User talk:SandyGeorgia

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

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link (and have a look at User:Steve/Oppose rationale for some helpful info).
If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, see WP:FAC/ar.
Otherwise, Leave me a message.

Why POV?

Hello, could you please specify what you mean in saying that Mozart and scatology is POV? I'm fully aware that this topic is a very loaded one, and for this reason I've stuck very close to what scholarly reference sources say. Yours sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A bit more

Good grief, I really think you are going overboard in your work on Mozart and scatology. Could you please just calm down a bit, wait for a while, and then read the article and check the reference sources before editing further? I am an experienced WP editor and the article was sourced as carefully as I possibly could. In particular, if you read it before editing, you will see that Simkin published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, and that he is not the only one to set forth the Tourette's syndrome hypothesis. I personally feel it is not a good hypothesis, but it is part of the literature on Mozart (see the cited articles on Tourette's syndrome) and readers want to know how professionals have assessed it. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope you've caught up now ... see the article talk. Simkin's views simply do not enjoy widespread or respected medical consensus, the article has multiple issues requiring cleanup, and is POV until other sources are included. And I am perfectly calm; I do work fast when I see an article that needs work, and I have long ago read everything there is to read on Mozart and TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Fat Man

At the moment, he's blocked but not banned, so he could actually log in and use his account to edit his talkpage. Editing my talkpage is technically socking, but I'm not given to making a fuss about people socking just to tell me something. I was never involved in the discussions about blocking/banning the Fat Man. Do you want to explain to me why he's not disruptive/whatever it was he's been blocked for, or point me to a good summary of why. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Er... Elen, no he can't. See the "cannot edit own talkpage" in his block log? – iridescent 12:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right. There's that many on-again off-again entries in the block log I lost track of it. I do feel I'm missing something here - I never followed the guy's career, so I am interested in why Sandy values him so highly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think because Sandy values those who write stuff, as opposed to those who police stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 14:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I too tend to be more tolerant in people who "write stuff"; it was surprising to me, then, to discover that TFM's last 200 article contributions go all the way back to November 2008. The skew toward articles related to the Howard Stern Show may well be a hint as to his current priorities. Or not. But it's been a long time since TFM has really been in the "content contributor" category in any meaningful way. Perhaps this helps to explain the dissonance between those who have not known him for years and thus do not share the "content" memories with Sandy. Risker (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right. Even the best of us can become jaded, no matter how much we believe in the idea of wikipedia rather than its current implementation. Malleus Fatuorum 14:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

EotR, it will take me some time to write the reply this deserves, so I'll get to it after I find the time to pr/ar FAC ... hopefully by today! Glad you asked ... what has happened here is wrong, wrong, wrong, and a disturbing Sign of the Times about the direction Wiki is heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I've been a bit curious about this as well, so thanks for taking the time to explain. Hope you're well, by the way, and surviving the holiday. Best, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever get the time to put together some info about TFM? Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Not yet, but I think about it every day (and feel guilty and negligent :) (If the conversation on Jimbo's talk jogged your memory, yes, I'm talking about The Fat Man in some of my references. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hallmark

Thanks for helping out with Hallmark of Hall of Fame movie Front of the Classs. I couldn't get the image to work for me, but it's there now and that's what counts. Also thanks for finding more sources and filling the blanks, such as summaries and plots. That's not my kind of thing. I was surprised no other user took the time to make a movie link, when Front of the Class was first announced. Especially since there's so much information out there now for Hallmark movies.

Your help is really appriciated. GiantTiger001 (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ack! Thanks for the reminder that I was interrupted by Wikidrahmaz just as I was intending to expand that article from the sources. And thanks for getting the ball rolling. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome‎

I offer a part apology over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome‎. I had edited the article thinking that it already had 7 uses of {{cite journal}}, so increased use of citation templates was reasonable, whereas it actually only had one (I must have seen the count post- initial reformatting rather than pre-). I assume you'll now remove that existing cite journal too? I'll then see about manually re-adding the extra available DOI and PMC links, since it will be worthwhile to have them. However, to say cite templates are not used in the article is not exactly right when there seem to be about half a dozen uses of {{cite book}} also. Had there been strictly no citation templates in use I would not have picked up the article in the first place. Rjwilmsi 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Rj, I've been meaning to get back over there and fix any stragglers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Featured content

It's alright, [everything is sorted out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/requests&oldid=431912633]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowik (talk • contribs) 04:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot question

Hey Sandy. Thanks for your recent guidance in my Homicide FAC! I'm sorry to bother you with a quick question because I know you're a busy editor, but I thought you could help. I'm hoping to soon renominate Into Temptation (film) for FAC. However, one possibly major problem I have is that the official Into Temptation film has been taken down, so the PDF link for "Production Notes", which was used to cite several pieces of information in that article, is now dead. As it stands, there are several sources on that site with dead links. I checked the Internet Archive but they didn't have an old version of the Production Notes archived. I have even so sent an e-mail message to the film director to see if that PDF is available anywhere else, but haven't heard back yet. If that course of action doesn't work out, what can I do? WP:LINKROT states factual information shouldn't be removed solely because the URL no longer works, but does that mean I can simply remove the links and keep the sources there, or would that not be acceptable for an FAC? Any guidance you could offer would be most appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 14:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a printout, hard copy? I will be on a plane today, others may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

• So, it turns out, the website is actually still active. It's just been changed from http://intotemptationthemovie.com to http://intotemptation-themovie.com. So, yeah, I feel like an idiot for not figuring this out sooner, but at least it means I can fix the LINKROT problems. :D I will fix the article up next chance I get. Sorry for having bothered you! — Hunter Kahn 17:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Tourette syndrome

Were you aware of a suggestion at WP:TFAR that this article should be put on the main page? Bencherlite^Talk 15:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, and considering my time is compromised until I'm settled the third week of June, I don't really appreciate that ! (Kind of you to tell me, but I don't have time to get over to TFA/R today ... at any rate, Raul knows my situation and that I wouldn't be able to attend to it on the mainpage and that I'm the only one who can ... ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)s

Sandy, I've been wanting to see the Tourette syndrome article as TFA for a while now. I just want to ask that you please allow the article to be on the main page at some point when you have more time to devote to it. As I commented at WP:TFA/R, I don't see why you would take the time to write a high-quality article on an important subject and then prevent that article from getting wider exposure. Even if it will take some effort to maintain the article while it is on the main page, I think that informing more people about Tourette syndrome is worth the effort (again, once you have time for it).

Also, another user has expressed concern at WP:TFA/R about your above statement that you are the only one who can attend to the article while it is on the main page. I want to say that I agree with that user and feel that such a statement is inappropriate. While I understand that the primary authors of an article should be given some say in when that article appears on the main page, yout statement really seems to cross the line into article ownership. While I am not suggesting that the article should run on the main page when you are too busy to pay attention to it at all, I do think that other editors can detect and correct vandalism to the article. Please consider that if the article were to appear on the main page in the future, you could ask other people to help you keep an eye on it (e.g. at WP:AN), and that other editors would be fully capable of assisting in maintaining the article's quality while it is on the main page. Calathan (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you've never had an article on the main page Calathan, but I can tell you that it's no fun at all, and rather pointless in a way, as most readers are seeing a vandalised version for much of the time. There are some articles, and this is probably one of them, that ought never to be featured on the main page unless they are at least semi-protected. But that goes against the philosphy of TFA, which is only to protect once the vandalism becomes excessive. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to say as well that your quite charming belief that administrators will be able to help is, well ... charming. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have had an article on the main page (not one I wrote, but one I nominated, where the primary contributor had left Wikipedia). However, that article (Tokyo Mew Mew) wasn't on a particularly popular or controversial subject, and it got hardly any edits while on the main page (checking back now, it looks like less than 25 edits, all of which were either vandalism or reverts of vandalism). I was actually quite disappointed about how few edits it got, since that suggested to me that no one was reading it. Anyway, I do understand that articles that are more popular, interesting, or controversial get far, far more edits than that while on the main page. However, I have read a very large number of featured articles while they were on the main page, and I assure you that almost all of the time the articles were in good shape when I read them, and that I learned quite a lot from reading those articles. Also, the policy on protecting the featured article on the main page has been changed, and TFAs can be protected just like any other article. My understanding was that since Tourette syndrome is already semi-protected, it would still be semi-protected if it were to appear on the main page. I also think your suggestion that administrators couldn't maintain the page is just wrong. I honestly think that the page can be kept in good shape with semi-protection and a bunch of eyes watching it, but even if it can't be, I think the current protection policy allows for full protection of the featured article on the main page if warrented (i.e. it can be protected in the same situations that any other article would be protected). I also want to stress that I still think having the article on the main page would do far more good than harm. Calathan (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

if you didn't take part in writing it then you didn't have an article on the main page. Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What he said. TFA for a high-traffic article is probably the single most soul-destroying event that can happen on Wikipedia; volunteering someone else for it (without even the basic courtesy of notifying them) is coming close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. – iridescent 22:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't nominate the article for TFA, and would never nominate an article for TFA without asking the primary author (or the relevant Wikiproject for articles where the primary author is gone, as I did for the one article I did nominate). I also never suggested the article should run without Sandy's support, and was only asking that she consider giving her support at some point when she has time for it (and to consider that others could help maintain the article along with her when it is on the main page, but again only when she has time for it). Also, I find your comment rude, not to me, but to the person who nominated the article for TFA. While people like you or I, who follow TFA/R, would know that it is considered proper to ask an article's main contributors first before nominating it for TFA, a user who is new to the process is unlikely to know that. Saying such a user is nearly as bad as people who intentionally disrupt Wikipedia is the kind of statement that scares away new user and makes people not want to participate in processes like TFA. Quite frankly, I feel that sort of attitude that everyone should know all the intricacies of every policy before doing anything and anyone who doesn't is causing problems is actually the biggest problem with Wikipedia right now (though at least in this case you didn't direct that comment at the user in question himself, so hopefully no harm was done). Calathan (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I will never forget the fallout from wife selling, and I would be quite content never to see anything I've written on the main page ever again after that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to take credit for having an article on the main page that I didn't write. It didn't sound like you were asking about my writing credits, but whether I had tried to maintain an article in good shape while on the main page. I was just saying that for the one article I had nominated for the main page and was expecting to need to defend, I had surprisingly not needed to do anything as it got very few edits and other people promptly reverted all of them. Also, from the anecdotal comments I've heard about it, Wife Selling suffered much worse because of being TFA than a typical article. Please don't let what sounds like a worst-case scenario jade you to the whole process of having articles featured on the main page. As I said above, I've learned a lot from reading TFAs, and I'm sure many other people have as well. Calathan (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Let me assure you that wife selling is by no means the only article I've written that's appeared on the main page, and it's never been a happy or productive experience. Malleus Fatuorum 03:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the user in question has been on Wikipedia for six years, I'm not sure what point exactly you're trying to make here with your talk about "new users". This is not a one-off; the user in question has a very long history of drive-by nominations. As Sandy (almost) says below, unless you have sufficient knowledge of a topic and sufficient access to the sources used in the article to maintain it against the TFA onslaught—and the willingness to devote a full day to keeping it clean—then yes, it is inappropriate to expect other people to do the same just because you (or whoever) thinks it would somehow be cool to nominate a high-maintenance article at TFA. – iridescent 15:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that the user was familiar with TFA/R and had a history of such nominations. If the user keeps making such nominations despite being told not to, then I can understand why you would say that is disruptive. I was just annoyed because you seemed to be directing criticism at me for something I didn't do. Calathan (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

You've been here for five years, so surely you're used to that by now. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Bwaaaahaha, good start to my weekend, MF ! On Wiki, as in real life, what people don't know, they make up :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a wall of text above that I don't have time to read, but long and short is that I am in one state under construction and all of the sources are in another state in boxes in storage pending my move ... Calathan, would you like someone else to find all the sources to attend to any questions on mainpage day, as well as the inevitable coprolalia-related vandalism, because if you've ever moved and built at the same time, you might understand that having a TFA right now would be really horrible. If there is one main author, who has most of the sources, and who can defend the article on mainpage day, Raul generally respects when the main author can't attend to a TFA, and I fersure can't right now ... any spare time I have is for FAC, and I announced quite some time ago that I wouldn't be settled until mid-June, now late-June due to construction delays. That's all I have time for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for all the text. All I'm asking is you consider allowing the article to run when you do have time. Calathan (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem-- someday I may :) But for now, and in fact for the last two years, I've had my hands quite full IRL, and don't appreciate having to even think about this, even worse considering some ungrateful persons screaming about FAC, when I've stayed on top of that just fine IMO considering everything else on my plate. When I get through the month of June, and am re-settled for the first time in two years, I plan to go back and see what <expletive deleted> person nominated TS for TFA/R during one of the busiest possible times of my life, so I can go whack that person. I do think it would have been courteous of that person to ping me first. Anyone trying to make an ownership point at TFA/R should consider who has the sources and in what box they reside right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Passerby suggestion: Having read Wikipedia:TFAR, I find nothing about asking the FA's nominator before suggesting it appears on the main page. Since it seems to be an unpleasant experience for some, perhaps it ought to be a requirement to have the nominator's endorsement before proposing it? Then people's time would not be wasted. AD 17:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No need-- it's common sense. The only problem was when people objected to the removal, although Raul has long stated he respects requests from the main authors. Glad it's gone-- someday it may go up, but hopefully that will be when I'm near the sources, not half a country away from sources in a box. Had James Durbin (singer) won American Idol, that might have been a good time to feature it-- the right time will come. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

12 Gauge (album)

Hi SandyGeorgia! I have nominated the article on the 12 Gauge album for FAC again, and Nikkimaria and several others gave some good pointers. The article is so vastly different to what it was between its first nomination and now (even after the second nomination was made), that I was hoping to get another pair of eyes to look at it. The current nomination archive is located at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/12_Gauge_(album)/archive2. You may recall telling me that I can ping users, so long as I don't canvass, but that I should also consider the "wait" option. My article just entered the "Older nominations" section of the FAC page, so I feel it's okay to start asking for any last minute reviews before the article returns to its 14-day purgatory! I would love it if you could swing by and read it; if you are too busy, let me know here, and perhaps I can ping Laser or David Fuchs instead. Thank you so much : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 23:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

FAC candidate - Bryan Gunn

Hi Sandy... I'm a bit rusty with FACs, sadly. What's the status of the article - do I need to get any of the reviewers to return? And do I need more supports? Do you think it would help nominators and reviewers if the delegate(s) placed some kind of status thingy on each FAC page and amended it each time they reviewed? Thanks --Dweller (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Today's featured list looks just about ready

Hi Sandy. I remember a few months back you asked to be kept informed on any developments on the Today's featured list front. I've explained the latest situation, and provided all the relevant links, at Raul's talk page in this section. Regards, —WFC— 18:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Heart Peaks

Hey. I was wondering if topographical map sources are problematic for bringing articles to FA. There is one in the Heart Peaks article that sources half of the Structure section. Volcanoguy 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I should hope not... most highway articles use maps to source the "route description" sections. Imzadi 1979 → 21:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Just want to know because I have never used topographical maps in FA articles before. Statements like "Heart Peaks is at least 33 km (21 mi) long and no more than 19 km (12 mi) wide at its base" is from measuring the length and width of the volcano's largest contour line. Surely not everyone is great at using maps. Volcanoguy 22:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

FAC cliffs notes

Hey. Given your busy schedule right now on top of Karanacs/Laser brain being inactive, I went through some of the older FACs, noting where it seems everything is at now in hopes that it would make your next run-through easier. List if from bottom up:

• Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895): Comments left a week+ ago not addressed due to nominator inactivity. Left a message at MILHIST, so could be ready for promotion if both recent commenters support; if no work is done in the next week this would unfortunately have to be archived.
• Flourine: Grahamcolm just opposed yesterday, and his comments are currently being addressed. If he moves to support once concerns are addressed this can be promoted.
• Guy Fawkes Night: This is not an easy one. Those who seem against FAC seem to hate it due to the lack of recent trends and activities, which I'm against adding, and it seems Parrot and others are as well. No recent comments, so you'll have to make a judgment call on this next run-through.
• Covent Garden: Your concerns, as well as new ones from Cryptic, remain unaddressed, and not quite sure why. If they're still there at week's end then archiving may be needed.
• Luke Schenn: Sarastro's comments still being addressed. Promotion/archival could come down to him.
• Star Trek V: The Final Frontier: More reviews still needed.
• Kenneth Walker: One more solid review would be nice. Once that happens and image concerns are fully addressed then this could be ready.
• James E. Boyd (scientist): One or two more reviews would be ideal. RJHall and Mike Christie's reviews were very detailed, which tells me there was quite a bit to tweak.
• Rhabdomyolysis: A lot was modified today, though it'll be up to Axl if he thinks the oppose still stands; once other reviews are addressed nom will have to ping.
• Hurricane Gordon (2006): Looks ready for read-through by you and, perhaps, promotion as all concerns are addressed.
• 12 Gauge (album): Archiving would normally be right but this already failed for lack of comments once. I'll try and get to this tonight though I'm not the biggest fan of reviewing music articles.
• Voalavo gymnocaudus: Only 10 days old but already looks ready for final checks/promotion.

Hope this helps; if it doesn't then nevermind, since you may already have a listing a lot like this you go through for all I know. Actually by doing this I see where any backlog issues come from. So many end up getting 80% of the way there then stalling, and when it gets that far archiving's never fun. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

re your edit to User talk:Jimbo Wales

I regret to advise you that you have mispelled the word wimmin. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Dag nab it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gobrecht dollar

Hi Sandy. Regretfully, I'd like to ask a favor of you. Could you please withdraw the FAC for Gobrecht dollar? The reason is that a couple of editors have expressed their opinion that the article is not yet ready for featured article status, and I trust their judgement and I agree that more "polishing" would really improve the article considerably. I know that I could close the FAC myself, but I'm not familiar with the protocol and I think I remember reading somewhere that only delegates should close FACs. Thanks in advance!-RHM22 (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, asking the favor isn't regrettably, but the subject is! That didn't read as well as I meant it to.-RHM22 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Imzadi 1979 → 00:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse

You, I note, were one of the last people to interact with user Mattisse on enWP prior to xyr final indefinite block.

Your considered opinion on seemingly similar disruptive behaviour on Wikinews would be welcome (see n:WN:WC.) --Brian McNeil /^talk 07:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian McNeil (talk • contribs)

Odd you and Malleus get one of these but I don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, SandyGeorgia, for your recent help keeping FAC on track with regard to consolidation of comments and keeping the focus on point. Much appreciated. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Update: After seeing your structural formatting I made some additional organizational edits ([1]) – but please feel free to change it if there is a better way to do that. :) -- Cirt (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I had seen that and found it odd. I thought it best for me to not get directly involved in that issue as the FAC nominator, and let others deal with it. Rather, it seemed appropriate behavior for me to simply do my best to attempt to address comments as they come up, at the FAC. -- Cirt (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, with regard to issues with the account above, would you be willing to disregard its "oppose" at the FAC? -- Cirt (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I take into account editor history at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Jeez! That's me sunk then. :-( Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Cheer up. You always have the option of a productive future creating templates with smiley faces, talkback messages and Facebook "like" symbols. In your spare time you can sneak "In Popular Culture" sections onto the pages of various classics of literature, seminal figures in history, etc. Those are huge contributions to Wikipedia.  – Ling.Nut 00:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I could go so many ways with that, but until SandyG is moved and sorted I'll just stew. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you stewing about ? A MF review is a good review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

All I meant was that I'll keep my banter off your talk page until you're settled again; I've got quite enough banter on my own to be getting on with for now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Fluorine (TCO take)

Please give it more time, Sandy. Such a crucial article. I know you disagree with article improvement during FA, but it is working, plus this is the submitter's first one.

Several images have been improved (I just struck another, as we got a donation). The lead photo is still a concern and possibly the F2 image. We are really "on it" to pound out every one. Takes time with donations and the like.

I have (just now) requested a copyright examiner to check it out with automated tools and all that. My overall impression is positive (unlikely a plagiarism article), but would feel better if had the scrub.

I personally think organization and prose need a tighter scrub. It hits the right content emphasis (I have read enough to see that). It is still noticeable as suffering from the Wiki multiple editor melange though and doesn't read as smooth as something by Greenwood or Cotton.

We probably have the clear majority of the assertions referenced, but I have found a few places where I checked a reference and the article wasn't the right one to back up a fact. (Fact was right, but the referenced article did not discuss what we want.) And some minor technical errors. (I think this is a result of relying on old content or other wiki articles or "properties databases", but I think at FA, this is the time to have checked all that stuff...)

TCO (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Anna of East Anglia/archive1

I gather you were just waiting on the image review- I'm now satisfied with the licensing and sources provided for all the images in use in the article. J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know-- will look next time I run through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll run through FAC today/tomorrow. Do you need me to take this weekend too? Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Karen, that would be fabulous ... I'm up to my eyeballs with movers, and won't get a break until 6/27. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll pick up this weekend and do Tue next week. We may have a week-long gap then. I'll have a houseful of people helping me pack the weekend of the 25th and I'm moving on the 28th/29th. Time permitting, I might be able to pr/ar on Friday the 24th, but that depends. Good luck with your move!! Karanacs (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured Sounds Rules Changes

Re your post here,
If you have suggestions as to how to shape up FS, by all means suggest them at WT:FSC. The criteria went though a rewrite recently, and the community there seems to be receptive to change at the moment. FS has popular support for getting on the main page, but its leadership, both past and current, is aware of the fact that FS has... shortcomings. A purge of current FSes is needed, but before that most of the rules need rewriting. You're experienced in the FA process, if you can lend FS a hand by showing it how best to get its house in order that would be most welcome. You don't need to stay and help out if sounds aren't your cup of tea, but FS has had chronic instability, especially in its leadership, for a long time. It needs someone that knows what they're doing to show it the ropes.
Sven Manguard Wha? 04:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

They sure do, but I don't have time ... basically, the buck has to stop somewhere as it does at FAC, and we don't see that kind of accountability over there. And until they do, they don't belong on the main page ... I'm sorry I missed that discussion and didn't see it until after it was over. On the other hand, they're no worse than some other stuff on the main page, like DYK ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

On that topic, I just glanced at the main page, and saw a featured picture for something allegedly called a "roadside hawk", curiously a Latin American bird, whose article gives no indication what the damn thing is actually called in Spanish or Portuguese, or who made up the name "roadside hawk". Unless the bird exists in English-speaking countries, I'd sure like to know what it really is and how it came to be called a "roadside hawk" on Wikipedia. Sheesh. Why do we put things on the main page that raise more questions than answers? The Spanish wiki calls it a gavilán pollero, aguilucho de ala rojiza, or taguato común, none of which have anything to do with "roadside". Apparently, these folks call it a "roadside hawk", but it would be nice if our article told our readers what it's called in the countries it's actually found in, like Gavião-carijó in Brazil. Apparently, en.wiki doesn't consider its name in the countries in which it lives important. Can't we put quality articles on the main page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hah, you think that's bad, how's about...this - called "Great Northern Diver" by the british, "Common Loon" by the Americans...and the official name is now a hybrid..used by...??? But folks will adapt - the Magpie-lark is a friendly little bird here in urban parks and gardens - people in NSW and Qld call(ed) it a Peewee, and in Victoria it is a Mudlark...so we have a new official name...which now most folks use.Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I look at Featured Pictures, usually art ones, the captions are normally appalling, either with basic mistakes or missing basic information. They don't seem to get any thought in the selection process. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

FAC Nominations

My article on Kenneth Walker has now been at FAC for over a month. I notice that another editor has been granted a fiat to nominate a second article for FAC. I was wondering if I could do the same. I have several articles waiting. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, Hawkeye. Karanacs (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary quite contrary

I've tried a few times but I seem can't do anything with Talk:Mary Anning. Can someone take care of the AH stuff there. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. Thanks, Gimme. Karanacs (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both. Karen, things are progressing well here, and there is a (remote) chance that I will find time to pr/ar on Sunday-- if you're swamped, you might hold off in case I can get there? On the other hand, if you have time, I've still got my hands full ... check with me before you pr/ar? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I should be fine this weekend, Sandy. It's the following weekend that I'll be unavailable. You go ahead and plan to take the weekend off and work on your personal stuff. It's certainly your turn! Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

you're a gem ... I wish I could do more the following weekend, but it will be impossible ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Question about the International Men's Day entry

Hello Sandy. I wonder if you could cast your eye on the inclusion of a PNG.logo to the International Men's Day entry which is named after the man who created it- he has named it "Adam Badge". His full name is Adam Alexandru, he runs an insignificant website from Moldova devoted to IMD. The material on his website is copied directly from the official Global IMD Website and elsewhere. To my knowledge no celebrations of IMD have yet taken place in Moldova. The name Adam Alexandru is not mentioned in one single news article or reliable source anywhere in relation to International Men's Day. My question is this:

Is it ok with WP policies to name a badge after oneself and upload it to a Wikipedia entry, when that person has no notability whatsoever in the context of IMD history or events?

If you are unable to intervene could you please recommend an Admin who may be able to assist in clarifying this issue. Many thanks. 121.223.37.124 (talk) 02:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Addenda- The creator of the Adam Badge now claims that he has named his badge after the Biblical Adam from the Christian book of Genesis. Unfortunately this interpretation also leads to problems as IMD is not based in any one religion; the reference to the Biblical Adam is simply misleading about the officially pluralistic basis of the International Men's Day. Its basically a branding issue. I would add that the IMD Global Website previously rejected the Adam badge due to the appearance of the name Adam. It has no official endorsement. Perhaps one remedy might be to remove the reference to Adam from the logo? 121.223.37.124 (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

International units.

I am doing a GA review for Chevrolet Volt, which may likely come your way at WP:FAC in the near future. The author has claimed an exception to conversion standards for internationally prevailing units of measure. E.g., "Normally you convert Kwh to MJ, but not kW is international convention if I am not mistaken", "engine volume is expressed in liters by international convention", etc. Is this acceptable?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• We certainly use the second in the UK, as "litres" of course, & I think did so even before we supposedly went metric 30-odd years ago. Sounds ok to me. Don't know about the 1st. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Does this mean these are instances where conversion is not necessary?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

For "litres", certainly. What would it be converted to anyway, quarts? Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Engine displacement in the US is traditionally measured in either liters/cc (cubic centimeters, or a milliliter) or cubic inches. Imzadi 1979 → 01:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are instances where conversion is not necessary (eg some science articles) and that is covered at Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Which units to use; I have not looked at this particular article or situation. Please read all of the above link, MOS:CONVERSIONS and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Units of measurement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Gonna go read that. Want to get rid of the deg-F in Fluorine. Even though I'm 'murican, I HATE how we get the cruft of the numbers (four of them, if conversions and a range) inside sentences.TCO (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

At WT:FOUR the topic of collaboration has come up. How many WP:FACs are there with three editors that have more than 500 edits. I am familiar with Inauguration of Barack Obama because it is one I was involved in. I am wondering how common such an extensive collaboration is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that depends on how well people use the preview button. Ucucha 21:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I am bad at that sometimes but of my 579 edits, probably 500 of them are good, but if you want to take the number down to 400 feel free.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think that FACs where even one author had at least 500 edits are fairly rare. I made only 13 edits on my last FA. Ucucha 21:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting point though. I think it's more likely that a "core" topic will have more edits and by more people. An obscure topic is more amenable to off-line single-person development.TCO (talk) 02:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

User account issue

Hi SandyGeorgia,
I have been attempting to sign on my user account for the last 10 minutes.
I've been using the right password and for some reason it's saying it's not valid; however, it is.
It might be possible that someone hacked my account recently and changed my password.
Can you please help me?
Thanks.
User:ATC 108.41.105.93 (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(Not SandyGeorgia.) If you are really sure you're not mistyping the password, there's nothing I know of that can be done short of persuading a software developer to manually change your password. If you had an e-mail address set in Special:Preferences, you could send a new (automatically generated) password to your e-mail address, but it appears that you don't have an e-mail address set. Ucucha 00:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi ATC - I do that all the time - type too fast, make a mistake, get an error message, and have to try again. Also once I couldn't get in at all, but it was for some reason the fault of the network at the time and not my password at all. You might just wait for a little while and try again. No one has edited using your account, so I doubt it's been hacked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Truthkeeper88, I appreciate the help! User:ATC 108.41.105.93 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by the sock account at FAC

Sandy, I am not seeing much here that is actionable, and it has been made clear to me that this sock account is carrying out vindictive behavior from its prior sockmaster account. Can further disruption from this sock be discounted? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious - how do we know this is a sock acct? Given that the most recent comments were made in response to my review; and my only interaction with that acct was not exactly stellar, I'm wondering if it's the same account that's been vandalizing my articles and bothering me on my page. If so, I'd report it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88, see diff and diff. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day; we don't discount anything that is actionable, but we do take into account reviewer history (I've believe I've already stated this previously).
2. Other editors make unhelpful reviews-- we don't just ignore them, we deal with anything actionable, take their history at FAC into account, and carry on the best we can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

They guy is pretty toxic to the process though, to submitters. Do what makes sense, truth. If he gives you something that is an insight, use it. If not, don't. Don't worry about othe people not having your back or the like. We all know he is 56skidoo. I could go troll his ass, but you know how candy-ass this site is. just consider it having happened.

Sand, I would intervene though, if he is bullying an FAC "first-timer" though. truth should be able to handle the bizarre Wiki experience. But if 56 starts driving away valuable additions...that would be a loss for your program.TCO (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)