about the Vietnamese chappy. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're back in the saddle ! I always notice a drop in reviews over the weekend, and FAC seems to get stalled. I hope I can close some tonight ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA

What's this about? Someone put a GA template on the talk page, it had a review, and it got on WP:GA. Then someone else disputed it. These scenarios typically resolve in a week or so. If it were a cat, it would be one of the easier cats to herd. Gimmetrow 23:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has since fixed it, but it showed up in the error category because someone put "on hold" in the articlehistory, then I couldn't determine if it was supposed to be GA or not (since it was listed on the GA page), so I reverted it all and left notes everywhere ... and as usual, no one responded (there's no "them" there at GA), so I finally removed the article from the GA page myself. Never sure what to do in those cases. Not going to do it anymore. But if someone removed it, they didn't really remove it, and they left an error in ah. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you asked. Without a very different system, there's no way to stop people editing templates. And some people put their article on WP:GA the same time they put it on WP:GAN! Gimmetrow 23:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On one of the many GA pages (maybe the talk page at GAN, maybe GA, I dunno) and on the article talk page as well. Anyway, I'm done worrying about them. If I can't solve an error, I'll just leave it or revert it and not lose sleep over following up on it. They don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WT:GAN#Can.27t_figure_it_out. Yeah, they created the "topic" parameter, which even caused someone to edit AH to make it "grammatically correct", and nobody seems very concerned about keeping it up to date. I have heuristics to fill some in - if it starts with "Battle" it's probably milhist, it it contains "film" or "band" it's probably arts, and if it has "hurricane" it's probably meteorology. Gimmetrow 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point that GA is crap has already been made quite comprehensively elsewhere. So what do you expect? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "GA is crap", but for a non-bureaucratic process it has developed a lot of details which distract from the primary goal: articles. Gimmetrow 01:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration

[4] Please don't feel obliged; I'm just following up on your comments above, and Balloonman's suggestion on my talk page. I won't be starting the clock until tomorrow evening EDT, as I am working late tonight. Risker (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABA EL

Hiya Sandy,

Regards this link, I've not reviewd the whole set of articles, but I'm inclined to leave it in per Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered #4. It's not journal articles, but the information looks kosher (in the popular, not dietary sense, in case you were wondering if I had started printing and eating web pages. I have not) and there's references in some, which suggests some degee of expertise. It's also a good 'practitioner' perspective I think. But I leave it up to you, if you think it should be removed then I'm fine with that. I do realize that they're spamming it, but even stopped clocks are right twice per day. Unless they're digital and it's just displaying EPL|, in which case it's gibberish. WLU (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to fret much over it, but 1) they're spamlinking it, and 2) it's no different than hundreds of others which will follow if it is allowed. ELs should add something to the article that would not be there if the article became featured. I guess I'd just keep an eye on where else they add it, and not fret over one article, but you know how the ABA links will mushroom if you lower the inclusion threshold :-) Everybody's got something to promote in that field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'm feeling fickle today. Maybe one of the mushrooms will be superior to the rest and we can keep that. Or I may cull it in a fit of jealous rage two days from now. There's a lot of short essays on a lot of topics in the sidebar which look interesting from a practitioner's perspective, so I'm willing to let it stand for now. Unusual for me, I'm usually extremely deadly on spam. Perhaps it's a tumour. WLU (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ah, well, glad you can be relaxed about it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I did reserve the right to be fickle later. I'm tricky that way, I've got an out.

I noticed you didn't substitute your spamwarning to the editor - is there a reason? Normally I thought templates gave you a big nasty warning if they were subst-able and you didn't do so. Educate me! WLU (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

um ... um ... well ... you'll have to educate me, since I don't know what you mean :-) I just grab the text that's shown on the template messages page. (This is the point at which Gimmetrow usually shows up to educate me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A template like {{uw-vand1}} appears as text on the usual screen, but as the template on the edit pane. Using {{subst:uw-vand1}} shows up as text in both. The subst: gives you a permanent version, while the template version will change if someone edits the original template. If you add subst: to the beginning of the warning tempalates the only real advantage is permanence. I had thought the subst: was mandatory, but apparently not. I know it is for some of the deletion templates (I think prod). I'll be giving EL-spammer a warning for his/her work on Temple Grandin, look at the difference between the two on the edit pane. I'll be using subst:spam2. WLU (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. My original paste was:

{{subst:uw-spam2|Temple Grandin|The link to the ABA page is ''arguably'' acceptable as an exception, but simply adding a link to one website on a variety of pages is considered [[WP:SPAM|spamming]] and is not acceptable. In this case, your addition to ABA was akin to a case of doing good by accident rather than design, as the design appears to be the promotion of a website.}}

and as you can see the software automagically filled in the full block of the standard warning. I can see the subst being more useful because it gives a standard warning that's adjusted to the extant policies and guidelines, while a non-substituted warning would change as the template changes (meaning a warning would no longer apply if the template changes sufficiently to indicate the edit was actually allowed when at the time of the original warning, it was not). I feel so special - I got to explain something to SandyGeorgia (SandyGeorgia!) today! I think I'll take the rest of the day off and bask in my own sense of smug self-satisfaction. Do I deserve a huzzah? I think I do! Huzzah!! WLU (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you deserve, but I'll tell you just as soon as I find time to read it all :-) I've been known to tell others they have to speak to me in very short sentences when I'm still getting through my morning watchlist LOL !! Evening (my time) is a better time of day to try to get me to learn new tricks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me assure you that it is excellent information, certainly not trivial and of no importance.

OK, I admit, there's absolutely nothing wrong with how you are issuing warnings. It's trivial. Sob. WLU (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Seacole FAC

I'm withdrawing the nomination, there's too many corrections needed and I just don't have the time. However, I do see myself working on the article in the future (probably in co-operation with Giano), and I would like to thank you and the others for the invaluable comments they made which have potentially helped the article even more. If you could make sure that the correct archival procedures are followed, I'd be grateful. Sincerely, Rudget (Help?) 15:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that Rudget, and I commend you for taking the wisest action in this case. It ia a very fine article, but with better use of the superior sources that are out there, you can turn it into something much better and you'll probably be much prouder of the result. Looking forward to seeing you back soon ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Rudget (Help?) 15:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kannada literature in Vijayanagara empire

Thanks for fixing the PR archive link.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about all the trouble ...

Not too sure what I did on Gimmetrow talk page, but thanks for fixing it for me ... -- Quantockgoblin (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on FAC restart

I am curious/would like some clarity on the way FAC restarts generally work. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Getting It: The psychology of est -- How does this impact the 5 Supports previously given in comments from editors Roger Davies (talk · contribs), Ottava Rima (talk · contribs), Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs), Moni3 (talk · contribs), and Laser brain (talk · contribs) ? Cirt (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A restart is a clean slate; it's OK to ask previous supporters (and opposers) if they want to carry their !votes or comments forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply - it appears that these editors listed are the only ones unaware of the restart. I will leave a brief notice on their talk pages. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you stay within WP:CANVASS, no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this sort of message, in that case? Cirt (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Also, they don't necessarily have to carry forward the same comment; you could just ask if they want to enter a new comment. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, that makes sense - I was just sorta incorporating the language you had used from the above suggestion. Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your help and level-headedness throughout this FAC. Cirt (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure; sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC statistics

What happened to the readbility, edit count and link checker toolbox? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nevermind. The toolbox is not automatically generated in the case of starting a new nomination for a failed FAC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct; on the old previous FAC files, we have to add the tools in manually. Someone has probably already done that by now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Able Archer 83 is back

I believe you wanted to know? Melchoir (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank, Melchoir ! Will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R v Bailey

What was wrong with my renomination of this article for WP:GA? You wait two months for a review, then no fewer than three editors come along and get the whole thing glaringly wrong, you fix everything and renominate, then someone comes along and undoes it all. Does this project not want my input or what? --Rodhull andemu 12:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the GA nomination for that article; I only corrected the error in articlehistory, causing it to populate the articlehistory error category, left by the person who passed the GA. You might want to ask that person, but then, the personal attack you left on the article talk page might come under scrutiny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted apology - and submit one by return post

Thank you for your message. I was feeling somewhat low, and I over-reacted: it is quite obvious your edit summary must have been a mistake, and I regret reading anything more into it. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 13:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Office

I didn't mean your concerns. They were details, but they were details that needed to be addressed. I meant some of the ones that came up near the very end (over on Marskeller's page I responded with some specifics). You recognized the work we got done ... I appreciated that. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whew ... well, I tried :-) Thanks, Daniel. I hope you can bring it back to FAC soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar story

Sandy, your link was actually touching and I'm sorry I didn't thank you for it earlier.

I know you intended it as something I ought to use on Wiki, but I was reminded personally of a lifetime reading about cats. When I was a boy, I used to dream about Jaguars and Cougars. (OK, that seems so silly, but really! I'd get them mixed up in my head.) What I wanted more than anything was for Cougars to reappear in southern Ontario and for me to see one. When I read about Jaguars in Texas, I get the same little thrill over nature. And isn't just awful that a stupid, politically-minded border fence in Texas is going to keep that beauty out of the US?

Anyway, thanks for the link. I don't know what G-Guy is thinking, coming over to laugh out loud. It seems unlike him. *Shrugs.*

In order to do something useful with myself, I've decided to work on prose on articles that are close on the citation problems list. You'll note Warsaw in my history :). I'll keep you updated. Marskell (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A misunderstanding, sorry. Geometry guy 22:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it when I miss something :-) Have a look at Marskell's contribs at WP:WBFAN; he's the Cat Man ... and the planet man ... 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myst

Sorry about the redirect, I didn't see your comments on the FAC page. I didn't realize (rather stupidly) that moving the page would screw up the FAC... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't make a mess; I'm not sure why I see some people who aren't admins that do moves over redirects. I don't know how to do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can do moves over redirects if the redirect has no edit history other than its creation. I think this is to allow self-reverts if people make a silly spelling mistake. Even more confusingly, a move war with people moving back and forth between two titles, doesn't show up in the logs! I think this is covered somewhere at WP:MOVE. Carcharoth (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Carcharoth; yes, WP:MOVE says you can do it, but doesn't say how, and I've never been able to make it work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Sertraline

Given that we often disagree, I appreciate even more your impartial handling of Sertraline nomination and your help with copyediting the article. Thank you Paul Gene (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We often disagree? I must improve either my memory or my record keeping :-) Congratulations on the FA !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrosheet

[5]. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it; I have that page watchlisted. Left a question there, and deleted the irrelevant (now fixed) dash info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ocarina of Time FAC

The Ocarina of Time FAC is entering its tenth grueling day. I'm sitting down now to get to the rest of Laser Brain's comments and hope to have them addressed before I go to bed. I'd like to be optimistic and think that I'm close to being done, but every time I get rid of one oppose, another one pops up. I'm leaving town in a day, and will have limited Internet access at best, and more likely no access until Wednesday. I can ask a couple of editors to look over it while I'm gone, but there's no guarantee that any will have the drive to work on it. I'd hate to have put all this work into the article only to have it fail while I'm gone, but at the same time I imagine you probably wouldn't be too thrilled at keeping it open that long if no one's addressing comments. Any thoughts? Pagrashtak 04:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be almost over the hump, but unfortunately, the serious prose reviewers were late in engaging. Everyone is stretched thin, and opposing is much harder work than supporting :-) Let's see how it's doing tomorrow, be sure to ping Laser when you're done, and unless something dramatically changes, it doesn't seem to be in failing territory. I'll account for your absence, unless it suddenly gets 100 opposes :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes me feel better. I've updated the article and left a message for Laser. Pagrashtak 06:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfB talk

Responded on the talk page. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myst Cut & paste move

Wow, you noticed that before I could even post a message that I merged the histories. See, this is the reason a lot of us want you to be an admin! ;) If you ever need something like that done for FAC and no one's doing it, feel free to ask me, it doesn't take too much time. Ooh, bonus, I see you just promoted Ocarina—that's going to make my time off much more enjoyable. Pagrashtak 16:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try to imagine that RfA :-) "I need the tools so I can deal with malformed FAC and FAR pages." I'm going to ask The Fat Man to write that RfA blurb :-) Have a good time off, and again, thanks for cleaning up the mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Japanese Grand Prix (2)

If it's OK with you, I'm considering removing most of the ChicaneF1.com/Gale Force.com references and replacing them with AUTOCOURSE 1995-96 page 223 references. Most of the information from ChicaneF1 and Gale Force is covered in that annual (for instance fastest laps, practice times), and I think it would be better having a reliable source than a self-publishing source myself. I won't however be able to remove them all, so one or two may remain. Is that OK with you? D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, D.M.N., but I really am not following the question. Are you asking me if it's OK to replace a self-published, non-reliable source with a reliable source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Would you mind if I went and removed most of the ChicaneF1 refs and replace them with AUTOCOURSE (much more reliable) refs? D.M.N. (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I still don't understand your question. It's not up to me to say whether I "mind" if anyone does anything with any article (??), and I still don't know why you seem to be asking if you should replace non-reliable sources with possibly a reliable source. What am I missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at the FAC. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No link? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go. Don't you use your watchlist? D.M.N. (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I use my watchlist, but 1) my page is very busy, and 2) some editors respond in such a way that I have to go searching for what section their response is in, especially when there are multiple sections on my talk page dealing with the same topic,[6], and then, when they don't supply a link, I have to go find the link, too. Since there are only 24 hours in day ... :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see! Maybe that'll teach me a lesson in the future! :)) D.M.N. (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get round to seeing my comment at the FAC? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will the next time I go through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alert

I think you actually missed the point, SandyGeorgia. In addition to your comments that incorrectly sussing that I had taken the matters outside of the Reliable Source noticeboard - Viriditas had shopped both NOR and RS noticeboards - you incorrectly suggested that consensus had been against me. It had not. I realize that the matter was ridiculously drawn out, but consensus agreed with me that the film itself could be cited for observational phenomena (similar to plot summaries, etc).
Perhaps you thought that my wikiquette alert noting viriditas' behavior was based solely out of that; it was not, and I would implore you to actually read the complaint again.
That is, unless you want to consider my post to be "overwhelming verbosity". :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARs and citation problems

Looks like you're up to date on the flagging. I'll watch out for new ones. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, wouldn't it make sense to flag the articles in FAR? That way, once the review is done, the editor would know to remove it from the citations problem list as well.--RegentsPark (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Regents, I'm not following. We flag articles as they are submitted to FAR, and I update the citations list once the FAR closes. We flag them to be sure I don't miss any as the reviews close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you just watchlist that page, you'll be able to observe how I do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that the outcome of the review is on the WP:FAR page. If a 'is on [[Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems' flag is next to the article on WP:FAR, the editor would know to update the [[Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems page as well. But, I'm probably missing something, so am watching both pages to see how they tango! --RegentsPark (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still not sure I'm following, but I'm the only person who updates the citations page (and sometimes Marskell). It's for our tracking purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Hameed Khan FAC

Just to say thanks for your guidance. --IslesCape^Talk 18:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Input on Mirth & Girth

I know you're terrifically busy, but I would like your opinion for this: Talk:Mirth & Girth#RfC: Mirth & Girth and Chicago Tonight. It feels like this GAN has gone on longer than the Democratic primary election... :-D Thanks! —Rob (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noted your comment below about potential FACs; I strike out this request. Have a nice day! —Rob (talk) 03:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Rob; besides that, I forgot :-(( My talk page gets so busy that I sometimes lose things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, I just had a look; is that a good article tangle with TonyTheTiger? I suggest pinging Geometry guy on that. I stay away from GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something completely different…

Hi. Originally starting from an OTRS request from the mosque's publicity firm, I have brought Abbey Mills Mosque from a POV-issue stub to a Good Article. The article has an open peer review, but I am tempted to close it and list it as an FAC. Can you do me the favor and give it a once-over before I do so? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a look as soon as I have a moment, most likely tonight or first thing tomorrow. But, when I know something is headed towards FAC, I try to avoid commenting on the content, and stick to straightforward, less controversial areas of articles like citations, MoS, reliable sources, etc., so I won't create a confict at FAC. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and advice!! -- Avi (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, when it comes to sources, that is one of my specialties. I'm actually very good at tracking down and accurately listing sources, it's one of my pet hobbies (as per my userpage :) ) so I'm pretty confident on that front. -- Avi (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the original OTRS complaint was the weight given to the term "mega mosque" which is why it was written in that fashion. I moved it slightly closer, but in order to respectthe complainants point, I feel the introduction about the original reporting vs the current size needs to precede the phrase. Your thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, guidelines are only guidelines :-) If it comes up at FAC, you politely explain, and if consensus goes against, deal with it then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks, I'll try my best. One idea I had (I don't know if you or Raul ever tried it) was a kind of directors noticeboard, where users can post any general questions about the process or ask for closures. That way, it could keep discussion centralized rather than someone asking me or Rambling Man (or both of us). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend maybe holding off on new ideas for a month or two, as you get your feet wet and experience the particular challenges of the "god help them" part :-)). You all already have a lot in flux at once—a new directorship, meaning new ways of managing the page; not one, but two new directors; and possibly changing criteria—very different from Raul asking me to be his delegate in a role that was already well defined. A centralized board may work well for lists, or you could find that it becomes a place where you just get hounded, since you can't please all the people all the time. As others noted in the discussion, my availability and openness about some of my decision making has come at a great cost to my time, while Raul's style is more to let things ride on the talk page, and weigh in as needed; it may take some time to figure out which style works best for you and for lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if having directors will really change things that much, but I suppose you are right. As well, I was thinking that since someone else has to do WP:FLRC it should be Dweller and Matthewedwards. I asked both of them, and they are interested but should we do some kind of approval process for them, or is it really necessary? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You two are the directors; you don't need to ask me, I'm just a delegate :-) Review the wording at WP:FAR, in terms of Raul as director, vs. Marskell, Joelr31 and me as delegates?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ominous template messages compel me

Ok, Ok, I'll get to reviewing some. But as an aside, it might help if there's a "new FAC" template so that reviewers can quickly get on top of new articles; since many people don't put the article wikilinked in when they nominate, it's hard to keep track of. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If people were ignoring the Urgents, I don't see the point in making yet another template, and new FACs are at the top of the FAC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, ok, it was just a suggestion! (meekly hides) -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't ignoring the urgents-I promise!!! I hope they come back soon. (Well, I hope we wouldn't need it because we had an influx of really terrific reviewers, but in case that doesn't happen, I found the urgents list very useful. And interesting, too, that many of the articles that languish there are video games/albums and history articles. I'll stop rambling now ;) ). 15:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I know you weren't ignoring them, but I fear the video games/albums were overwhelming other reviewers, as they all end up in urgents, requiring tons of work that could have been completed at the peer review level. I'd like to spread the load more evenly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar: The Last Airbender FAR

Just so you know, this comment does not have to do with the ASN debate. I noticed you commented on the article's prose in the article's FAR. I copyedited the article to the best of my ability and was wondering if you could look it over and see if it improved, and what comments about the prose remain. Thanks, I really appreciate it and hope this article can remain FA. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a prose guru; I can spot when it has problems, but I'm not the best person to say if it's good enough for "brilliant and compelling". Someone else will eventually evaluate that. I'll be looking to make sure citations are clean, MoS is cleaned up, reliable sources are used, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Trumble FAC

I assume that wasn't naughty. --Dweller (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm pointing out the obvious, but: are you opposed to capping off your resolved comments at that FAC? Your comments run to seven screens on my display; I'm sure they were immensely helpful, but they may be scaring off potential reviewers by sheer volume. Maralia (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dweller, not naughty, it's fine (but Maralia also has a point; when a review has that much work, others may hesitate to read and support, fearing the article is in bad shape, or waiting to see if all of that is resolved). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>I'm not opposed to anything I don't understand. What's "capping off"? --Dweller (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it in a hide/show cap. See my sample at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#How to; replace my text with yours, my sig with yours, and encompass all the commentary, leaving your declaration (comment, support or oppose) outside of the cap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I thought striking made it clear what's resolved. I'll need to refactor it, because there's stuff I left open. OK. Watch me c*ck this up. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, now I'm on a roll, maybe I'll try and work out how to use a toaster. --Dweller (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give you one of my Ten Tips for a Happy Life: never learn how to do anything in the kitchen, or you'll be stuck doing it for life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed noms

Hey. I just dealt with two malformed noms; letting you know in case I've botched anything.

Woodrow Wilson - User:Briaboru added {{FAC}} to the article talk page and, somehow, made his way to the old nomination from 2005 and added a support comment there. I've reverted his edits to the article talk page & the old FAC page, and left him a detailed note at User talk:Briaboru.

Poland - Yesterday an IP user (with no other edits before or since) added {{FAC}} to the article talk page. The user did not even create the nomination page, so I've simply reverted his edit to the article talk page.

Neither of these malformed noms made it to WP:FAC; I found both of them via Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list. I reviewed Category: Wikipedia featured article candidates to make sure there weren't any others out there. Strange, indeed. Maralia (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so strange; I review the cat daily, and pick up several of these per week. Wilson, done; Poland, fine. Beautiful, thank you so much; that is the kind of thing that is such a timekiller for me. If you want to take your skills to the next level :-)) notice my edits to deal with the old facfailed on Wilson. I really appreciate the help on these kinds of things, as I was out all afternoon and didn't yet get to check the FAC category today, and this is exactly the kind of background work I used to do to help spare Raul (it is so time consuming). Thank you again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason there are so many old fac noms that aren't archived, other than it used to not be standard closing process & it's a pain in the ass to do? If that's the only reason, maybe I'll archive a few random ones, to get the hang of it. Maralia (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 850 of them :-) They are the ones from before GimmeBot started; doing it manually is, well, awful. I've been hoping I can convince Gimmetrow to fire up a version of the bot to go back and get them all, but ... here's the real problem ... to build the articlehistory correctly on all of those pages, you have to spend hours, weeks, months, decades ... sorting out all the gosh darn GA errors on the pages. So, it's just not doable; the example above was a simple one because there was no GA involvement. Even if I could convince Gimmetrow to do it, I'd have to do a ton of manual sorting to figure out the GA issues on each page. So, we just do them as they come up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand :-)) If you and I set up a work page, and started back through them, sorted out all the issues, and then presented Gimmetrow with a list of pages ready to be botified (that is, build the articlehistory from the templates), how could he resist? I could show you the work to be done, but you have to have Dr pda's articlehistory script, and you have to know how to sort old GA and PR errors, as well as archiving the old facfaileds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I tried the first facfailed in the category: 1995 Fox River Grove level crossing accident, crashed immediately. Redlinks from page moves. This would be slow going. Gimmetrow 03:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would only work if we worked through them and presented you with lists of "ready to be botified" talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then get to it. Second one: 2005 Ashes series, non-standard template redirect; third one: 2005 South East Asian Games, some error (probably redlinks). Gimmetrow 03:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do ! Where was that work page we used to have? Do you remember? Some sub-page of articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found, Template:ArticleHistory/work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maralia, if you want to help on this, you have to have Dr pda's articlehistory script, and I have to type out lots of instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm likely to run screaming if we start with a huge list and huge-r instructions. I learn best by doing - and I'm cautious enough that I think I'm unlikely to give anyone a coronary - so I'd rather, er, pretend I'm Gimmebot for a bit, and get my feet wet with some simple articlehistories. I'd like to pick through Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:FACfailed, find some straightforward ones, and do them up right. I've just done one here. Did I get anything wrong other than originally linking the oldid of the talk page instead of the article? (I hope you get a good laugh out of that; I did.) Maralia (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be very hard for me if we run any of this through my talk page, simply because my talk page is so busy :-) Can you put questions on the talk page of the work page above? OK, many things. The cleared redirect has to look like this. Do you have Dr pda's script? If not, hard to tell if you're missing anything, since often templates are deleted from talk pages. First step is to check his script to make sure there are no missing templates. Also, you're making it hard on yourself :-) All you had to do was check that talk page, check Dr pda, see that it's straightforward, and add it to the list ready for GimmeBot on the work page. Much easier to let the bot build the articlehistory and update the archive. We just need to find the easy ones for him and make sure all the pieces are there. See the work page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when you locate one that's messed up, needs attn, you can add it to that list on the work page, and we'll work through those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, working from What Links here is very random for me; I'm working back through the old FAC archives, on the assumption that the most recently failedfacs are the most likely to reappear at FAC. So, I listed the unarchived FACs from archives on the Work page, will start checking each one, then either 1) fix them myself if simple, 2) move them to ready for GimmeBot, or 3) move them to messed up to deal with later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, by working through What Links here, you miss these cases where someone deleted the facfailed.[7] That one had an incomplete GA template, and a missing facfailed. I simply prepped it for GimmeBot, and will move it to the Ready for GimmeBot list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example of messed up: Dr pda reveals a whole long GA history, but there's only one GA template at Talk:Boston Red Sox. These are the GA nightmares; finding all the pieces. Sample of one to fix ourselves: Talk:Power: A New Social Analysis has an incorrectly built ah, old facfailed wasn't archived, not worth having GimmeBot do it since ah is already built, I'll just fix the archiving. See, there's no way around this without me typing out all the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand. Talk:Power: A New Social Analysis looks fine. Gimmetrow 06:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, wrong name there. My fault. December is done on work page. November, I'm finding lots of ahs built without fac having been archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[8] Adding {{GA}} makes the article show up in the current GA category, and it affects updating WP:GA unless I take care of it right away. Does anyone really need the +GA time for year-old delisted GAs? I've not bothered with topic information for delisted GAs, and I would recommend not fussing with the topic. The topic was only added to failedGA and delistedGA in October 2007, so it's not surprising templates from earlier don't have it. Gimmetrow 08:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, should I ignore old GAs (for example Boston Red Sox is a mess of GA stuff), or should I add the templates, but comment them out and then add them to the work page with a note to you that they are commented out, so you can uncomment them when you botify? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is partly why I didn't want to touch these. What happened at Red Sox - it looks like you cleaned it up once a year ago? Anyway, commenting out seems to create more work than this is worth. Do you think it would be difficult to separate out the "low hanging fruit" - the articles with templates for all the facfails, no redlinks, and only one failedGA or delistedGA? Or would this mean you would have to look at all the difficult ones a second time? Gimmetrow 08:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked closely at Red Sox yet; only saw the history via Dr pda articlehistory. I'm leaving the tough ones for another day :-) Truth is, if we're going to do this, I want to get the archives correct by going at it systematically; the idea is to avoid malformed new noms showing up at FAC, and the only way to do that ... is to do it. But sorting out old GA history isn't worth it. I would fix the Red Sox because they're the Red Sox, though :-) When I leave the list of pages prepped for you, is it too much work? Or when they're ready, is it fairly easy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to keep you from creating work for yourself. The topic stuff is way too much work to try to figure out what GA topic might apply to a 2006 article. Relatively few GA reviewers add it now when they pass articles. Anyway, you should work on someone's rfa nom. Gimmetrow 09:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's this refer to? Gimmetrow 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know doing it manually is the hard way, but the best way for me to understand the whole process is to make myself do it a few times. I do have Dr pda's script. RE the correction you made to my edits: I know 'previous FAC' is looked for via script, but I presumed the string matching was not that rigorous - I've seen alternate language (such as 'previous FAC withdrawn' in your example link in your sandbox). I'm headed to bed; I'll start looking at the Work page tomorrow, and will use its talk page. Maralia (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really related, but a question: anything we can do to catch random edits to old archived FACs like this one? I just happened to have it watchlisted since I reviewed the article. Maralia (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I had the answer for that; I wonder the same thing about all of wiki archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is June for you or for me? In about half an hour I'll be ready to get back to work, and I only have a handful of August ones to finish looking at. Maralia (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can take June then, and I'll start on May later. Gimmetrow just ran through a ton of them; I'm so happy to have another ah expert on board :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that last bit mean you made it through a batch of my contributions and I didn't botch anything terribly? Maralia (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks great; GimmeBot ran through a ton of them, but he's also doing something new (just processing through some facfailed templates I guess, hasn't told me ... so until we hear differently from Gimmetrow, I guess we keep doing what we're doing ! ) You take June, I'll take May ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starting June shortly, then. Only 2 left to figure out from August: both articles were renamed, and have FACs under an old name. Does that matter, as long as they're archived and we link to them properly? Maralia (talk) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only factor to worry about on a rename is what happens if someone re-noms the article. When they re-nom, you want the new FAC to pop up on the FAC template, linking to the old previous FAC. It doesn't matter what name is in archives; our objective is to assure future FACs aren't malformed, so you have to get the move, name, clear redirect done right. Make sense ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to explain it another way, when we're done with all of this, we should be able to do away completely with current Step 4. at {{FAC-instructions}} and know that all new nominations will get the correct pre-loaded page with no errors or malformed noms, and a link to the old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, got it. Onward and upward! Maralia (talk) 03:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably take all of May to keep me awake when my nearly-2-year-old nephew wakes me up in something like 5 hours. I don't do mornings; this is going to s u c k. Maralia (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Hall

Ah. Apologies. I went to the page, and then to the talk page, but only a previous FAR is listed there, which is the source of my confusion. Is it normal that an open FAR is not listed on the talk page? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh, oh. Not good. Investigating now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I actually spent some time reading the old FAR before realizing it was closed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's there, second template from the top? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm an idiot. Ignore me... I was looking at the article history. (Which is of course a history, d'oh.) :( OK, off for a cup of coffee. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think your time was wasted; I just read through it, and that old FAR is very instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, just run

Sandy - I guarantee you'd get over 200 supports if you ran at RfA. The need for de;eting and undeleting and sorting out messed up pages is enough work alone that other admins don't need to be doing. Really. I nommed Sabine's Sunbird who is overwhelmingly a content contributor but his role coordinating huge numbers of bird articles necessitates admin tools. If I write up a nom will you accept? Or shall I start a straw poll here and force your hand if it gets to 75 signatures :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was being facetious :-) And you and I both know that a straw poll on my page is a non-random, biased sample ... I can suggest some alternate talk pages where you might get different results :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The supports aren't the problem. It's all the people you've ever upset opposing that gives pause for thought. Unless there's anything that Sandy feels she wants to do that she can't currently do, then I'd counsel staying well away from RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I supposed if you predict there would be over 25 opposes then that would be something to consider. You really think there would? I am basing this on a minimum of 80 odd supports, which I reckon would be very conservative. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as Sandy has opposed my FACs in the past, the project would still benefit more with her as an admin. But, I also agree that an RFA would be a horrible experience, especially with her in such a polarizing position. Gary King (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, like any other productive and active editor, will have made some enemies. It's not for me to say how many, but you can bet your boots that they'll come out of the woodwork come RfA time. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to pitch a final word in and say that an active editor does not necessarily make enemies. It's people in a position of authority who make enemies, which includes those with official positions (administrators, bureaucrats, oversight) and unofficial positions (FAC director, FLC director). Okay, conversation done... Gary King (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all can stop this conversation right now ... or I'll have to call in The Fat Man and Yomangani to set you straight :-) no, No, NO. I was being facetious, to make a point about the slippery slope, and everybody's got some reason they might use tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of the FA coordinator not an admin. Someone who's so influential balances a bit of the power around. --Moni3 (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with an FAC director being an administrator, but also, it's not a huge necessity, in my opinion. One can live with or without the other. Gary King (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA articles with citation problems

Hi Sandy. I took a look at Speed of Light (at random) and it seems fairly well cited now (tons of edits since it was added to the list). Do you think it worthwhile to take a look at individual articles on the list and see if they should still be on the list? I'm not sure if the criterion for inclusion in the list is no (or few) inline citations or incomplete inline citations?--RegentsPark (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read over the talk page there, and you'll see how we've handled them in the past. Prob is, Marskell is going to start back through them soon, see if any can be moved down or moved off, so you might get crossways with him. Best to coordinate work on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Why did you make me look? Speed of light should come to FAR now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ArticleHistory/work

What's going on there? Looks interesting; I see it's been stale for a while but you revived in yesterday. I often come across Talk pages with lots of those 'promoted' or 'failed' templates floating around and piece them together manually. I suppose this page is to fix some of those. Are there tags that can be added to these broken Talk pages for the bot to automatically pick up and fix? Gary King (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin stuff

I noticed somewhere you mentioned you were disappointed at the quality of admins coming through RfA in the last few months. I recently noticed Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes. Most of the stuff at Wikipedia:New admin school is general technical stuff, but this new page does try and teach admins how to deal with disputes. What do you think? Carcharoth (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do I think about what? The chances they'll read it, retain it, care about it, or whether you can teach in general by checklist? Or whether it will just help them answer the questions correctly at RfA? I really don't know what you're asking. The general answer is that I don't think good admins are made by checklist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if pages like that help inexperienced admins handle disputes better (or avoid them altogether)? I'm talking here about admins who genuinely are inexperienced and do more harm than good, though with the best of intentions. Obviously the other sort, who go on a power trip, can't be handled this way. I too share your concerns about RfA, and I always judge people by their actions, not by whatever popularity contest they passed (though to be fair, RfA sometimes does do good job of reviewing people). Anyway, I just thought you might be interested. You don't need to engage in any long discussion. I'll let you get back to the wiki-stuff you really want to do! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

co-nomination?

SandyG: Balloonman has just nominated me for adminship, and suggested that I remind you that you said you would consider a co-nomination. Obviously, you should not feel in the slightest obliged to do so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One little suggestion. Again, many thanks! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the crats would think of an involuntary RFA, I suspect Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SandyGeorgia would succeed even if you explicitly declined. Maybe... MBisanz ^talk 17:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they've got that covered in one of the first lines on RfAs: Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Declined, thank you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I think as well that you would have little problems at RfA, but I do greatly respect those, like you and Tony, and others, who refuse adminship on principle. I had little need of the tools myself, and I eventually bit the bullet more to see what all the fuss was about. I still don't use the tools as much as I should, but they are useful at times. Mostly for uncontroversial edits to protected pages, and housekeeping deletions. Carcharoth (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comment on The Rambling Man's talk page, so I took your suggestion and made it so that when you use Template:Resolved comments, it gives the sig and the timestamp. Is it any better? Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make it work, Julian; can you add a sample here showing how it adds a signature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like it worked to me, but User:Gary King indicated that it showed only my signature on all the pages it's used on, so that was quickly reverted. So, I still want an easy way to be able to cap lengthy comments, but I can't seem to figure this out or how to work it. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scahill on autism

Small world, eh? Though Autism therapies already cited Williams White, Keonig & Scahill 2007 (PMID 17195104; a fine review) so this new one, a relative bagatelle, isn't his first cite there. Eubulides (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan, Wright, and chaos

Sandy, the Reagan article is experiencing trouble after User:CyberAnth and User:Cryptographic hash have both stalked me and followed me over from the Jeremiah Wright controversy page after I requested full protection there for edit disputes. They (particularly CyberAnth) are now on a mission to label me as a POV right-wing nut job and the Reagan article as POV and unbalanced simply because we disagree on Wright (Cyber tagged it too and if I revert it's 3RR). I reported him at WP:WQA#User:CyberAnth; any help is badly needed and greatly appreciated. Thanks so much, Happyme22 (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAs using TOCright etc

Sandy, I generated a file with all the templates used by each FA.

TOCright is used by Georg Forster, Conatus and Warsaw Uprising.
TOCleft is used by John Vanbrugh
TOClimit is used by Action potential,Joseph Priestley,Texas A&M University,Joseph Johnson (publisher),Mary Martha Sherwood,J. R. R. Tolkien,Animaniacs,Carnivàle,U2,Star,Harry S. Truman,Hockey Hall of Fame,Boeing 747,Characters of Kingdom Hearts,F-4 Phantom II, and United States Marine Corps

-- Rick Block (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per user talk:Graham87#Update and more accessibility questions (and reading the bit in Wikipedia:Accessibility about this) the issue is not whether the TOC is floated (right or left), but the placement of the TOC in the generated HTML. The TOC should appear after the lead and immediately before the first header in the HTML, which means if TOCright or TOCleft is used they should be on the line just before the first header. I think this means this version of the article on Georg Forster and this version of the article on Tolkien would not be OK, but this version of Isotope is fine (John Vanbrugh would be OK but I'm not sure about the timeline). -- Rick Block (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WP:LEAD says, "The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first heading"; that version of Isotope doesn't comply. I'm not touching Vanbrugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an Editor Review

Hi, you opposed my last RFA at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gary King a few weeks ago. I have decided to open an Editor Review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gary King so I could receive a new assessment for my recent activity on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate it if you could take the time to look over my recent contributions and point out areas where I could improve. Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

email

You have one new one. Regards, Rudget (Help?) 09:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi, could I ask you for some help ? I have put this article up for Peer Review. It has passed a GA, but i'm trying to get it to become a FA. If you have any spare time, could you have a look over the article and suggest any improvements which would bring it up to FA class ? Thanks. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry to bother you again, but I wanted to ask if you've had time to look over the article ? I know you have lots to do and that I must be taking up some of your time, so I understand if you've had more important matters to attend to, Thanks. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Son-Rise#Choosing to be autistic

Dear SandyGeorgia, I left a comment on the Son-Rise Program's talk page. Can you please respond when you get the chance. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Son-Rise Program's talk page

SandyGeorgia,

I replied back on the article's talk page.

AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 20:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SandyGeorgia,
I made it easier by putting it in bold, where I put the paragraph.
Here is the link again -- :talk page.
Thanx!
AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE RE: The Son-Rise Program

Dear SandyGeorgia,
I made it easier by putting it in bold, where I put the paragraph.
Here is the link again -- talk page.
Thanx!
AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annie, I have the page watched: you don't have to keep leaving me messages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FL director

Hey Sandy, thanks for your kind words! I may well call on you more than you'd like... Anyway, hope you're enjoying the weekend, I've done far too much travelling and it's been a little too hot for all that! I'm playing catch-up on the FLC criteria discussion, of which there seems to be a copious amount! I think I'll need a couple of days to wrap my mind around the total discussion thus far. Anyway, appreciate your support, and I may well be in touch soon! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

link delete

I didn't mention this on those other pages, because I don't want other to hear this and start snooping around. I'm gay (openly) but on that myspace page of mine I want it deleted because I have a lot of gay friends that aren't out of the closet. I am but they aren't, and I don't want people looking around at them. Although I am considered about people sending me messages (a valid privacy reason) that's secondary. I want the link deleted. I've seen other pages that have permanently been unviewable, and I would like that to happen to all pages that have that link after it is deleted. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't delete pages, and since you have that page linked on your own userpage, I doubt you would convince anyone to oversight that post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it out there in general discussion. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Also - I never thought it would be a noticed much before when I first added it because I was barely ever editing before. And I happen to be aditing a lot lately which is unusual for me (check my contributor pages and you'll see) I've done more in the last week or so than I tend to do in a year. I didn't think my user page would ever get as much attention as it has lately. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want it out there, it shouldn't be on your userpage; I'm sorry, but this is not something within the realm that I can fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on wikimedia, and it referes to wikimedia projects (including wikipedia) and contributors:

Personal information and its removal Main article: Privacy policy Definition: "Personal information" typically includes, but is not limited to, name, address, telephone number, precise date of birth, instant messenger contact details, photograph, appearance, food tastes, personal views, and similar details of an individual person.

Two policies govern personal information. Individuals in their role as editors, contributors and readers of Wikimedia projects, should refer to the privacy policy. Information on individuals forming part of an encyclopedia article, are subject to the policy on biographies of living people. "Right to vanish" relates specifically to the former.

The Wikimedia projects will delete personal information about editors and contributors (most likely on user and user talk pages) at their request, provided it is not needed for administrative reasons (which are generally limited to dealing with site misuse issues). Personal information related to encyclopedia articles and persons mentioned therein are not covered by "Right to Vanish". Instead, please see the relevant editorial policy on biographical articles, which contains full details of editorial directives, and actions to take if dissatisfied. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quirky, I think you're misunderstanding. First, I'm not an admin and I can't take the decision to delete someone else's post unless there is a policy reason. Second, your privacy was not violated: you posted the information, so I don't see where this policy applies unless you exercise the right to vanish and ask that you be expunged from Wiki (and I'm not sure what an Oversighter would do in this case). I could start a thread at the Administrator's noticeboard to ask how this can be handled, but doing so will only draw more attention to the personal information that you posted and you now want withdrawn. Please let me know if you want me to do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to Blnguyen (talk · contribs), who is better able to address this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen, can you advise on this thread relative to the Hillary Clinton FAC and QuirkyAndSuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? The editor had his personal myspace account posted to his user page since March 2006, it was raised on the FAC, he removed his myspace link on May 11, 2008 (two years later) and he now wants the link removed from the FAC. My understanding is that policy doesn't allow me to do that, and that the only way that info can be expunged is if he exercises RTV, but I don't know policy in this area, and I don't want to do something that risks destabilizing the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I would be willing to bend the rules and oversight if another oversighter would agree with it. I'm not too worried about the compromising of the FAC, although you might think differently. A lot of FACs have ethnic bloc votes and I wouldn't really care whether the guy has a blog or a userpage with strong opinions on ethnic matters since even with most street-smart guys who don't declare their ideology, it still affects their dispute/poll positions anyway. A guy might not even know that he is biased but I have seen way biased people with no soapboxing on their userpages. But I think talking to the guy who raised his website and asking them to refactor is ok. And then oversighting. Raul can oversight as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for George W. Bush

You said on my talk page that I didn't follow the instructions on WP:FAC correctly. I don't recall doing anything wrong, but I may have not realized it. What steps was I missing, or what did I do wrong? Dabbydabby (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary FAC

Recurring theme, once again, a planetary FAC with formatting issues in the citations. Please, as I've said before, you can ask User:Brighterorange to run his script which will correct the endashes, and this one also has faulty emdashes. Because someone else will do this work for you all in a second, I'm not understanding why the planet FACs keep appearing here with faulty dashes. Please ask Orange to run his script, but because some of the citations also contain faulty emdashes, and some of the page ranges include letters, his script will miss some that will need manual intervention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your issue is with Planetary FAC's, but this article (Cygnus X-1) is absolutely not about a planet. I wasn't aware of Brighterorange's script. Perhaps this tool should be mentioned on Wikipedia:Citing sources, or on a separate page about useful scripts for FA preparation? That way some of us may become aware of them beforehand.—RJH (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I was referring to is the same group of editors (who work on planets) that I've reminded about and pointed towards Orange's script on at least half a dozen FACs so far. What I'm not understanding is why the issue recurs on every FAC (I'm feeling like a broken record), when I've pointed it out so many times to the same group of editors, and there is such an easy solution? (I'm unclear why you're not aware, since you've declared on most of these FACs. Are you also not aware that I've raised the inconsistent formatting of citations on most of the recent planet FACs?) Orange isn't ready for it to be mentioned elsewhere, since he's still working on it, and it doesn't catch everything (notice the ones I had to do manually, since it can't interpret them as numbers). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only taken three of the planet articles through out of eight total. Note that by the time I got back to the FAC it had already been posted, so it was pure happenstance that I even saw your note. I have been trying to get the citation/ndash thing correct manually; I guess just missed a few.—RJH (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article length at FAC

Oh, look! I have a legitimate reason for leaving you a message. I'm slowly adding material to Everglades from the satellite articles I'm writing, and I'm at 78k for the main article now. I still have more to add from at least one more satellite article on Restoration of the Everglades. Everglades as an ecosystem and as a politcal and historical hotspot has a lot of information about it. I'm concerned about the final article size when I bring it to FA. It may top 100k. Do you have any advice regarding the size of really big concepts, like Roman Catholic Church or Action potential? --Moni3 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you say 100, I assume you mean overall size, which isn't the issue: readable prose size is (see WP:SIZE). Action potential is currently at 48KB readable prose, within the 50KB guideline. RCC is currently at FAC, so I won't comment. Everglades is currently at 54KB, which is fine, but if you have a lot to add, it could become a problem. If you must pass the 50, more important than focusing on a measure of size is to assure that you've made appropriate use of summary style wherever needed, to stay tightly focused on the topic per crit 4; that argument weighs more than a straightforward application of a prose size number. Some old FA stats are at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, and you can get his prose size script from his userpage. I personally opposed almost every one of the extra long articles on that list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was using the overall size that "Edit this page" gives at the top. How does one determine quickly, as I assumed you just did, what is readable prose? Is there a link I didn't know existed? --Moni3 (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr pda's prose size script: you get a link to it from his user page and add it to your monobook, it then shows up in your toolbox at the left-hand side of your screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, very helpful. Thank you. Using this tool, I do not believe it will be more than 100k of readable prose. I hope. I mean really. --Moni3 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean about the edit summaries, Sandy. Risker (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're patiently waiting for The Fat Man to wake up and realize all he's missed. It's not only edit summaries though: see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strap-on dildo/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Collected Edit Summaries of Moni3?? :-) It could actually be done quite easily, but the context is the difficult thing to preserve. Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No other article up for FAC got my attention quicker than that one. --Moni3 (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The request department is that-a-way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How long's that page been up for? At least I now know where to head off to request copy-editors! :) I think that page needs to be linked to a few more pages though. D.M.N. (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude totally wrote "head off" after references to strap on dildo. I know it's not that funny, except that it kinda is--Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, are you both ignoring me! :-) (I was always told interrupting people was rude, but no-one told the typing part of my brain). I never knew about Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team. It should be advertised more. I have two articles on the boil, and they are closer than any others that I've ever worked with to prompting me to do some serious editing toward a FAC nomination. Well, one will really be a featured list, and one is still in user space (and sadly neglected). I've read Giano's essay. I think this team thing might be the missing piece in the jigsaw. Thanks! Any way to mention articles without a rabid pack pouncing on it...? ie. Any way to get advice and then scurry away again to keep working on the article? Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and questions? You seriously expect to get attention with an edit summary like that ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See edit summary... Carcharoth (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: FAT has been covered in at least three Signpost articles. Obviously, our efforts at producing quality Signpost articles are misplaced if no one is reading them, even though they're linked all over the FA pages. Also, WP:FAT is just the latest in a series of Project efforts to increase FA production or improve writing (WP:1FAPQ, WP:LOCE); I don't know if it will endure or how they will choose their next Projects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. In all those cases, it was mention in the same context as the Murder, Madness, Mayhem project, and I think I, for one, assumed they were something similar. I now see they are not. But something focusing on just the FA-team (later, not right now) might be a good idea, to disassociate it from the MMM stuff. Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me bring the house down now, folks. I considered asking the FAT (*snark*) to assist in all the copy-editing and whatnot to be done with my collection of Everglades articles, but I think I don't know how to approach them, or if it's necessary. I still have one more satellite to write, and in the meantime I'm getting some feedback at Peer Review. So - I don't know how to ask or if I should, in short. --Moni3 (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was sort of wondering the same thing - what articles/types would be appropriate... Risker (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using sections in FACs?

What's the policy on using sections in FACs? I've never seen them used in them before, but I don't see why they can't be used. They can be very useful in breaking up comments to make it easier to reply to, and the TOC at WP:FAC can be limited by using {{TOClimit}} since sections lower than level 4 are rarely, if ever, used there. Gary King (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Book References

Dear SandyGeorgia,
How do you view a Book Reference on Wiki?
I tried doing so. But, the closest think it sent me to was Wiki and then to a store that sells the book.
You are allowed to reference a book, but you can't view the reference until you buy it or am I doing something wrong? Please respond back on my talk page. Thanx! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Annie, nothing in WP:V requires that our sources be available online; sometimes a trip to the library is actually necessary to verify a source :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, SandyGeorgia.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. I especially wanted to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify the issues that concerned you; I greatly appreciate that. Once again, thank you for your participation, and also for your great help on Abbey Mills Mosque, which is currently on WP:FAC. -- Avi (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Autism

Dear SandyGeorgia,
On the autism article it states that it's a brain development disorder. I thought it was a neurological disorder. Wouldn't it be better to say that, it's a neurological disorder where the cells in your brain is mixed up. Unless did a peer view scientific article state that it's a brain development disorder. And I don't see the difference between neurodevelopmental disorder or neurology (neurological disorder). AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annie, Eubulides has done most of the writing there, and he is scrupulous about sticking to sources; maybe you could raise the question at Talk:Autism ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once you save a life, they say you are forever tied to it. Does that apply to article promotion as well? :-D Waltham, The Duke of 07:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trichotillomania

I don't have easy access to that 1994 source, but it's really dated and it's better to use a recent review anyway, so I found one and used that. The "95%" figure did look fishy; it didn't match the review, and the review did cite the 1994 source. The epidemiological data for TTM are pretty weak, so we need to be careful of any particular claims like a flat "95%".

I continue to be amazed by the number of medical articles you track. My goodness! Eubulides (talk) 20:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Hi Sandy; I wanted to say thank you for supporting my request for adminship, which passed with 100 supports, 0 opposes and 1 neutral. I wanted to get round everybody individually, even though it's considered by some to be spam (which... I suppose it is! but anyway. :)). It means a lot to me that the community has placed its trust in my ability to use the extra buttons, and I only hope I can live up to its expectations. If you need anything, or notice something that bothers you, don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks again, PeterSymonds | talk 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It meant a lot to me that you participated, and I'm glad my nom sparked several others! Glad to see Risker and Jbmurray doing so well. :D Best, PeterSymonds | talk 21:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myst again

Elco has given his approval; Eal. is still MIA, but I believe I've dealt with any reliable source concerns on the FAC page (the final link he pointed out I couldn't prove Steve West was reliable, so I swapped it with a better source from IGN, I believe, so that's taken care of.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that right after I promoted, and don't want to make Gimmetrow fire up GimmeBot for a batch of one; I'll catch it next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just trying to keep the process moving :P I'll try and get to some serious reviewing before I inflict some more nominations on the populace. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eald's not really MIA, just traveling (grins) And she's a she, not a he. should be home tomorrow evening, assuming we dont' get caught in flash floods (traveling in Arkansas can be interesting at times). Don't scream Sandy, but might be gone again in two weeks, a ranch has called asking if I can come and be a ranch hand for a month while they are between breeding managers. They assure me they have high speed that I can edit from though... And David, I'll look at your edits in a bit, just worked through the watchlist, and next up is checking FACs I'd commented on earlier... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't get caught breeding between managers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, bad, bad, bad!!!! Nope, it's just a extra hand for watching foaling cams, holding mares while another farms' breeding manager helps out, working with babies some, doing some cleaning and generally acting as an extra hand that they desperately need. Beautiful filly born this morning, bay with a cute star. one of our mares got bred yesterday, hopefully she'll take, think filly thoughts! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm...filly... ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm ... beat fillies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remember why life was so calm and quiet while I had no internet..... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Black Hole Barnstar
		For taking up her station at the Event Horizon. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Heck, I made up this nifty award for RJH here and was so pleased with it I wanted to spread it 'round....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, this looks ominous. Is there truly no escape? Kablammo (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By way of contrast, here's a little something I knocked up the other day (based unscrupulously on a graphic done by [[User: Lincolnchan98|Lincolnchan98]] specially for Awadewit.

		The Barnstar of Awesomeness
		You're so bright I gotta wear shades --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 973: / Line 973: @@
 :Sandy, this looks ominous.  Is there truly [[Black hole|no escape]]?  [[User:Kablammo|Kablammo]] ([[User talk:Kablammo|talk]]) 11:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
+::::By way of contrast, here's a little something I knocked up the other day (based unscrupulously on a graphic done by [[User:	Lincolnchan98|Lincolnchan98]] specially for [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]].
+:::
+{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #ffff00;"
+|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstarofawesomeness.jpg|100px]]
+|rowspan="2" |
+|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;"| <font color="magenta">'''The Barnstar of Awesomeness'''</font>
+|-
+|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 6px solid cyan;" |<font color="magenta"> '''You're so bright I gotta wear shades --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 12:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)'''</font>
+|}