User talk:SandyGeorgia

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.
If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.
To leave me a message, click here.

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

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

Template:FixBunching

Long time....

Haven't logged in forever, but I've seen you've been chosen to help out with FACs; wanted to say congrats and really couldn't think of anyone better myself. You've been able to edit some of the most controversial articles that even I wanted to back in the day with better prose and references :). Feel free to archive this fairly meaningless comment if you want. RN 07:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:MED show case

I removed WP:FFA from the show case section of WP:MED as I did not think FFA qualified as show case material. Have added other stuff instead. It was discussed. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Closing both FACs?

I can understand closing one, per the FAC rules, but both (here and here)? I tried contacting User:Karanacs about the possibility of letting it slide this one time but I never got a response. Either way, I don't think it's appropriate to speedy close both open FACs when the only thing wrong is that there are two of them. At least reopen one so I have something to work on while I wait out the other two week time limit. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of them needed more work before being ready for another FAC; please take a few weeks to prepare them. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Reopening FAC?

Hi, Sandy. What should I do with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Boys from Baghdad High/archive1? It was removed from FAC because I'd just had a different nomination archived. Two weeks will have passed on Saturday, so it should be eligible for nomination again. Shall I transclude /archive1 again, or start afresh with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Boys from Baghdad High/archive2? Thanks, Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Matthew, since the FAC was not archived to the FA log, and the bot did not process the nomination, I think it will be fine if you put /archive1 back in FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dabomb; just transclude the original again, but make sure and resign it so we have today's date as a reference and not the old date. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with starting a second FAC, so there's a complete record (even if they aren't articlehistory events), but it really doesn't matter one way or another. If you submit the archive1, I've cleaned it up, but you should re-sign with a new timestamp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Tune for the recently freed

Joyous tack. Although I'm straight, the line he wants to wash me makes my stomach quiver. Now go promote, goddamn it. Ceoil (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Put me in a bathtub ... I am promoting, goddamnit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are more of a clam[1] than bathtub person. Ceoil (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Showers are highly overrated. 2. Venus has a good wax job. 3. Who told you Boticelli was my favorite? 4. I'm promoting, goddamnit, so stop distracting me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

1: Showers can go it either way, it depends on the company you keep. 2. Spanish have all the best tricks. 3. Delighted. 4. Remember what we agreed though, doom articles by Yoman, Moni, Malleus, Canadians and Cologoneese. Viva Cork! Ceoil (talk) 16:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm on for Cork as long as there are good spas there; you set the date, I'll bring the Canadians. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I've asked our airport guy, Ted, to stop Canadians coming in. He checks the luggage, serves the drinks, takes the plane up, across, and down and watches out for them Canadians. He's working out well so far, is Ted. No problem. Ceoil (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil, dear, why do you want to keep out all our favorite Canadians? Are you trying to keep me all to yerself? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I just did a cleanup of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shimer College/archive1, can you check again? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm out of time ... if I get a break before 0 UTC, I'll try to have a look, unless Karanacs happens to be online and get there before me-- I don't expect to have any more free time today, and until I'm home on Tuesday. Thanks, Dabomb! Would you have time tonight to update all the stats and archive pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I should. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Good gosh, I looked at my computer time and went dashing out for a manicure in the wrong time zone! Got it-- thanks again Dabomb, and thanks for doing stats and archives tonight-- I don't think numbers will mix well with the amount of champagne I plan to imbibe tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

All done. That champagne better have been good! Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

All Champagne is good. I've had horrid Cava, Cremant, Sekt, etc, but never bad Champagne. Courcelles (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Either the champagne was exceptionally good, or it seemed so because it was 1) cold and 2) not more BBQ beef with heat and humidity. Thanks so much, Dabomb!! We've got an RFA to conduct by the end of next week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Jail/gaol

Well indeed. Tony (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you (either of you) think this makes it unstable enough to warrant holding it back from FAC? Hopefully, this new version of the footnote will be enough to satisfy all sides. I had this one earmarked for FAC next; my other current contender, Brill Tramway, is still quite new and I prefer to give them time to settle before sending to GAC/FAC. Besides, I imagine everyone is sick of the sight of train articles right now. – iridescent 17:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Molehill --> mountain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree, especially given that the sentence "The younger Daniel Lambert was a much-respected gaoler; he befriended many of the prisoners, and made every effort to help them when they went to trial" should make it pretty clear what he did. But, no point sending it to FAC if it's going to be plastered with "oppose, fails 1(e)" comments. – iridescent 17:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Kent, Ohio FAC

I am wondering what the pressing issues that need to be worked out at Kent, Ohio that are preventing it from being promoted and why it needs to close now. Every issue presented in the FAC I have addressed and the only outstanding one, the issue of the seal image, really hasn't been pursued by the person who brought it up as a problem nor did he address the rationale I provided as to why the seal is a valid part of the article whether it's copyrighted or not (even the issue on the copyright problems page was never addressed other than by the original editor who opposed the seal and the editor who believes it is not copyrighted). Doesn't seem fair that this gets closed with no consensus because the 2 that "opposed" did very little to elaborate or even respond to the changes I made, especially with the other supports that did appear. Even the comments by Tony were addressed but he didn't remove his "oppose" because he hadn't gone through the rest of the article (but planned to do so) because he "came in so late" (it's been all of 4 days since he last responded). Yes, I'm a very frustrated editor at this point. I feel like I've done everything I've been asked to do (which in many cases I felt was far more nitpicking and personal preferences than actual improvements) to get the article where it needs to be and been very patient only to get burned in the end and have to submit this again and endure another endless review process all over because other editors have taken their time to respond to changes and "issues" in the article. Even the "See also" question you raised never got a response (yeah or nay) after my explanation and changes. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I can't give much time to FAC reviewing until later in August. Tony (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

FAs by size..

Can someone who stalks this page remind me of where the list of FAs by size is located? It's gone missing from my "files"... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length. Yes, MM would be the shortest ever. – iridescent 18:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of some clever person making a graph of that? Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clever with puters, but I could produce a graph (without the article titles, I guess you mean, just the spread of the sizes?). Off to bed now, it's 20 past 4 in the morning! Tony (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I really should nominate ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus, just to beat that dead horse. Dead rats are better. Ucucha 18:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

More interesting would be size at time of promotion, as Sandy has complained that some article writers after FAC, expanded their articles beyond what would have been accepted at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what these are? Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall &c.

Featured articles sorted by size

Size distribution among featured articles

Incidentally, did the consensus at FAC change recently? I've always been told that short articles are proverbial snowballs at FAC, and that for these there's no shame in sticking with GA. If short articles now can be featured I'd see your fossil rodent and raise you one 11 year old boy (well, except I see it has amassed some cruft lately). --Xover (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What matters is whether it's comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail; there's no minimum or maximum size. The 1,400 word Halkett boat recently sailed through (sic) – iridescent 21:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Halkett boat is an extreamly beautully and charmingly illustrated page. I'm not feeling so much love for MM tbh, though I very much respect Ealdgyth would not oppose on a preferance or meta issue. In other words I just wanted to chime so to be ample knock that appaling pun. Facepalm: even Jesus is embarrassed by that faggetory. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Faggetory (var. "faggotory") n. A location, such as a laboratory, set up exclusively to experiment with one's sexual orientation. --Moni3 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise known as "boarding school". – iridescent 22:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

See also: Sorority house; women's studies department. --Moni3 (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So thats what it means? Jesus when they used to shout it at me at school I assumed it was had far worse meaning. A location, such as a laboratory, set up exclusively to experiment with one's sexual orientation. How the fuck did they know about about my lab? Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm—love to know if Samantha and Chelsea are aware they're gracing the fifth most popular site on teh interwebs, and whether they actually consented to its release. Wikipedia Review may often be a gaggle of lunatics, but when they talk about Commons having an extreme blind-spot when it comes to personality rights, they do have a point. – iridescent 22:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I always, as a photographer, get the willies when I see things like that. I mean, you need a model release for that! Really! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, getting the willies is exactly what happens in the faggetory. – iridescent 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic - thanks very much. Actually I saw there was an older graph at User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics, but these do indeed seem to show a trend to longer articles. I think you're ok so long as the subject isn't a road junction or stiff breeze. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This is current size, correct? Not as of passage?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The sizes are current (as of 26 July for the graphs here), yes. Updated periodically by BernsteinBot (MZMcBride) as far as I can tell. --Xover (talk) 22:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, I win, I win - gawd, this article is like my old bougainvillea hedge///dang thing needs to be pruned just so often... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. For reference, it looks like your winning candidate there is currently about 184k, but at the time it became featured it was 129k. For whatever that tells us about trends... --Xover (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And on the other end of the scale, Tropical Depression Ten (2007) has grown from 14.8k to 18.6k. Ucucha 23:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Medical articles are amazing in their ability to swell from interesting adds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

But seriously, the bottom graph is nice - I generally find 20-30k is a size of a bio article where I feel it is in a 'comfort zone' with comprehensiveness fears below and size fears above...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Worried about size, are you Cas? Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(shuffles feet, looks at sky) no, not at all...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to do a graph of articles at time of promotion, possibly using oldid?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, but someone needs to write the script. Ucucha 23:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's possible. You wouldn't even have to calculate page length using a script because all the old revisions have been retroactively populated. But you'd need to be able to programmatically match up promotion time with the page history to get the correct size, and I'm not sure how easy that'd be. If there's a particular oldid you could pull for each FA from the talk page or something, it'd be fairly trivial to write a script to look them up. All that said, there's a huge difference between page length in bytes and readable prose. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The ArticleHistory for each FA should have an oldid for promotion. Ucucha 05:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• As opposed to "faggotry" (what goes on behind bushes in parks at night). Tony (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is, is that size at time of promotion is far more useful to us. Once the article is promoted, the writers can do as they like with them, for all practical purposes, and Sandy has complained that some of the large ones were much smaller at promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have missed all the faggotry fun, but yes, it is a pet peeve of mine when an article grows enormously post-FAC ... IMO, any article that is 20% or more larger than what was reviewed at FAC should be FAR'd for a new review, since most of that content wasn't vetted. A bigger pet peeve now is all the primary sources and non-WP:MEDRS content that is being globbed into medical articles. Oh, well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Godesberg

Sandy, re image status, as mentioned in your edit summary: Jappalang reviewed all the images, listed

• 1 as "niggling" and
• 4 as "would be helpful if more affirmative sourcing is provided Of concerns (best to resolve)".

We addressed what concerns Jappalang had, and Jappalang then struck all images listed as resolved, with one exception:

• File:Gebhard von Waldburg.jpg: Where does 1579 come from? The actual source does not point that out.

The issue here concerns the date the image was painted, as given on the Commons page. The year 1579 is given on the image's frame (which is not included in our cropped Commons image), and Jappalang's final comment was

• "a more conclusive sourcing (like a published conclusion) would improve the situation but it is not something I feel I would oppose over".

I assumed the images had thus been given a clean bill of health. Do you agree, or would you like another image reviewer to have a look?

Otherwise, there were 6 supports, by:

• Nick D
• Bermicourt
• Sturmvogel 66
• TomStar81
• Everyking
• Jayjg

There was

• 1 oppose which was in the process of being addressed, but seemed to have gone stale (Septentrionalis had not responded in 10 days), and
• 2 more sections with comments from Nev1 and Axem Titanium, where we were waiting for feedback from them.

Should we ping all the previous reviewers to restate their comments on the restart page, or are you looking for new people to review the article? Will the old reviews be taken into account? Best, --JN466 01:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

When a FAC turns into a dog's dinner like that, it's hard to tell what's what, and whether previous Supports are valid. A restart wipes out the previous FAC for a clean slate, previous declarations don't count, but it is OK to place *neutral* notifications on the talk pages of editors who entered previous declarations, as long as you conform with WP:CANVASS and notify all of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Jappalang alone that the FAC has been restarted, and have asked Jappalang to comment again, so we have an image review in the new FAC. I won't solicit input from anyone else. I hope that's okay. --JN466 19:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Park FAC eligibility

The image issues are resolved. When can I renominate this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest renominating once Elcobbola (talk · contribs) is satisfied (please list a diff from him when doing so). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Elcobbola appears to be satisfied now, so you may renominate. TTT, please refrain from bringing another FAC without resolving these issues beforehand; we expect such at FAC from inexperienced nominators, but ill-prepared FACs from experienced nominators are not fair to reviewers, and contribute to the page backlog. Please don't let this continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Coming up.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

FAC backlog

The reason I placed the backlog template on the FAC page is some of these are getting pushed to the "old" list and just forgotten. People are slapping Opposes on them with little to no instructions and never coming back or putting things to be fixed and never coming back. We need a group of people, reviewers, bored admins and editors and others to get together and help review some of these long forgotten FACs. People worked VERY hard on these articles and to have them all but forgotten is a waste of time, effort and work for the editor who nominated the article and all involved. I recommend that we place the backlog template back on the FAC page, make information on this backlog known on ANI and AN and get some people around FAC to help out and clear up some of these FACs. 10 or so people can't do all the work reviewing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately (and although I disagree with some of your other comments), adding the backlog template to the page will not accomplish what you hope it will. Ten or so people *are* doing all the reviewing, and nominators don't always help out-- admins aren't going to either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So what is the answer? We just let users do work for nothing? That's essentially what we are doing. Editors put their hearts and souls in these articles and they just sit there and die a slow and painful death. Admins and other editor can help. It would certainly get them away from the DRAMAHZ of ANI and AN for a few minutes at least. I just don't see the point in not trying. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

NH, can you actually give any examples of "People slapping Opposes on them with little to no instructions and never coming back or putting things to be fixed and never coming back"? And what on earth does "they just sit there and die a slow and painful death" mean? Do you think archived FACs get taken out back and shot, or something? Having an FAC archived is mildly irritating, no more than that; tone the hyperbole down at least three notches if you want to be taken seriously. – iridescent 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: complaints about the lack of reviewers at FAC possibly shouldn't be coming from someone who's reviewed a grand total of three FACs (two of which were driveby one-liners [2], [3]) in the whole of their three years on Wikipedia… – iridescent 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Time for more explicit advice in the instructions to intending nominators on the benefits for them of reviewing a few before stepping into the fray. Tony (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I guess when I wrote that I was upset that a friend's FAC (which I did a review on but didn't post anything, hence my immediate Support) sat for almost 2 months and didn't go anywhere. I was also upset my own FAC (which is now finally moving along) was languishing. My line about "they just sit there and die a slow and painful death" meant they sit there and go nowhere. I just didn't want anyone to come to FAC for the first time, get drive-by opposes (I will email you with an example after my FAC finishes) and get turned off by the process and never try again. That was my fear. Plus, we just need some more eyes. As SandyGeorgia pointed out above, there are only around 10 (give or take) reviewers who review the FACs....we need some more than that. That is why my suggest about having some admins come in. Gets them away from MORE DRAMAHZ...er...ANI and they seem smart enough on subjects, they can pick something and review. That is where I was going with that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Question re victim names

Hi SG, I understand you are not enamored with collapsible sections in FAs. On the other hand, if this were some published PDF article, it could have an appendix section at the end with the name list, and it would be a shame to miss that historical information (or delegate it to some slow and unpredictable external site) just because we are a wiki. So one idea would be to have a section near the bottom, like the {{reflist}} section, where we include the name list in a smaller font, perhaps in a two-column tabular format, like the references, and this would be akin to an appendix, in that readers can skim through it quickly after they've read the main article. What do you think? Crum375 (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There must be context that I'm missing here. Can you explain what is being proposed, or link me in the right direction?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, see Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907. Crum, the problem in this specific case is the confusion of two different issues; whether we should have article content in collapsible tables (and MOS does not favor that, so that discussion is a broader discussion-- we can't have FAs breaching MOS without very good reason), and whether that info should be in the article at all-- I'm not sure where that discussion should be had, but consensus on talk seems to be running against it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

SG, regarding the issue whether the list belongs in the article, I think that's a separate issue, and there are plenty of precedents for it in many other accident articles. My question here is regarding format and style: would you consider a two-column tabular style format, in an appendix-like section at the end, acceptable for an FA? Crum375 (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If others agreed the content was notable and worthy of inclusion, I would certainly prefer that to collapsible tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Crum375 (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How are a list of names, which while they represent real people, to most are just a list of names, worth including in a FA?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider the names and ages part of the historical record, even if it's not "brilliant prose", and external links are problematic, esp. with foreign sources. There are various uses for it, for example to compare the names when they come up in ongoing litigation. It was accepted with the collapsible format in August 2009 when the article was originally promoted, and March 2010 when it underwent FAR, so it's not something new. Crum375 (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispatch question

Are Dispatches still being written or have they, for lack of a better description, been discontinued? I'd always intended to write an additional Dispatch expanding on "proper" fair use rationale writing, but there would be little point if no one were to read it. I have to fly to New York this week and I'd rather have that as an activity than watching a dubbed It's Complicated for the sixth time in a month. Эlcobbola _talk 15:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You should do it anyway and Essay-fy it if the Dispatches have been discontinued. I would appreciate assistance in this, and I'm sure quite a few other FAC nominators would, especially those who write TV, Videogame and Film articles where it's almost inevitable that there will be at least one FU image. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If someone writes them, the Signpost still publishes them-- please give it a go, ElC! New York? I owe you a response to a very old e-mail, and am finally home from travel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha! I'd figured servers had blocked it; it can be hard getting messages to go through from even Moscow, let alone "the provinces". If you write it, they will publish. Got it - and welcome back. Эlcobbola _talk 01:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez

Have you seen the last edits that were made in Hugo Chávez article? Is there any possible better way than that to hide information about someone? I've never seen an article as biased as that one. The more I read the more I get the impression that Chavez is democrat, peace and freedom-lover. --Lecen (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez is, IMO, Wiki's most POV article-- an unabashedly biased bio, but no one seems to care. I've restored the inappropriately removed POV tags, but all attempts to neutralize the article in the past have failed. Have fun there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason your criticisms fail is because you have so far failed to put together a coherent argument. Simply saying it is bias is not enough. The artilc esimply uses reliable sources, and maybe your frustration is because of this: it not being able to attack and remove.ValenShephard 23:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, the article simply ignores many important facts about Chavez's rule and when it does not, it presents a clearly biased and softened view towards the subject. And there is not much I can do about, there are a group of editors (including one administrator - not the first time I wonder how some people become administrators) who enjoy team tag. They have the final say on what, when and which source is considered "reliable" (in other words: anything that does not portray Chavez as a peace-loving and democrat president). --Lecen (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there has long been a corp group of POV editors who maintain the bias in that article, and I alone cannot fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to name this bias or simply talk about it? Also, by the way, do not add tags to an article, which is a bold and controversial move, before discussing it talk and attaining a consensus. There was no consensus in February, and you havent even tried to get consensus now.ValenShephard 23:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do try to read the talk page, including the multitude of examples I've already detailed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You cannot face every argument by referring people elsewhere, off-page. If its not clear to me, tell me, don't refer me to outdated (you will target this portion of my message now) talks.ValenShephard (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chavez has a lot of supporters around. Anyone who goes to Venezuela will probably breath the air of freedom and prosperity. With so many editors with POV supporting this unreal view on Chavez, we are clearly a minority. And if we are a minority, per Wikipedia's rules, we are wrong. Nice, huh? --Lecen (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that is NOT Wiki policy, per WP:NPOV (see the section on WP:UNDUE, specifically, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public."), but since no one else will pay attention, it appears that Chavez won't be resolved short of WP:ARBCOM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am adding several, I repeat, several different sources, from magazines from Brazil (the fourth in circulation in the entire world), to The Economist, to books, etc... but none of them are "reliable". --Lecen (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but the highly partisan Venezuelanalysis.com is, dontchaknow ?  :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it! Look at its first page articles: "Venezuela Provides More than One Million Free Eye Operations to Latin Americans", "Venezuela Concerned about Colombia Aggression Intentions, UNASUR Concludes without Consensus", "The Latest Provocation of Colombia against Venezuela ", "Latin America & Twenty-First Century Socialism: Inventing to Avoid Mistakes" and "Chavez Hails Revolutionary Progress in Education". Can it be more biased? Anywhere you see it is Chavez who is threatening Colombia with a war and this website says what not any other newspapers, magazine or television channel says? --Lecen (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The pro-Chavez editors won't allow information about Hugo Chavez's harmful food policies

This edit to Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government removed the following content that was critical of Chavez from the section called "Agriculture and land reform." Without this content, that section is just a puff piece.

On the talk page, the editors who oppose inclusion of this material claimed that the sources were not reliable, that the information was biased, and that the information constituted trivia. They are wrong on all counts. The BBC, Associated Press, Washington Post, etc., are highly reliable. The information is true. And Chavez has been doing this stuff for eight years, and hundreds of such articles have been published during that time.

Here is the information was removed:

A January 10, 2006 BBC article reported that since 2003, Chavez has been setting strict price controls on food, and that these price controls have caused shortages and hoarding.

A January 22, 2008 Associated Press article reported that Chavez had ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border to sell for higher prices than what was legal in Venezuela, and that Chavez had also threatened to seize the property of farmers who sold food at prices that exceeded the government's price controls.

On February 28, 2009 Chavez ordered the military to temporarily seize control of all the rice processing plants in the country and force them to produce at full capacity, which he claimed they had been avoiding in response to the price caps.

On March 4, 2009, the BBC reported that Chavez had set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods that were subject to price controls, including white rice, cooking oil, coffee, sugar, powdered milk, cheese, and tomato sauce. Business leaders and food producers claimed that the government was forcing them to produce this food at a loss.

A June 20, 2009 article in the Washington Post reported on Chávez's policy of redistributing farmland. Chávez has seized many large farms from their owners. Although Chávez allows small farmers to work the land, he did not give them title to the land, and they are often required to work as part of a collective. Chávez said of the farmland, "The land is not private. It is the property of the state." Because of this collectivization, the income that a farmer receives does not correspond to the amount of work that he does. Some of the farmland that had been productive while under private ownership is now idle under collective ownership, and some of the farm equipment sits gathering dust. As a result, food production has fallen substantially. Nearly five years after the start of the land redistribution program, the country is now more dependent on food imports than ever before. Production of primary foods such as beef, rice, sugar cane, and milk have fallen. Carlos Machado, an agriculture expert at the Institute of Higher Administrative Studies in Caracas, stated, "If there is a word to describe all this, it is 'stagnant'... The government policy to increase the crop production in the country is a complete failure." Felicia Escobar, a lawyer and consultant on land issues who used to work for the Agriculture Ministry, said of this farm collectivization, "That is socialism... It did not work before, and it does not work now." One farmer, referring to the government officials overseeing the land redistribution, stated, "These people know nothing about agriculture."

Chávez has seized many supermarkets from their owners. Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty.

In 2010, after the government nationalized the port at Puerto Cabello, more than 120,000 tons of food sat rotting at the port.

Sourced material

It takes two to edit war, don't forget that. I am removing unimportant and irrelevcant information. Why don't you explain why it should stay? You can find a source for pretty much any claim, no matter how wild, does that mean it should stay? Be more diplomatic.ValenShephard 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are removing well sourced material from a journal article in a featured article; I suspect you haven't accessed the source, and you need to justify your deletion. Reading the source first might be helpful; the article was well vetted at WP:FAC, and is quite well and thoroughly written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: PR early close

Sandy, I should not have closed the PR early, my bad and sorry. I was busy and did not check things closely. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info

It may not seem like it, but I have been paying attention to your comments. I'll get the hang of the formatting issues, etc soon enough. Thanks for the help.JoelWhy (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll find it will be much more effective to slow down and learn as much as you can first. The owners of Chavez know that, and beat down every new editor who appears there. If you're not in for the long haul, I won't be able to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Titanic" needs some feedback

Hi SandyGeorgia. My nomination for Titanic (1997 film) doesn't have a lot of discussion going on, so an you please list you opinion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Titanic (1997 film)/archive2? Thanks in advance. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 01:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a very bright move Secret Saturdays. If SandyG comments on your article, then she won't be able to close the FAC. Why not ask Karanacs to offer an opinion as well? That way your article will end up in a sidewalk that time forgot, endlessly waiting for its merciful release. Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia/archive4

"National Anthem of the Russian Federation" is the offical title of the Russian anthem and I am not sure how that can be reworded at all. There is no other title that I know of and it is not like Japan or the US anthem where the title is different from the status of the song. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

But there must be a more elegant way to rephrase that first sentence or two ... perhaps a TPS with better command of prose than mine will think of something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I was given a few suggestions from the FAC and I placed it in the article. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I seen your copy edits and requests for clarifications. I provided those. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Chavez article

As it stands, we're clearly never going to be able to remove the bias from this article. I'm actually fine with removing much of what I have posted, and just summarizing the human rights abuses, etc based on the conglomerate of sources. But, that's simply not possible because there are 3 or 4 active editors who are undeniably pro-Chavez.

Is there any means of having some 3rd party come in to try to bring some objectivity? At the very least, to determine whether the article warrants the "neutrality in dispute" banner?JoelWhy (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As it seems to have become the fashion ...

... can you please hurry up and close my Belle Vue Zoological Gardens FAC nomination. The library has started to hassle me to return the books I borrowed, and besides, if it's open for too long someone may turn up to oppose. Which would be so unfair, as I worked so hard on the article. Should I pester Karanacs as well, or will you pester her for me? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no pestering anywhere from me today, as I have joined the prestigious club of Ye Who Have Had the Pleasure of Passing a Kidney Stone, and am enjoying my painkiller high. Too-da-loo! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. Bishonen | talk 23:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

Ya got that right! But at least it's short-lived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Three Laws of Robotics

Hi

I am new to anything to do with FAC and wondered if you can clarify for me if an article needs to be renominated after being delisted, I am assuming it will be so, or if another FAR is called.

The article is The Three Laws of Robotics and the last action, a FAR on 18 December 2009, is at FAR last review when it was delisted.

I appreciate the article is not quite ready yet, refs needed and possible additions Things to do, but would like to know the process so I can gen up on any further actions while I prepare the refs tomorrow.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdruid. FAC and FAR are different processes (wasn't sure if you had made the distinction). At FAC, reviewers check nominated articles (which are not yet FAs) against the FA criteria and decide through consensus whether it should be promoted to FA status or not. To answer your question, yes, you will have to renominate the article at WP:FAC when it's ready. Template:FAC-instructions explains the FAC process in more detail. FAR is where existing FAs are reviewed to ensure that they still meet the criteria; sometimes they are sufficiently improved and retained, and other times they are demoted from FA status, which was the case with Three Laws of Robotics. I hope that helped. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dabomb - yes that does clear it up - an FAC rather than re-review :¬)

I will try and get it into a satisfactory state over the next week and hopefully can find some other editors to join in.

@Sandy - sry to hear about the stones problem :¬(

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Como La Flor (song)

Hey can you give me some helpful information for nominating this article as a FA and/or GA status, so I can do it quickly? Thanks AJona1992 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Try peer review, or ask around at a relevant WikiProject. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Least TFA vandalism

looks like William Hillcourt, one of my FAs, may set some sort of record for the least amount of vandalism while on the main page. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Run over, amazing little vandalism and no residual poor edits to fix ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How did it do on page views?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know yet. Aug 6 stats not showing yet. We can check for updates later. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely that's because everyone was more concerned about the Yankees-Red Sox games. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That didn't last 24 hours, ;-) yawn — Rlevse • Talk • 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the pre-games shows!?!? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What, watching the Cubs get blanked isn't better? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

After the Twins–Royals, 3–0 hardly registers as getting "blanked"! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Checking number of promotions

Hi Sandy, the Signpost's window is Saturday to Friday. Since the bot is slow to update the log (three only), would you mind confirming that our list is correct? I advised Dana to go ahead and choose her number-one. Tony (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you check them every week. But I've always found it frustratingly difficult to determine the results when they happen. Thanks for the WP:GO link. Tony (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Stark Raving Dad

Can this article be renominated immediately, or do we have have to wait? It received no reviews at the FAC. Regards, Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I realize it received no reviews, but was listed at Urgents, which didn't help. With the page running over 50, there would be no point to an immediate renomination. The best way to generate more reviews is to do more reviews; other nominators notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for catching the mistake on Fossa (animal). We just switched to sentence case, and it looks like we missed one. I hope there aren't any others. I'm glad you caught it. I also appreciate your keen eye for finding that link that needed to be moved. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice of you to call it "keen"-- it could also be labeled differently :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation Debate

Hey, I know a bunch of people on the Hugo Chavez page have been wondering about reference format and what style of citation should be used. You are invited to join in the discussion and give your input at WT:VEN. Let the debate begin ... --Schwindtd (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: Fac for you

Re: User talk:Awickert#FAC for you. Do I get notice blacklists too :D? ResMar 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Even allowing for the emoticon, I don't understand your post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You ||wall|| Me. Well I'm off to bother other people, cheers. ResMar 13:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephens City FAC

I have clarified which image is gone (as of Saturday 8/7) and which remains on the FAC thread under your most recent post. There is some discussion on the remaining image in question at the very bottom of the FAC. Please let me know if you have anymore questions as I will be glad to answer them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see the gynormous editnotice on my page, and provide a link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephens City, Virginia/archive1 Dabomb87 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dabomb87, sorry SandyGeorgia, I was barely conscious when I typed that last night, so I did miss the note. My apologizes. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no more questions; Karanacs will likely run through FAC on Tuesday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...also wanted to let you know that both images have been removed that Fascha Nua was concerned about, so that oppose will likely change to a support by Tuesday (I hope). Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Buy me something

Like a weird monkey thing, or a random black guy plucking out a jive lick. Not ugly. Just kinda weird. I gotta admit. I'm a little drunk. --Moni3 (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Moni, I can't be certain, but I think I've owned some of those pieces in the past. Courcelles 00:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I sent that video to my sister-in-law because she once said that the people who shop at the same store where my parents bought a glass table very similar to one in the video have more money than sense. She said this to my parents. Where they then said..."That's where we got the table." Hilarity ensues for the next 3 years. --Moni3 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So how long did they keep the table? Courcelles 00:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

They still have it. --Moni3 (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Worse than buying ugly furniture, why were they shopping in New Jersey? 2) What good is a table if you can't park your arse on it? 3) Why are you only a little drunk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Moni I just have to know what random search of youtube contents led you to that clip. I'm fascinated .. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

She's fascinated by my furniture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Casliber: search terms=SandyGeorgia+tacky. --Moni3 (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you promise me $29 a few weeks ago? I'm waiting ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

To pay off the rest of the Wynona Judd poster you put on layaway? --Moni3 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I missed your birthday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well played, Maestro. Well played. You made me lol and now I shall bow to you. --Moni3 (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't you always? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

←This is the dirtiest, most gossipy page on WP. I'm so glad I'm watclisting it again. Tony (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We aim to please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I want some of those painkillers the doc gave you for those kidney stones. Cas, please? Tony (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I promised the leftovers to Moni. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that highly milky things were bad as a high calcium diet can cause kidney stones ? If so then you have my sympathy - I love milk, cheese and milky coffee and would miss them

If not then here you go - as at least these cannot make it any worse :¬) Enjoy !

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that if I ever do any OR or SYN on any matter I should be punished profusely ! Especially to editors RL lol

It was a vegetarian friend of mine that first discovered the link between high cheese and milk content in his diet leading to kidney stones at the tender age of 28 which is some years ago now. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My doctor just eliminated chocolate from my diet-- send champagne. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Not all chocolate is created equal. I love that dark, bitter, 90% stuff for instance, but if my doctor ever told me to avoid champagne I'd change my doctor. Malleus Fatuorum 16:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Malleus Fatuorum

At your age, would you appreciate being told to "run along" as if you were about six? I don't think so. Please look at my recent contribs. This is not easy work, and I resent it being denigrated. Maybe "twat" was over the line, but utterly provoked, and all Malleus had to do was commence a discussion on Talk:Cary Grant about his nationality, as any normal editor should. I'm out of here. Rodhullandemu 03:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

At my age, I appreciate just about anything, and I don't argue with twats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just jealousy that I am able to do so much work here, although to be honest, I'd prefer the money. Rodhullandemu 03:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much aware of what you do-- I usually encounter you on Malleus's page. I outgrew jealousy a few decades ago; YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I love it when these tiffs spill over on multiple pages on my watchlist. I remember why I so rarely check it anymore. As for being mistaken for someone younger, I was asked for ID for a case of beer a few weeks back. I almost hugged the cashier. Oh, and SG - what is KS? You put an ambiguous acronym on my talkpage a few days back, and it's been bugging me...Keeper | 76 03:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kansas City (the hottest place on earth, AFAIK). I was asked for ID last year, so take that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Time for a username change, Sandy. Because anyone who thinks Kansas City is hotter than Georgia has either 1)Never been there, or 2)lives a good ways north of Atlanta. Courcelles 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Curses on your house! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What, living in the deep South isn't enough of a curse? I'm no longer in Georgia, but it's still hot as Hades. Courcelles 03:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall NYC being pretty sticky in the summer (only season I've ever been there) - can't recall the hottest place I've been - BAngkok was pretty hot and humid, but one is walking round in summer gear so - a friend of mine was on a ferry in Chittagong when it was 48C and 98% humidity... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Bangkok isn't comfortable from ten minutes after arrival; after clearing immigration, walking outside to find a taxi is a slap in the face with the humidity. And the taxis air conditioning never works that well. And of course, after a long flight from Narita I'm usually at least somewhat drunk, which doesn't help. However, keep going south to Malaysia and I find KL and JB absolutely oppressive. The only thing I ever want to do in Johor is to get back across the water to S'pore. Not much cooler, but S'pore has air conditioning everywhere. Courcelles 04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Metropolises in tropical countries are the worst: not only do you get the heat and humidity, but overpopulation, dirt, disease, and mosquitoes, mosquitoes everywhere. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Are y'all saying it's not normal or desired to think you're breathing in water? To be reminded of that liquid scuba suit from The Abyss? To be covered in moisture from 8 am to 11 pm? What gives, people? And...you don't...like it? You're freaking me out! --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Namedroppers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

←Babe, just who is the user being churlish towards you? Tsk. PS I'm watchlisting this page now. Tony (talk) 04:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

About time! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I confess: I hadn't watchlisted this page for the longest time, but the potential for distraction was too much for me to stay away. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It's fair game here to badmouth folks just to see who has the page watchlisted. Tony has neglected me for years, thinking he can get me on Skype instead. The last guy who tried to get me on Skype got the hot potato treatment. Of course, I'm not saying Tony had the same intentions-- heaven knows we're too old for that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Angela Lansbury thinks your ageist comments are ill-conceived. To sleep that deep sleep. Soft towels and fragrant oils. Knees up, Mother Brown!

Indeed. Go back to work, go write a speech, or do something useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank the Lord; the thread has turned to something meritworthy. In England, there's little to discuss apart from the weather. Rodhullandemu 04:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Enforcing LQ compliance

Hi, Sandy. I just started a thread concerning this question on the FAC Talk page. I state things there in general terms, but it was prompted by my reflection on these two edits you made to Wally Hammond: [4], [5]. I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we should approach this matter. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty

I think the ce is more or less done, he indicated that his copyedit was done once I addressed a certain issue, though he then added another which I also addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez talk archiving

I noted your concern about Hugo Chávez. I recommend that you use a Tmbox or a sticky thread to summary consensus or recurring topics. --Kslotte (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine how one would summarize consensus on a page where basic Wiki policies are not understood or respected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I don't know if you work on WP:GAR but either way I'd love your opinion about whether friends should be involved in the manner as can be seen here? Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, CG! Well ... there's two things I try to avoid ... global warming and GAR !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Like GA reviews aren't bad enough!!! Just Swung by to say HI THERE, MISS WORKING WITH YOU! Have a great year! // FrankB 15:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Blast from the past! Heck, the year's almost over-- what kind of greeting is that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well my question managed to hit both things you try to avoid and I suspect with a huge barge pole at that! :) Let me try this way, is it proper to have a real life friend do any kind of review to an article's ratings where the friend actively edited? How's that as a try to rearange the question to get some results. As for the editor Fra you are so right. I see editors I know who are under sanctions reveiweing articles, editors with less than 500 edits and so on. It's really sad to see this set up so poorly to be honest. Oh well, Sandy I understand if you want to totally pass on this. I hope I see you around and you be well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick FAC question

Someone has just made what seems to me a very bizarre comment on the Brill Tramway FAC (and a bunch of others). Can I confirm with you/Karanacs/Raul that this can be safely disregarded—"not enough redirects pointing here" as a complaint seems to me to be about as spurious as is possible. – iridescent 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispenser does good work, but his messages can by cryptic (he maintains the FAC tools). Redirects in other articles don't affect FA status, but it's nice to fix them when you're able. Several of his requests for redirect make sense (for example, French language); when I seriously work on article, I do try to set up the necessary redirects, although I agree this doesn't affect FAC status. It's helpful for Dispenser to point this out, and he didn't frame his comments as an Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, makes sense now. (There don't appear to actually be any broken links to that particular article; the only redirects are the various alternative names for it, and I can't think of any other plausible search terms.) – iridescent 15:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dabomb RFA

Are you back to nominate Dabomb for adminship. I'm ready to do a co-nom. Thanks Secret ^account 19:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought Karanacs was co-nomming? I'm waiting for her to surface ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, cool, I'll for sure vote yeah.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We need to sort this, 'cuz I don't like three-way RFA noms ... I'm assuming Karanacs will show up soon to promote today ... otherwise, I've got to get busy! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you can't spell Dabomb with m.a.d. ;) Unto the breach... Эlcobbola _talk 19:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what Karanacs say. We need him to RFA and soon. Secret ^account 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? What's the rush? Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, baby is sick again (day care is the perfect incubator for all kinds of minor illnesses), so with that and work crazy, I still don't have a lot of online time. (For those who are curious, promotions will happen tomorrow; I've got a shortlist, now just need to read them.) If you want to start the RfA without me, that is fine - if you want to wait for me, I'll be ready next week. Karanacs (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, Karen, you should have pinged me and I would pr/ar ... are you already in to it, or do you want me to go through? Sorry the kiddo is sick again-- hope he feels better soon! He's not supposed to be getting sick in the summer. If DaBomb87 doesn't mind, I'd rather wait for you to co-nom ... I've typically co-nommed with folks I know well, as I don't like RFAs that spin out of control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; the baby is far more important. I can wait for as long is necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping Dabomb would tend to the F and A page on The Signpost while I'm away from the Internet (Friday, probably, until the following Friday). And I wouldn't mind !voting, too. Tony (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty FAC

It looks like Karanacs may be on this evening, but as requested: my ce's complete.—DCGeist (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ... she mentioned above that she's already got her shortlist for tomorrow, so I'd best not start through now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation

I added something to the Hugo Chávez page today and tried to correctly add the citation. It should look like this (I think):

Cite web | title = Press Freedom Index 2009 | url = http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2009,1001.html | dateformat = mdy | accessdate = August 11 2010

But, when I do that, the actual citation rather than the footnote to the citation appears in the article. (Or, at least, it did when I clicked the "preview" button.) So, instead, I just did referenced the website which automatically adds a footnote. How would I properly add the citation?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

comment from helpful lurker: the {{citeweb}} template merely formats what's in the footnote. To actually put it in a footnote, you need to wrap it with <ref></ref> tags. See Help:Footnotes. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Tooltips and collapsible text

I asked for additional clarification on a similar issue here. Just thought I'd drop you a line because I am not sure how much you frequent that talk page. Prime Blue (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware

See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Nonspecific date (1 only). Dabomb87 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

MS symptoms

Hi

After the GOCE drive where we started in 2008 and worked forwards I though I would start at the other end today.

It was either the MS article or one on some "Under 7yr old childrens numbers TV program" topic - when I saw your name on there that made it an easy choice lol

Hope you are feeling better now after some rest :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again so much! I'm still a bit tired, napping a lot-- on my for one now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)