User talk:SandyGeorgia

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.
I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

"In general, people who are confident in their overall judgement, experience, and competence much more readily admit and apologize for their own mistakes. Those who are insecure are much more likely to defensively circle the wagons and shift blame." (MastCell, 10 July 2008)

"For this project to set an ethical example, it needs to uphold a high ethical standard itself." (en.wikiversity.org 15 July 2008)

FACs needing feedback view •
Infant school	review it now
Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted	Review it now
December 2017 North American winter storm	Review it now

Template:FixBunching

Featured article removal candidates
Rudolf Vrba	Review now
Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough	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

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

Braddles

I'm off on my wikibreak. I think Bradman ought to now be on the main request page, but what this means is me being responsible for another deserving (if less deserving, perhaps) article that's been sitting there for a while dropping off and perhaps being ignored.

I'm uncomfortable about it and because I'm short of time, I'm struggling to work out why and express myself properly. (Who is it that said "I've sent you a long letter because I didn't have time to write a short one?) Anyway, I'll be gone for a week and I trust you and Raul implicitly to make sure that the right things are done. Just not sure if I trust the process we're developing.

Closest I can come to expressing my emotions is that it has an uncomfortable taint of bullying, but that's a loaded worded and it carries with it elements I certainly don't mean.

Gnash, I'm not doing a good job of this. Let's touch base in early August.

Cheers, me old mucker. --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Blaise Pascal. Waltham, The Duke of 21:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Evening

What's up? Giggy referred me to you. I'm looking to expand my contributions to the 'pedia. I'm pretty nice at copy editing, I write advertisements that appear in newspapers as a 2nd job, and have been doing so for a few years. Anyway, I asked Giggy, and he said you're the person to talk to regarding copy editing at FAC. Stop by my talk page if you get a chance. Beam 21:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, may I ask what the first job of these advertisements that appear in newspapers is? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

One way to pitch in at WP:FAC is to begin at the bottom of the page and locate FACs that have pending prose/copyedit issues. For example, Wikipedia:FAC#Puerto Rican Amazon is one towards the bottom of the current FAC page. There are others, but that's the first that comes to mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Supremes

New topic of sorts, regarding The Supremes review. Although I nominated it for a review I am of the opinion it should be left on hold to give Ceoil time to finish it. Our music related FA articles already lack diversity as it is, it would be very unfortunate to lose this soul/R&B group. When the MJ review is over I intend to help Ceoil if he want's it. I'm going to the shops over the next week and might purchase some books. — Realist² (Speak) 01:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If Ceoil is working on it, I'm sure it will be held. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gimmetrow's query

I wonder whether you're able to respond, right at the bottom of User_talk:Tony1#Ima_Hogg. Tony (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I've sorta responded to this on WT:MOSDATE. Gimmetrow 21:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In other news, Tim Starling added something which addresses the problem with move-archiving and redirects in general. So, it's not a problem on my end if you want to keep using WP:GO. But given Duke's stats, an average 60 hits per day, do you want to keep up with WP:GO? Gimmetrow 21:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Won't hurt to do it until further feedback from others, so it's not a unilateral decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for you forbearance with nuthatch, and giving the time for it to be improved. I know what Shyamal felt like with ant now! I appreciate the help given by bird project members and the reviewers in fixing this, although I had to take a few deep breathes before replying to the very late claim that it wasn't comprehensive. The good news is that the next one is a single species; the bad news is that there is a next one. Cheers, jimfbleak (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA, and the extra time was no problem considering the summer slowdown (I just hope editors realize I may not be able to let FACs run so long once school resumes and things pick up again). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tic (disambiguation)

Sorry about the edit conflict. The result looks OK though. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Its actually part of the MediaWiki system, sorta like User:Pending deletion script and User:MediaWiki default used to be, so you'd need to bug Tim Starling (talk · contribs) about it or file a bugzilla report. MBisanz ^talk 05:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mangalore FAC

Hello. SandyGeorgia. Well I apprecaite that you moved unresolved issues to the Talk Page. But I don't think it's of any use. That's beacuse look at Nichalp's comments on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore. (I would not consider the first three to be reliable. The Penn University source is the work of a student as determined by the tilde in the url. World Gazetter on the other hand has been used as a source by wikipedia including several featured articles such as Mumbai.)
He says it's the work of a student, when it has been proved in the FAC that David Ludden is a professor at Penn who specializes in comparative world and South Asian history. (Davis Ludden's Homepage). So I think you even need to move the related discussion to the Talk page. Or just allow me to do it. Because, without the discussion, the step is of no use. Thankyou, Kensplanet^Talk_E-mail^{Contributions} 06:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some issues at the talk page of the Mangalore FAC (Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Mangalore which need your comments. Thankyou, Kensplanet (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

Im tring to seduce The Fat Man as best I know how, but JayHenry and our mutual friend are making it difficult!! Help; for friday night sake? ( Ceoil ^sláinte 12:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

But, but ... it's Saturday here ! I suspect the moment may have passed :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert of edits

Dear SandyGeorgia

I find it hard to understand your comment: "Remove original research, pls dicuss on talk how to incorporate, but opinion and original research has no place on Wiki" re my recent edit to add more depth to the entry on "Deep brain stimulation" and specifically the citation of a Nature study on thalamic stimulation in one patient in a minimal conscious state.

• It is a fact, and not a matter of opinion, that deep brain stimulation has been used for various types of post-traumatic coma for over 40 years by many different researchers around the world (as shown e.g. by the two references); with the bulk of this research carried out by Japanese researchers.

• It is a fact, and not a matter of opinion, that the cited Nature paper did not cite this work.

• I would have thought that it would be of considerable interest for wikipedians to know that there has been quite a lot of research in this field (although, sadly, the results are not very encouraging).

Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MortenKringelbach (talk • contribs) 22:41, July 27, 2008 (UTC)

You can sign your entries by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your posts. Please have a look at WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:V and WP:RS. If you have a reliable source discussing what Nature didn't discuss, then you can add it. Also, adding text supported by a string of primary sources only is synthesis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Best edit summary of the week!!

One in a million :-) — Realist² (Speak) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it; I owed Moni3 one :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

People link the oddest things. Wikilinking is shrouded in a cloud of mystery and controversy. (from an article :-) Gimmetrow 22:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't know how much this means to me. — Realist² (Speak) 00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Sandy. If anything remains of my time here at Wikipedia, let my colorful edit summaries spread as much joy as they do confusion and alarm. Thank you for bearing that torch with me. --Moni3 (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:GO

In response to your reply to me at Gimmetrow's talk page, I was only expressing regret that the page was being consigned to history. Gimmetrow said "will anyone notice" in his edit summary, and I was merely saying that I would - that's all. I wasn't criticising anyone for the ending of the page, or anything of that nature. Just wanted to say that, as your reply seemed as though you were a bit annoyed by what I said. LuciferMorgan (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Lucifer, not at all; I was just explaining the history. Truth is, I have been slightly bugged that only Raul and I tended to that page and other featured processes never helped with the archiving, but GimmeBot solved that, and then it seemed that his work was for nothing. All solved now :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson FAC

Sandy, my oppose still stood. The article does not use summary style effectively and still needs grammar cleanup. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Wesley; some feedback on Jackson and summary style. You might be aware that, as a reviewer, I opposed every article that came to FAC and FAR with greater than 55KB readable prose per WP:SIZE, arguing in each case that summary style wasn't effectively used; I was strongly overruled in every case (see here and here for lists of our longest FAs). So, we have articles like

• Bob Dylan (79KB and 13,300 words of prose, passed FAR),
• Ketuanan Melayu (86KB and 13,900 words of prose, passed over size objections),
• Punk rock (71KB and 11,800 words of prose, passed FAR), and
• B movie (63KB and 10,300 words of prose, survived FAR over size concerns),

compared to

• Michael Jackson with 58kb and 9,800 words of prose, within the recommendation for 10,000 words of prose at WP:SIZE.

I'm not personally a fan of longer articles, and adhere to strict application of summary style myself (aggressively chopping Tourette syndrome via four sub-articles and summary style), but the community has consistently supported larger articles at both FAC and FAR (I can't think of a case where my argument for more aggressive application of summary style prevailed). After 11 days at FAC, Jackson had garnered 10 supports, no other reviewer raised these same concerns, and some reviewers were asking for even more detail. Considering the much larger size of articles like Bob Dylan and Punk rock, which both passed FAR, I can't make an argument for holding Jackson to a standard for summary style, when its word count is below the 10,000 guideline and no other editor objected to the size or on the basis of summary style. If there are still any grammatical errors, I hope they'll be sorted via the talk page. I hope you won't feel discouraged to continue your quality reviews at both FAC and FAR. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the sheer size I had problems with. Given my contributions to the FARs of Heavy metal music and punk rock, I know sometimes a lot of info is necessary. It's that summary style was not effectively used, so there's lots of unnecessary detail on particular items. The point I made in the FAC about reorganizing the Musical Style section (which describes the sound of most of the songs on various Jackson albums one-by-one) as being one of the chief concerns was not addressed. Prose-wise, there's still lots of problems with the article that needed to be dealt with. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Greek to you

Basically, adding __STATICREDIRECT__ to a page will cause User:Redirect fixer to ignore that page (I added this to its userpage). Where it would normally make an edit to that page, it won't. This means that __STATICREDIRECT__ needs to be added to some redirects (Gimmetrow will know which ones and will probably do it), and nothing else needs to be changed.

At least, that's what I make of it. Hopefully this clears things up. :-) —Giggy 07:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Giggy; I think I figured out what eight redirects Gimmetrow was referring to, and I hope I've fixed them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This change was made yesterday to MediaWiki. The log says "Magic word __STATICREDIRECT__ to suppress the redirect fixer. For periodically-archived pages like [[WP:GO]]. " Gary King (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

That FA one of the hardest things I've done, and I have a kid! But it was fun too, and the article definitely improved as a result of the process. Thank you for all the help, especially the otherwise thankless job of re-formatting all the refs! Maury (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FA

Hey, as a delegate to the FL director, can you do a quick review of SummerSlam (2003), I plan on nominating it for FAC. This is a wrestling article, and as you know in the past these haven't passed because of sourcing issues and jargon. This article is written in a more enhanced way with a reception, no jargon, and reliable sources. Thank You. You may give your response on my talk page.--S_RX 15:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

FL = Featured lists; I'm not involved there. On a quick glance, I easily saw at least one source that provides nothing to indicate it meets WP:V. I left a link to the article peer review for user:Ealdgyth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I meant F"A". Ok thanks, they told me about it and we are discussing it.--S_RX 20:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig

Hi, SandyGeorgia,

I would like to request your opinion and advices regarding this recent GAN. It was failed, in part due to confusion about the reviewer's asking for a second opinion. See my protest and the archived GAN. I am wondering if this article merits being taken to GAR for community review/assessment? JGHowes ^talk - 18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really follow the GA process, and it's hard for me to decipher what the issue is there or who the reviewers were for that matter. Can't you just re-submit it to GAN (I don't know)? I suggest asking User:Geometry guy, unless someone else who follows my talk page can better advise you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like Sandy is the go-to gal for anything FA/FL/GA related :) Gary King (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was baseball :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Having not read the GA reviews too carefully, it looks like the remaining point of contention was whether or not the prose was so purple as to be imprecise, POV, OR, etc. GAR, I think, is really meant to handle situations when a reviewer was way off base (not following the criteria, etc.) or when an existing GA needs to be re-evaluated (akin to FAR). So, if you think the reviewer was indeed off base, GAR is a valid route to take. If you think the reviewer's remaining issues have some merit, however, I think it would be more appropriate to work to fix things up and renominate at GAN. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hand

Yes, we went through all the things in your edit summaries. That isn't to say that some inconsistencies don't remain, but we didn't spot them, anyway. Punctuation style got edited a bit back and forth and I tried to get it consistent with the logical style, but that style isn't intuitive with me. qp10qp (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Me, neither (that's why I asked :-) Can you find anywhere that comment Tony has been leaving at the top of date-delinked articles ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added something of my own in the meantime!--Slp1 (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Qp and Slp together on an FA for NYB :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuttin special

Just a little note to say I was thinking of you (fondly, of course), and that I am managing. Going to bed in a few minutes, as I have to be up early for work. Hope you're doing well and are happy. Jeffpw (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC interwiki

How do you always notice these things five seconds after I do them? As it so happens, that's not an Italian interwiki—it's Lithuanian. That's a lowercase l (ell), not an uppercase I (eye). I wouldn't have noticed either, except I copied and pasted. Pagrashtak 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anekantavada

Hi Sandy, Now that all the concerns have been put to rest as per your advise, I hope a decision will be taken soon on its nomination.--Anish (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

May I bring to your notice...

Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury and Template:Infobox Saint and Template:Infobox Archbishop of York. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ugh, I just came across one at an FA. It breaches two different MoS guidelines: 1) Portals go in see also (WP:LAYOUT), and 2) WP:ACCESSIBILITY, templates follow text in the lead. Is this going to be an issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And what would be a centralized discussion point to get these fixed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No idea on either. I've had no luck with keeping those templates stable and that make any sort of sense. I gave up on them ages ago (They are out of chronological order on the fields ... they use 'began" to mean enthroned ... etc. etc...) If you can get them to stop using the portal, it'd be nice. *I* don't want the portal link there, I got it out once and it came back in May... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Another one of a long list of reasons to oppose infoboxes in general, <sigh>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind one, if it's small. Breeding infoboxes that don't stay stable drive me batty. I long ago gave up on keeping them out, they just come in and in and in... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't fix Saint; it's protected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Pagrashtak 12:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The amazing invisible hand strikes again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ann Arbor

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ann Arbor, Michigan will need to be reviewed again starting in about two weeks. Its currently slated for Today's featured page August 5. The article has gotten WEAK. I just left a review on the talk page hopefully someone will pick it up and fix the page. .:davumaya:. 09:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like any of the regular editors are still active there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

dispatch

Yes, I've started and must finish soon. Leaving in 15 hours' time. Should be able to pop in from time to time over the next week. Blizzard at the moment, so the net will come in handy Friday. All that money just to sit inside! I trust you can handle the mechanical stuff at the right time. Tony (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

<Hijacking Tony's thread to avoid a new section> Would you mind looking at August 11 again (when you have a moment) and letting me know where/if 101ers might get lost? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I suddenly have more than one iron in the fire, Ec; I will get there as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Take your time. It's still a ways off and I'm not exactly an impatient person. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 20:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

FA size

I have been working on Hurricane Vince (2005) and it is more-or-less finished. All relevent information has been included and the article comes to just over 15 KB. I have never seen a Featured Article so small, and am wondering whether Vince would be laughed at. Is there a hard floor on the size of a Featured Article? Plasticup ^T/C 15:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the article is comprehensive, it can be short. I've had two promoted recently that were about that size. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What she said. Hurricane Irene (2005) is one of the shortest FAs on Wiki; just be prepared to explain how/why it's comprehensive in spite of short length and to justify that you have covered eveything needed and available to make it comprehensive per WP:WIAFA 1b. 16:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Great, that's good to know. I am traveling for a few days but expect to see Vince on FAC next week. Plasticup ^T/C 17:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request

Hey SandyGeorgia, I currently have the article The Great American Bash (2005) up for Peer review. I come to you in hopes of you reviewing the article, as I'm aiming to get this article prepared for Featured Article status. I would really appreciate if you would take some time and review this article to the best of your abilities. Cheers, -- iMatthew _T.C. 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany

Hi, the reference 20 in this article, "Odol, Autobahne and a non-smoking Führer: Reflections on the innocence of public health, had some problem, the doi created another link in the refernece section. I have fixed the link, compare [1]. If you think my edit had any problem, feel free to revert it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually, PMIDs and DOIs are given on medical citations; it would be better if you leave them. They take you directly to the PubMed citation, where readers can do further research on the author, the journal, etc. Actually, what is duplicated in your citations are many of the URLs, since most of them are freely available at PMC, which Diberri also provides in the template filler, but not worth worrying about. Anyway, you really should add back the PMID, as it makes it easier for others to understand the quality of your source. Readers have different preferences; some go straight to PubMed, others for DOIs, and medical article on Wiki use both, as well as free full text when available. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches for how to use the Diberri template to generate citations from PMIDs. You can see some featured article sample citations at autism and Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added the pmid back [2].  Done Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip

Thanks for your tip on using citenews. In fact, my problem was that I coudn't see the publisher name; it was there but I coudn't see it because I got lost in the long quote. JRSP (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Featured Topic premature nomination

Gack! Are you in charge of this? This isn't ready, and the merging of Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is not at all a good idea. I don't know who Xenus is, and I just got a message on my talk page after it had been nominated for Featured Topic. --Moni3 (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry ... nothing to do with that page, and ... as an editorial aside ... it's still troubling that none of the other featured content processes seem to have any sort of ... oversight ... or whatever the word is. It really seems to me that if the main content contributor says it's wrong or premature or whatever, it's wrong ... but I'm not sure that's part of that process ... and I'm not interested to horn in on another process. Ugh, I feel your pain :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Moni, I saw the nom when it went up but I thought that you were the nominator! Otherwise I would have said something to you. Karanacs (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I have any recourse but to oppose strongly? --Moni3 (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know ... as far as I do know, Raul and I have nothing to do with that page. I would think that opposition from the main contributor would count for something ... but then someone could cry "ownership". When I see things like this, I feel reassured that FAC is one of the last remaining pages on Wiki where common sense rules. <sigh> ... I'm out for the afternoon, will check in later ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved spectator, I undid the redirect, left a strong note on the nominator's talk page and entered an oppose. Moni, you should also oppose and detail what you think still needs to be done. This is not the first time recently that the person who was majorly involved in articles was left out of a featured topic nom (although this is the most egregious), so I'm going to start a discussion on the talk page, too. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Karanacs. I'll keep watching the nomination, but... you know... Do I need to post a really detailed list of what needs to be done to Everglades, Everglades National Park, and Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan? Meh. --Moni3 (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm back; by the way, whenever you see something goofy like this, be sure to check for backlinks. You often find an awards-center-type or admin-coaching drive behind the nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find any evidence of a larger movement from the nominator's contributions, but these things slip past me sometimes. --Moni3 (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Moni, I suddenly have my hands full with a COI, BLP, Legal and political issue; I peeked in there and it seems under control. Pls let me know otherwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be handling the situation so far, though I don't know who is responsible for promoting topics and how it's decided. Would be interested to know where this came from all the sudden. A prime opportunity for a passerby or, as you noted, a collaboration of sorts. I found this while looking around trying to figure out the reason for the nomination. It's not an awards center... --Moni3 (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an awards center by another name (that is, the route to RFA via admin coaching). It was set up after the previous Awards Center was MfD'd, and only recently moved to WP space. Same horse, different color; lots of editors generating lots of support at FAC. The problem with all of the other featured processes is a lack of oversight; I've seen some surprising promotions at sounds and other places, and there's no one ultimately responsible for the bottom line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's the move: [3] It was initiated during the MfD of the Awards Center by one of the Awards Center regulars. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center If they do good work, fine; if they put together more than half a dozen nominators (several of whom haven't touched the article in weeks, but add their names so they can claim "credit" on the path to an admin-coached RFA) to bring an article to FAC, and then pile on support, so that other editors have to rewrite the article before it's featured, it's just another Group to be watched at FAC in terms of independent review and support of a large group project vs. fan support. Doing all the same things the MfD'd awards center did (is it "canvassing" when they send out a newsletter to announce their FACs or post messages to all of their members talk pages announcing their FACs?). These Projects come in with a guaranteed dozen supports at FAC, members rarely declare they were part of a group, and then I've got to watch for independent review and support. I've long thought we need to add something to the FAC instructions that these large group Projects need to be declared in the nomination, but so far I've been able to keep track of them myself, and assure that an article isn't promoted over a dozen supports until it has independent review and supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that it was a collaboration that didn't seem to be heavy on finding many excellent sources or focusing on rewriting anything. What I seem to be missing in my search for what's going on is the call for a certain number of featured topics, or the motivation to choose this one in particular. I haven't found that. --Moni3 (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There's often a small amount of time between the featured nomination and an RfA that you can put money on; remember, what drives the "awards centers" are editors who want to use the "award" at RfA. I'd check admin coaching next. I do think we've stemmed the tide of this, which was in full swing a few months ago, with noms of premature FACs regularly appearing a few weeks before an RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You are better versed in this detail than I am. You might want to chime in. Or not. --Moni3 (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your post on TFA page

A retraction would be nice.[4]--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Retract what? You don't want to remove 1-pointers from the template (although they have virtually no chance), I think they only clog the template and render it less useful. That's the situation. You do want to remove lesser-pointers, which makes no sense to me, because a lesser pointer can become the higher pointer if subsequent articles are scheduled that change points. As far as I can tell, there's nothing to retract on that page. I'll peek in on TFA tomorrow or the next day, as I don't have time for it today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You told EagleOwl that he couldn't remove Ceres (for the same date) yet because I disagreed "with removing articles for which others have more points." That couldn't refer to removal of one point articles because Ceres has two points. Accordingly, and given the conversation thread it is clear (because this was EagleOwl's question) you referred to removing lower point articles for the same date. In point of fact, as you well know, I proposed doing just that, only to be shot down by you. Accordingly, what you said to EagleOwl was at the very least wildly misleading, and is probably better described as simply "not true". I've left a nonjudgmental note on EagleOwl's talk page, but I think you should clarify (a.k.a. restract) your statement. If you won't, you won't, but it is one more thing that eats away at WP:AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, a good dose of AGF always trumps wikilawyering, but even though I already referred EagleOwl to the full discussion just below (which made everything clear), I will go over there (in a bit) and add another explanation to the topic to clear up any misconceptions that may be left for anyone who isn't able to read the section below it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, people can read, and they aren't blind to implications and suggestions. I think we can agree that taking potshots won't do either of us any good?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Um. You agreed to that once before, when you requested at "truce", when I've never been at "war", indicating that you possibly were, and then you went right back to more of same the very next time an issue arose. Honestly, AGF works. Try it; if there's no war, there's no need to call for a truce. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't seek conflict with you, Sandy, you are too influential to want to "war" with. But, jeez, if you don't have a sense of how you sometimes come across, just ask someone with no connection with WP whose opinion you value to read some of our recent discussions. However, I will simply be thicker skinned about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Questoin about Image MoS

I saw you reverted my slide right of the image at Samuel Johnson. I understand the "staggered" image issue. However, with the last image (a simple text block) being so much further up the page, wouldn't the fact that the image interrupts the flow of the blockquote override the minor concern with left/right staggering? S. Dean Jameson 22:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not about left to right staggering; it's about the eyes/image looking off the page (which happens to be something that drives some FAC reviewers nuts, and is given far more attention than the staggering issue). Personally, makes little difference to me, but I know an image looking off the page will generate an issue at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha. Nice to know, as I'm working with the FACC on making a featured article out of John McGraw and England. Doesn't that seem a bit ... well ... "nit-picky" though? S. Dean Jameson 22:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Like many things Wiki, everyone's got their nits to pick, and some people care a lot about that one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any idea why they care so much about that one? Or is it just one of those unexplainable "quirks" one must put up with if one wants to see an article through to FA? S. Dean Jameson 22:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Sandy knows the answer to that, I will tell you. ;-) It has to do with human factors engineering. The eyes of the viewer follow the eyes within the image and try to deduce what the subject is reflecting upon. If they are looking away from the text, then it draws the reader away from the article; if they are looking toward the text, it draws the reader's eyes back to the article. Consider what you learned when you went to driving school: "Always look where you want to go, not at the scenery." That's because the rest of your body and your thoughts follow your eyes. Risker (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I learn something new every day. Still seems nit-picky to me, though... S. Dean Jameson 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Manny's gone

I was hoping the Fish would get him. I guess the Bosox got tired of him. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Darn, I was wishing him upon you guys ... it would have been a great deal for you. And in exchange for putting up with him, you might have gotten a ring :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the team doesn't give out rings to fans. Maybe I should check eBay. Anyways, Jason Bay, in some ways, is an upgrade. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the BoSox made a bad deal, but what the heck ... we don't need to win all the time (no Yankees complex here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yankee complex? There has to be an article. Well, I tend to disagree with you. I like Jason Bay a lot, so we'll see. I just don't have any faith that the Rays are that good. I think it will come down to the Yankees and Sox in the AL East. But then again, the Rays have a big lead going into August. Who woulda thunk? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can sleep easy, the DBacks will win the West now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout the bad news, Tito :-) I may have to root for the Red Sox West! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany 2

In the references and further reading sections, I have changed the format from Harvard reference style to citation. I have tried to follow the format used in Samuel Johnson. Please review the edit. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's late and I'm tired; I'll look more closely tomorrow, and finish up anything needed, but you haven't converted the "Further reading" section to {{Citation}}. When you view the article in edit mode, and scroll to the bottom of the screen, you can see all templates used in the article. If you see the cite xxx family there, along with citation, you've got mixed reference styles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the rest, but I don't know how to fix the remaining cite web (I hate using the citation template and Harvnbs). If you ping him, User:Jbmurray knows how to convert that last cite web template, and I think the rest is OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

Why were you so emotional about the Ronald Reagan FAR? I don't know who you are. You seemed very upset within seconds of the time I created the thing, and whether you agree or not, I made a good faith effort to go by the written rules on that sort of thing. Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Afer a brief look at the FAR, perhaps Sandy was frustrated because it was a bad-faith nomination, which is why it was kept so quickly. Next time you need dispute resolution, perhaps start on the talk page of the article, and proceed from there. S. Dean Jameson 03:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, well, lost my long reply to an edit conflict. Sorry if the second doesn't quite capture the feel. Short story: no emotion, no frustration, and just how do either of you determine my state of mind? There were three premature FARs to be dealt with; Reagan was no more special than any other FAR where editors either haven't read the instructions or don't understand the purpose of FAR. It takes editor time to archive, deal with and botify them. FARs typically last four to six weeks; a dispute about one paragraph, that has never even been raised on talk, is better resolved on talk than taking everyone's time on a FAR, particularly with an editor like HappyMe22, who will work towards consensus on talk. If you had raised the issue on talk, and could show that there was an ongoing neutrality or instability or whatever issue on the article, then FAR would be appropriate. I hope that answers your question, although I know I left something out I had typed before the edit conflict. I see you've also left questions for Joelr31 and Marskell; since they don't log in daily, please fire away if you still have questions. Just out of curiosity: do y'all describe male editors regularly as emotional and frustrated ?? And, no, I'm not in the habit of describing things as "bad-faith nominations" because I believe AGF is our most important policy, and I stick to it as long as I can, until an editor has really shown otherwise. I would describe it more as a situation where an editor simply isn't aware of how FAR functions, but likely intended no harm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry for the EC. And saying you might have been frustrated, means just that. And I, as a "male editor" get "frustrated" far too frequently. I meant no harm with my language. It seemed like a bad-faith nom to me, and I said so, that's all. Sorry for any offense. S. Dean Jameson 04:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  No problem, no apology needed, I just needed to clarify (since it's on my page :-) that I didn't consider it bad faith; sometimes Wiki processes can be mystifying, and I'm sure that the nominator thought that was a logical way to proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  Could have been. It was just the language used in the nom that made me think it was more an "anti-Reagan" nom than a true "is this still a featured article" nom. I could certainly be wrong, though, as I'm not a FA regular. S. Dean Jameson 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Salvia divinorum FAC

Sorry to bother you, but I found Salvia divinorum, which appears to have been nominated (WP:FAC/Salvia divinorum) but not transcluded by an editor who admits to having never edited the article (No, I don't see an award center type situation just an infrequent contributor who drive by tagged an article). Not sure how these are typically handled. The article's primary contributor appears to be User:SallyScot based on edit count. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary editor notified, (User talk:SallyScot#Salvia divinorum FAC). -Optigan13 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Optigan13; messages left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourettes Action and unvoluntary

I don't want to be a bother but I don't see any difference between involuntary and unvoluntary (except that unvoluntary seems to be treated by many dictionaries as incorrect). Dictionaries I found both words in treated them as synonyms and I saw the word involuntary in different publications concerning TS.

Dictionaries:

• The Free Dictionary
• Wiktionary

Could you explain to me why you changed the word? Furya (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious how someone writing an article about a Tourette's organization could be unaware of the term "unvoluntary" (or could describe tics as "uncontrollable"); you can find the distinction by reading our article on tic, where you'll also find peer-reviewed literature to help clear up any confusion about the nature of tics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is no reason to arrogant. Second of all, I am not a specialist of Tourette Syndrome and I was also not the one writing this article, so I guess you can excuse my "ignorance" and simply explain. Third of all, in the same article you are quoting the word involuntary is also used.

Phonic tics are involuntary sounds produced by moving air through the nose, mouth, or throat.

And, again, whenever I read anything on TS I found the word involuntary rather than unvoluntary, so even if this neologism exists, it is still used interchangeably with involuntary and there is no need to edit it out from the article and call it incorrect. Furya (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit history shows you did create/write the article. No, unvoluntary is not a neologism; it is a concept very well described throughout the peer-reviewed TS literature. Using the word "involuntary" isn't strictly incorrect; "unvoluntary" just gives more accuracy. On the other hand, describing tics as "uncontrollable" is incorrect and overlooks entirely the suppressibile characteristic of tics. It's unfortunate that this new organization, Tourettes Action, does things like that; are there no longer advisors like Rickards involved? Perhaps medical review of some of the info on the website would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the history shows that I input the article to Wikipedia. But that is actually beside the point. The word "uncontrollable" was perhaps incorrect but as you can see I am not discussing this with you. Tourettes Action is not a new organization as you can see from the History section of the article and it has several consultants as far as I know. The discussion here is however about the one edit I disagree with you about, as both words are used in the literature.Furya (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

FTC

I thought you might like to know about this discussion – you've been mentioned as well. Just try not to mention me :) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 14:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Statistics

Hi Sandy, I finally remembered to add the Peer review stat for July to WP:FAS and noticed that Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2008 is a red link. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That link always stays red until Marskell archives the monthly FARs at month-end (he likes to do it himself, so I have to wait). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation, I figured it was better to mention it just in case Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring baseball for the moment

I just set up an FAR on Helicobacter pylori. I watched the article for vandalism, then today, I actually read it. What a mess! Anyways, it appears that other than bots and a few vandal fighters, I'm the only one who's edited it in almost a year. I put an announcement with Jdwolff and the various WikiProjects. How else do I get some visibility and help? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Short answer :-) Unless Tim Vickers will fix it, it's probably a goner :-) Like Manny! It's in bad shape, and I don't know how it flew under the radar for so long. If a content expert pitches in, I can help with clean up, but I don't know the territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean it up with the help of a couple of others. I think this article just needs some copyediting and cleanup of some unreferenced bits. Give us a week to clean up, and maybe you can swoop in with some copyediting for readability. You know, be the Theo Epstein of FAR's :) Which leads to a couple of thoughts? I notice a lot of pre-2007 FA's being in really bad shape. Is that an issue with the comings and goings of editors, and people don't watch over cruft and vandalism? Or do we get an FA, and then just say, "hey it's done, no need to do anything else?" My one FA, I watch like a hawk. I think we need to watch over FA's like we watch over children. They need to be nourished, but not smothered. And we have to keep out the bad influences. In other words, I'm beginning to wonder if we need a cadre of FA patrolmen...they just watch over them, and call in the experts if things need it. BTW, after an FAR, does an article fall to GA status, or is that also gone? Just wondering. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No Theo here; I've got my hands full already, and my attempts to delegate ongoing tasks at FAC and FAR haven't paid off as I'd hoped they would ... everybody's busy :-) If you think some of the 2007 FAs need attention, look at some of the 2005 and 2006 FAs that haven't been reviewed yet. Apparently, not all FA editors or Projects watch over their FAs (similar to what we've seen at WPMED). On assessment, until this recent change added a new, C-class, GimmeBot automatically re-assessed FARCs to B-class. Most FARC'd articles wouldn't make GA. With the addition of a C-class, it's not possible for a bot to decide if a defeatured article is downgraded to B- or C-class, so now GimmeBot leaves the assessment blank, and Projects need to re-assess. I hear Manny's gotta cut his dreadlocks !! I feel a Samson effect coming on ... it didn't do much good for Damon :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I'll change it back until there is a consensus. WxGopher (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry again about that, I didn't realize all the problems that would be caused. I'm done touching anything until the problems are fixed (I left a note for someone too) and we decide what to do with the title. WxGopher (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost report

With regards to clarification, I've left a note on the talk page. Thanks. Rudget 12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how all that can get sorted, or what the Signpost's editorial oversight policy on statements made in interviews is, but I recognize you're only responsible for the lead. On interviews done by the Dispatch, we've had editorial control to reword and make sure the responses are neutral and accurate (although it's never been an issue), we only had to slightly tweak wording a couple of times when reporting on polls); it looks like you will need to do some editing of the responses to keep them within the realm of neutral news reporting. To fix the introduction to be more of an accurate newspiece, maybe you could change the wording to reflect North American City Projects (not all North American Projects, and then link to a page that refers to that). Also "... it is also the project that best represents its topic of interest ..." is a qualified claim that I'm not sure can be verified, particularly when the Project tags a lot of articles with a dubious connection to the city. The whole thing might be more neutral and newsworthy if you change it to something along these lines (reflecting that it has tagged articles rather than implying it has written those articles):

The project's membership puts it among the largest North American City WikiProjects on Wikipedia in terms of contributors; it has tagged articles representing a broad representation of its topic of interest with 38 featured articles and lists, 120 good articles and slightly more than 15,000 other pages tagged.

Linking this way so that readers can see the data you're referring to will help. There are many more similar, unverified or unverifiable claims in the responses, for example, only 3 of the 30 FAs I recognized were written by Chicago Project members, most were not, so some editorial control to clarify the interview responses might help. I'm fairly certain there is no "Director" named to the Project either (other than self-appointed). I hope you'll have time to check all the facts there before it hits the Signpost, particularly following on the heels of MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I rarely have to re-write the responses since they're nearly always (99%) accurate with no frills attached, as you say its never been an issue. I'll see what I can do with it now. (Re: the last sentence you make you mentioned Milhist - was that incorrect also, or have I read that wrong?) Rudget 18:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all; I meant that MilHist always sets a high standard, and is a tough act to follow :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's good :) Rudget 18:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the difference I'm getting at is that, while the Chicago Project has tagged articles that independently attained FA status, the MilHist Project actually has quality control, peer review, and other processes and elected coordinators to set and maintain standards and to help bring MilHist articles to FA status. One article running right behind the other, with such differences, could be confusing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that was what you were getting at. I've been going through some of the FAs listed in the category of Chicago FAs and one I remember particularly stood out (Oliver Typewriting Company) which was in fact done by Elcobbola (I think), perhaps I should contact TTT and see if we should appropriate the number of 'real' project work that has involved participants of the project. Rudget 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the ones that triggered my interest initially as well :-) I thought that Elcobbola, Moni3 (Ann Bannon), HappyMe22 (Reagan) and RelHistBuff (among others) would be surprised to learn that they were Chicago Project members :-) I feel badly for the spot you're in, but it appears that the text should be carefully checked to be Signpost-worthy. By the way, I already did go through those 30 FAs I added to the talk page, and relative to WP:WBFAN, three of them were Chicago collaborations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I should say so. Did my I-Pass get lost in the mail? ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola, if you lived in Britain it probably would get lost. I've left a note with TTT regarding the FAs. Rudget 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rudget, look at some of the wording Tony1 used here; it might help avoid tricky spots for you in future interviews. By defining this upfront, you maintain some editorial control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Pendle witch trials

I was very surprised to see this got promoted as it was. It doesn't seem up to the usual standard to me, and was mostly supported by the Mancunian claque. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I find Johnbod's comment about a "Mancunian claque" to be deeply offensive. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Cliques", "claques", "fan support", "friend support", "quid pro quo" support, and "member of a large WikiProject or FA collaboration" support happens on almost every FAC (the nominators who have no "support" group ... BrianBoulton comes to mind ... have to wait weeks for a few supports, while some articles are guaranteed to come in with a dozen supports right off the bat). I'm aware of this factor and I account for it by looking for independent support as well as what may or may not be "fan" support (AGF unless proven otherwise, pls), weighed relative to the opposes (or lack thereof). Even if a "clique" is alleged here, I don't believe that Karanacs fits the description, and hers was an independent support in this case, in conjunction with the absence of unresolved opposes. If there are significant, unresolved opposes, no amount of "fan support" will overcome them. In this case, I saw an absence of unresolved opposes in conjunction with independent support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't, and don't, regard any of my comments as resolved, except the one link Malleus deigned to add. I would hope this was clear from my final comment. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod, would you care to elaborate what you mean by "Mancunian claque"? Jza84 is the only editor who supported the article who is Mancunian, and there are supporters of the article who have nothing to do with Manchester: User:Karanacs, User:Epicadam, User:Myosotis Scorpioides; therefore your argument seems to be somewhat flawed. You were the only editor who opposed. Nev1 (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The nomination was only up for 8 days. Without labouring the point, I seem to be the only editor expressing a view whose talk-page is a Malleus-free zone, and others had worked on Mancunian articles. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're now altering youe accusation from a "Mancunian claque" to a "Malleus talk page claque"? Frankly I am apalled at what you appear to be suggesting, and not a little angry. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Pendle Hill isn't in Manchester though. Or Greater Manchester. In fact its barely in Lancashire. Maybe its a Yorkshire born conspiracy to belittle Lancashiremen. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I'm not a Mancuian. I'm a member of WP:GM, but that doesn't mean I'm a Manc. I'm offended by the "Mancunian claque" comment too - totally uncalled for. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Clueless newbie, I think not...

Do I have a "move with subpages" tab, or is that an admin tool? I don't know why I am so unable to sort these move messes, but I think it's because admins see a whole different set of tabs than I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't all be amazing at everything Sandy! ;) The move all subpages is an added checkbox we admins have. I just checked with my non-admin account and that is the only different thing about the move tab. (except the option to delete the other page which come up if the page already exists.) Move with subpages was originally open to autoconfirmed users but vandals found out about it and were moving userpages and other subpage reliant pages around; someone kicked up a fuss at VPT and now it is admin only. Some people are extremely proficient at moving pages, some people aren't; I still foul up some of the complicated page mergers so I leave it to the pros at WP:SPLICE. BTW, the reason for the gap was me watching Andy Murray finally win something!. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad for the Scots !!! Thanks, Woody; this move over redirect thing is a constant source of frustration for me. I guess I was partly right that part of the confusion is that admins have a whole different set of options than what I see. If I had not had to scramble over to Raul's talk page looking for an explanation, the whole thing might have been much less confusing. I still have to sort out that mess at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1998 Comfrey–St. Peter tornado outbreak, which I suspect is going to be tricky, because the article already moved, and moved back, once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you tell me what needs doing, I can do it now if you want. In terms of moving over redirects, you should be able to do it as long as the only edit to the redirect page is the original move. (ie one edit only). After that, +sysop is needed. I gues I have forgotten about moving without admin tabs and how frustrating it can be! Regards. Woody (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be done:

1. Make sure the spaced endash is the correct title (I asked Tony, but he's skiing). If so:
2. Move the article and talk page
3. Move the FAC page
4. Fix the article title in the FAC and within the article
5. Correct the listing at WP:FAC
6. Correct the peer review
7. And anything else on the article talk page.

I have never found a case where I could move over a redirect, even with no subsequent edits, so I just don't know what I'm doing wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Waltham is the authority on dashes over at WP:ERRORS so I would go with his reasoning. Can't hurt to wait for Tony I suppose; he should be back in a week. In terms of moving over redirects, I think that if the only history is a log entry, then it can be moved over the page by anyone. If there are any edits on that page, e.g amending the redirect, then you need an admin to do it. Regards. Woodym555 (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)