User talk:SandyGeorgia

Lieberman

Might as well revert all the way back: I was trying to keep up with the POV as it was being inserted, but decided to wait for it to finish. You can revert over all of my edits, as I was just trying to keep up with the POV inserts; and the Table of Contents was destroyed with that whole series of edits. Sandy 01:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sandy,

I tried to keep your edits, delete his vandelism. Looks like some others are taking it up now.

There's another page related to the Senate race:[1]

I don't see any reason why you remove a criticism by an anoymous user (not me or people I know of).

08:16, 4 August 2006 83.52.113.169 (Talk) (LionO)

Please reconsider and feel free to put it back. --Stephenzhu 22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy X

Would you agree on closing the Final Fantasy X review? It seems that major concerns have been addressed and there is no need for FARC. Joelito (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette syndrome

Hi! I’m sorry I haven’t done anything for a while—I underestimated the time I’d need for other things. Regarding the collage, I’m still not too sure what to use…

freely usable pictures tagged with ‘children’ on Flickr: [2], [3],
ditto, ‘people’: [4], [5].

Maybe some of those look good to you. —xyzzy_n 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to pick some images, crop them and arrange them in a way that does not offend people with an understanding of aesthetics too strongly. You did describe the kinds of images that would be useful, but I am, apparently, not as good at evaluating human faces as I should be to do this efficiently. The links above are to collections of miscellaneous images in which the keywords ‘children’ or ‘people’ occur and which we can use here. If you would pick some of those images (click on them to get to their pages), I could probably put them together relatively quickly. (Also, you know way more about the topic to be illustrated than I do.) —xyzzy_n 17:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biography Project

Hi Sandy! I wanted to thank you for being so diligent and announcing FACs and FARs on our Talk page! This weekend I've completely overhauled the whole project structure and we now have a place to actually post these in a more prominent area :-) Here's the direct link for editing, but it's transcluded into our new sidebar that's on every Project page... Thanks and Cheers! plange 17:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem, if you remember, that's cool, if you don't, no biggie, I'll move :-) plange 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad FAC

Hello. I have significantly expanded all the references used in Ahmedabad. Please check out the article again. Thanks for taking the time. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 17:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo! Please do not forget to take a look at the Darjeeling fac. Thanks a lot for your comments in Satyajit Ray. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks a lot. I was ashamed to see some mistakes pointed out by you, like the sentence on colonial archirecture. It was a case of careless overlooking. Anyway, tried to modify the article accordingly. Having more looks to copyedit further.

One problem,IMO, is the English we use in India is more a functional English rather than grammatically perfect English. So many errors creep in. And only native speakers or English scholars find out those. Please try to see the article after 1 or 2 days. Thanks a lot, again. Also thanks for the caveat on Tony :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Thanks for the update on Ahmedabad FAC. I have addressed the points raised by you. Here's the diff for your reference. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 17:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You guys are doing wonderful job at FAC. I will make it a point to look carefully at the references from all Indian FACs. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 11:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Honor

Hi Sandy—Yeah, I've just run through it, and I think it's OK to close from the 2a perspective. Just got another email bounce from a message I sent you a few days ago. Tony 13:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

Hi! Thanks for notifying me, but I have already voted at the Lego nomination. I now voted at the other two. Is there anything else I'm supposed to do? I've already stated my concerns when nominating. Todor →Bozhinov 14:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that's allright. Please notify me in the future too then :) Todor →Bozhinov 14:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

email

Just replied to both of your addresses. Fingers crossed. Tony 16:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail now seems to be working <sheesh> ! Sandy 16:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natche24

Natche24's first version of the Szatmari read:

"Peter Szatmari

Diagnosic criteria for Aspergers

  1.  Solitary - two of the following:
         * No close friends
         * Avoids others
         * No interest in making friends
         * A loner
  2. Impaired Social Interaction - one of the following:
         * Approaches others only to have own needs met
         * A clumsy social approach
         * One-sided responses to peers
         * Difficulty sensing feelings of others
         * Detached from feelings of others
  3. Impaired Nonverbal Communication - one of the following:
         * Limited facial expression
         * Unable to read emotion from facial expressions of child
         * Unable to give messages with eyes
         * Does not look at others
         * Does not use hands to express oneself
         * Gestures are large and clumsy
         * Comes too close to others
  4. Odd Speech - two of the following:
         * Abnormalities in inflection
         * Talks too much
         * Talks too little
         * Lack of cohesion to conversation
         * Idiosyncratic use of words
         * Repetitive patterns of speech
  5. Does not meet DSM-III-R criteria for:
         * Autistic disorder"

This read to me as an attack page. The message I put on his page was a template, subst2. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco Smoking

Can you please give me more detail on how the page doesn't conform to MOS? --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putnam

Sandy, query for you here in case you miss it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony criticised a sentence introduced by this edit. Gimmetrow 02:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back at the edits by Trodel that upset Francesco. I'm not justifying the edit summary but I think perhaps Trodel was, unintentionally but in fact, removing useful information. I'm not sure, but if that is the case then one can understand Francesco's frustration. Gimmetrow 02:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, you're good: I missed that. Gimmetrow, have you been able to establish a rapport with Francesco? I'd sure like to see him delete that personal info from the FAC, but I don't dare suggest it. Sandy 02:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did suggest it on his talk page; he hasn't responded. I am becoming sort of an archeologist here. I just caught a sneaky reversion someone did to a 5-month old version, and a while back found a case of misinformation-vandalism nearly five years old. That was a bad week for my faith in wikipedia.... Gimmetrow 02:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know who to call when I need a sleuth :-) I'll read Francesco's talk page: I hope others will stop feeding the frustration, and we can get him to delete that. Sandy 03:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bob Dylan

Hi. I'd like to ask for a favour. There is a lot of confusion at Talk:Bob Dylan about what level of citation is appropriate, or more specifically, whether the {{citation needed}} templates should stay. It is a bit of a m:Walled garden there, and it is not clear to me that what they are comparing the article to is current demands for referencing involved at WP:FAC. If you would take a look and add, subtract, declare "just right" what is marked as needing citations, it would be helpful. Thanks. Jkelly 03:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as I was about to hit the sack :-) I'll look in there now and see if it's something I can do tonight, if not tomorrow. Sandy 03:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REVIEW

Sandy, I've set up a page at WP:REVIEW, which I hope we can write up to give advice to FAC reviewers about which issues are grounds for objections and which aren't, etc. If both reviewers and candidates can see what's required, we'll have more consistency and fewer disappointments, and hopefully also less work for reviewers because candidates will come more prepared. I hope you'll help to write the page as you're one of the experienced reviewers, and therefore know best what people should be looking out for. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, don't get upset about that page. It's just a draft of an idea. I didn't even put the proposed guideline template on it, because I don't see it as even having reached that stage yet (though I see someone else has added it). The Putnam thing will die down soon. You and Tony do a great job and an important one, and the page will not undermine that. On the contrary, I hope you'll contribute what you know based on your experience of reviewing, so we can try to distill the essence of a good review. I have a good working knowledge of the policies, but no FAC review experience, so I can't write it without your and Tony's input.

I see you have no e-mail in your preferences, but if you want to e-mail me at any point to discuss further, I'm slimvirgin at gmail dot com. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I second that. I apologise if this has caused any upset. The intention is to make the process easier. You have done a great job on the Putnam thing, and can I say again, my beef was not about the excellent work you have done. And of course I am willing to help with reviewing work where my relatively limited expertise allows. Dbuckner 07:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wacky Putnam

Hey! I just wanted to send you a note of thanks for the editing you're doing on the Hilary Putnam FAC. Don't let Dbuckner throw you around; despite his expertise, he's just often as right as he is wrong. Lucidish 15:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lieberman mediation

Hello, I have volunteered to mediate this case. Please see my comments over at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04 Joe Lieberman. Thanks! Fishhead64 20:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fishhead, but I'm really just an observer to the mess. I'll kick in whatever I can. Sandy 20:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thanks for the note, Sandy. I took some time to look at the work you and Tony and the others are doing on reviewing generally, and it seemed pretty good. Apologies again for any upset caused. I'll step back from this for now. Dbuckner 14:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query about citations

Sandy, I have a query about refs. Wikipedia:What is a featured article? refers to including "a 'References' section where the references are set out, complemented where appropriate by inline citations (see Wikipedia:Citing sources)." I'm unsure what this means. Does it mean one reference section should be maintained (i.e. the one called Notes that is automatically generated by the refs), or does it mean that a second section called References should be maintained too, with full citations listed? I interpret it to mean the latter, and that's what WP:CITE recommends. But when I mentioned that to a nominator today, he said it referred only to the list of notes that is automatically generated.

What do you do in such cases? I'm unsure whether it's grounds for an objection. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to know that, too. Is it really necessary to have two lists of references, especially if the Notes already have full citations? —xyzzy_n 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're both asking, I'll give my speculative answer about Wiki instruction creep here :-)). That has been confusing territory, IMO, since the increased requirement for inline citations. I look at it on a case-by-case basis, depending on the content area. For example:

In the situations I know best in terms of references – medical articles – it would be silly to separately list every inline citation mentioned in the Footnotes in a References section. That's just not the way medical articles are written. Look at cystic fibrosis, the MCOTW's most recent FA. When almost every citation is an individual PubMed article, it would make no sense to repeat each one in References. As another example (a work in progress still), look at how I handled Tourette syndrome. Same situation: it would be silly and impossible to re-list every citation as a reference, since the best in-line citations for medical articles are PMID abstracts. What I did, instead, was to include the most recent textbook tomes on the topic in Further reading, since almost every important research paper of the last ten years is disucussed in those books, and you can locate detailed descriptions of most of the studies in them.

Also of note: the MCOTW folks have their own guide to writing medical articles, so I look at their guide as an adjunct to Wiki guides. They are pretty clear on what References and Footnotes mean to them, and what the distinction is. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles) So, I try to recognize that what works for one "Project" might not work for another area.

Turning to other types of articles, there are situations where it is clear when a separate listing of References, in addition to inline citations, is needed and helpful. If the main references used in an article are, for example, seven different books, with extensive inline citations that reference specific page numbers of each book, I'd rather the list of References mention each book, while the Notes section says only, Joe Bloe (1998) p.7. A group that often references mostly books, and uses that system, is the Military History Group, for example Battle of Blenheim.

But, if another article is cited mostly to websites, again, it would be silly to re-list them all twice.

Considering current requirements for inline citations, it sounds almost like the current description is backwards. You complement the necessary inline citations (Notes) with a References section where needed, for clarity on sources that are general background info or used often.

I don't think I've ever objected to an article based on whether they have the two sections. I just want to know that the article is referenced, I recognize that different subject areas have different referencing requirements, and I want the Wiki reader to be able put his/her hands on the needed source for a given sentence or paragraph. I don't get tangled up in the form here: substance is more important. If I can find the reference, the referencing system is consistent and well-done, I don't object. I'll admit, this is one of those areas where instruction creep on Wiki makes me crazy, since the way you would reference a medical article isn't necessarily the way you would reference another article. This is an example of one of those areas where I just don't think you can really nail this down to one best way, and you have to rely on the good faith and good judgment of reviewers, and the give-and-take between reviewers and nominators. I don't think it's possible to write up one description that works across the board: I just want the article referenced, consistently and thoroughly. In the time I've been reviewing, I can't recall a situation where this has been a problem, and I think (not sure?) I'm the reviewer most often fixating on the References.

What I always object to is one big blue link to a website, with no description. (Have a look at Tobacco smoking, where I fixed part of his references as an example. Since I started on them, I don't think anything has changed. The blue ones are his: some of the black ones, with text, are mine. Most of those big blue links are good references, which should be fleshed out, bibliographic style, so a reader can find them if the links go dead. And I want to know, at a glance, if those links are personal websites, news sources, of PMID abstracts. There is a case where his References section is just general reference, and repeating each cite wouldn't work.) I want to see the info in bibliographic form, so that I can find the reference somewhere if the link goes dead. My pet peeve is when editors use cite web in place of cite news or cite journal, since the important bibliographic information is obscured. And, while we're on the subject, I hate the cite templates because they chunk up so much KB in article size, but whether to use them is a personal decision. HTH, Sandy 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I was thinking about bringing something like this up on WP:CITE. I don't think one size fits all. If an article has 30 notes to 25 different sources, it makes sense to put all the citation info into the note and not have a separate bibliography. If an article has 30 notes to 5 sources, a bibliography might make sense. If those 5 citations are web pages, they can be named and repeated. Named refs are somewhat fragile though and can make it difficult to rearrange text, so it may be better to avoid named refs and repeat the full citations every time. However, repeating full book citations seems to me a waste of KB. Because of this and the fragility of named citations, I ended up using short footnotes (similar to Harvard refs) in my FAC. (It would be nice to be able to separate text enhancements from pure citations, perhaps marking one with letters and the other with numbers.) Anyway, Sandy, to answer your query: I took your statement about "no change" to refer to the conclave article not being edited from Aug 2 to Aug 6. I just wanted to point out that an article may be improved "behind the scenes" without receiving actual edits for a while. Gimmetrow 23:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see – thanks, Gimmetrow. And, yes, I agree with your analysis of the cite situation above. I don't have the prose skills to begin suggesting edits to Wiki guidelines, but the Notes References thing is an area which could benefit from clarification. Sandy 00:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I found the discussion you're referring to, about Padmé Amidala. That's a middle-of-the-road case, neither/nor, so I'd not worry about it as long as it's well referenced. What I would ask him to change (but not as an objection) is that stilly statement at the bottom of the references about last access date. If articles on Wiki were static, with only one editor, that might work. But, given that he could get run over by truck tomorrow, and lots of other editors could work on the article, adding and deleting sources, putting that statement at the end like that doesn't recognize the dynamic nature of Wiki. Sandy 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sandy. I posted a reply to you, and just swung by to see whether you'd responded, but I see my post's not here. I must have forgotten to save it! I use tabbed browsing and I'm forever moving from one tab to the next and then forgetting to go back. Anyway, the post basically said thank you for the very helpful information. I agree with Gimmetrow that it'd be good to work out when best to add a References section and when not. I'll know for the future not to object on that basis, so long as the full citations are there somewhere. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed explanation! Regarding the size of the cite templates, I’m still thinking about some kind of solution, but, so far, with little success. For Tourette syndrome, I count 11.4 KiB of non-empty ref elements, largely without markup, which, assuming an optimistic factor of 1.5 for the use of cite templates, would grow to 17.0 KiB. I think it’s possible to devise templates similar to the existing ones but using positional parameters instead of named parameters at far smaller cost with respect to size, but that would undo the human-readable metadata and probably make the citations harder to edit. It would, however, allow centralised control of the formatting. On the other hand, if the increase in size, in the order of magnitude outlined above, is not a big problem (that particular article is already above 32 KiB), normal cite transclusions (or custom ones…) could be generated automatically from PubMed’s XML data, using only the PMID as input, so at least wikicoding the citations and checking the results might be unnecessary—if that’s any significant advantage at all. Is there anyone else working on this? —xyzzy_n 03:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a PMID converter out there, that messes 'em up everytime. I'll go dig it up. Sandy 03:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diberri's tool to convert a PMID reference number to a wikipedia template:cite journal reference is: http://diberri.dyndns.org/pubmed.html It puts in weird punctuation, uses ALL the author names, and for me, is harder to use then just cut and pasting the info from PubMed. Sandy 03:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a discussion, where several of the Wikiphysicians agreed with me: [6] Sandy 03:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy

Hi Sandy, I can't keep up with the Chavez pages, it's moving very fast and it's too difficult to know what's coming or going. I may set some time aside to look at the crit page and take a look at what has been deleted - the last time I looked I couldn't figure why some of the material was going. --Zleitzen 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think (not sure yet) that I've added back in the cited material that was deleted. The page is still a MESS, and the disruptive editing made it very hard. Now I feel that I have to start over, and no one is helping. I haven't had time to work on it: I have no idea if there is any flow at all, haven't copy edited, there's still a lot missing, in short, it's just now got the "stuff" back to a point where it can be expanded, balanced, and polished. There may still be pieces needed from other articles to provide context and flow. I hope my strong message on the talk page about JRSP's disruptive editing style has registered. I've hesitated to spend time in that article until work can be done in a less taxing environment. (Have a look at Anderson now -- I don't know all the legal terms, so didn't do some parts.) Thanks !! Sandy 01:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The shark guy

(Help, I've been pigeonholed!)

Peta struck her Oppose earlier today and it's been copyedited to death (mine), so I'm not sure what else I can do. I've asked Fieari to revisit it as well, in an attempt to get it moving again. Cheers, Yomangani 13:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed it and didn't see Peta had struck: darn aging eyes :-) I'm also avoiding that room like that plaque lately, as I'm so disgusted. I'll have another look soon. Sandy 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was subtle (I had to check the diff). Thanks, Yomangani 13:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, starting to do my homework: how come there is a link to a former FAC on the talk page, that links to the current FAC? Sandy 14:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's all the fault of templates, curse their little curly brackets. I've fixed it, so it points to the old one now. Yomangani 14:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dug around in there a bit: still needs some copy editing, and I left some comments on the talk page. I'll check back in later. Please change any of my edits you disagree with: I'm no prose expert :-) Sandy 14:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only changed one thing, but the citation for "sea dog" was lot harder to find than I expected. I hadn't even cited it as I thought it came under the apple pie get-out clause of WP:OR. Still, it was an interesting exercise. Yomangani 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished playing with it, and Tony has copyedited the majority (not sure when he will get back to it), so please have another look. Yomangani ^talk 13:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ho, so you think I'm a bad guy, eh?

Here's looking at you, kid. You get the double dosage.

Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Sandy, I notice you keep "fixing" the way I write refs, which are actually fine. I've commented here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"All URLs Last Accessed"...

Sandy, I removed the general "date last accessed" statement in the Notes section of the Padmé Amidala article. Each URL ref has its own last access date now, just in case I get run over by a truck tomorrow ;) (per your suggestion here and here). Dmoon1 08:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FairTax

Sandy, I've added inline cites extensively to the FairTax article after your review. I've also done a lot of copyedits after Tony's comments. I was wondering if you could have a look and see if it would meet your FA criteria and/or offer suggestions. Thank you for your assistance and review. Morphh 15:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV templates and other

I haven't looked at the articles. Sometimes a POV tag is added by an editor not previously involved; if no reason is forthcoming these are usually removed within a day. I can't remember any notable instances of an active editor on a page added a POV tag without other editors knowing why. POV-check is a little different, however, and seems to stay on a page well past its need. Sometimes the tag use is absurd - I came across a page which had one sentence of content saying "Cindy Sargon is an Australian TV chef." and the article had 3 tags including POV!

Next point, SlimVirgin has added some text about citation templates to various places, saying they are "not recommended." I have tried to impress the notion that a lack of a recommendation is not the same as the positive statement they are not recommended. This comes across as a policy change to me, discouraging their use. My understanding was that use of citation templates were optional, an indifferent choice.The relevant text is at WP:CITE#Templates and WP:CITET. Could you take a look at these; the text is short. I find the text reads as a discouragement and a disapproval. (I added a bit to the CITET text but it looks absurd even to me, and I expect it will be removed.) If I'm off base on this, say so; I have better things to do than argue over guidelines. Gimmetrow 05:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sort-of support. I don't know if there is an actual policy on removing POV tags, I'm just saying that I've seen them removed many times with no problem. I recall one article the template was mildly edit-warred, until it forced the editor adding it to chime in on talk. After discussion a section-POV tag was placed for a while. On another point, I can't find the place that used to say that footnotes came after punctuation with no space. This is important for layout, as having a space can cause ugly "floaters" - the note mark on its own separate line. Mixed style (space or no space) is even worse; this is a simple technical issue to fix and I'm surprised people let it pass. Finally, from your experience with FAC, what do you think is the status of my FAC? Gimmetrow 15:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you could point out some parts that are difficult, I'll at least have something to work on. I haven't read the whole thing at once in a while. Gimmetrow 15:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on my FAC. I guess Raul got tired seeing it in the list; now I should have some time to help other people. At some point I saw you referencing the amount of prose vs. total length of an article. Is there an automated way to do this? Gimmetrow 03:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

35 mm film FAC

Hi Sandy, just wanted to say thanks for the comment. I've edited the article accordingly, and hope that it is up to any further scrutiny. Would you mind taking another look and striking out critiques implemented to your satisfaction? Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 01:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with epilepsy

Based on your discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Medicine-related articles), I thought might like to comment over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with epilepsy. This list had undergone some big changes whilst being reviewed and is now starting to get some support. I fear, however, that it might run out of time to become featured. Regardless, I'd appreciate your opinion. Cheers, Colin Harkness°^Talk 09:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to review this list, and for your support. Cheers, Colin Harkness°^Talk 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAR of anarcho-capitalism

Howdy, Sandy. I have notified interested parties of the closing of the vote. I request that there be a wee extension while they consider whether or not they would like to vote or add anything to the discussion. This includes editors who I believe might vote to reject as well as editors who I believe might vote to keep. Due to the controversiality that often surrounds this article, I feel that it's important that we make sure that the issue will be settled when it is settled. --AaronS 18:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DTC wrote:

I can't help thinking that this comes from the typical anti-capitalist psychology of wanting to destroy or discredit what others have built through their hard work. Not only is the article itself the fruit of enormous intellectual and physical labor but the article itself is about a philosophy that supports profiting from one's achievments. On top of that, the article is awarded with a Gold Star. It fills the anti-capitalists with envy and resentment. Instead of building anything of value themselves, they work destroy what others create. (Compare to the attack on the World Trade Center).

Pardon me, but how can you condone that kind of rhetoric? --AaronS

I haven't condoned that. As Joelito explained, the FAR is closed. If you feel it was done prematurely, you should take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. Sandy 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did say that you agreed with it, but perhaps I misunderstood. Who decides when an FAR is closed? I'm unfamiliar with this. Thanks. --AaronS 19:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, now. I apologize for missing it, earlier. My main issue -- stability -- doesn't really need explanation. My other issue -- neutrality -- involves the cherrypicking of sources to substantiate controversial claims and present them as if they are not controversial, i.e. that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. There is a raging discussion going on at Template talk:anarchism regarding this very matter.

Most of the good editors get along quite well. The others have been sock puppets of banned users. It has never been a personality issue. It has always been a disagreement about content. --AaronS 19:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC - categories

Hi Sandy, I've noticed your desire to see categories in alphabetical order in FAC reviews. (I know this is also suggested in the javabot review). Is there something in WP's criteria that enforces this? I personally find it preferable to list more fundamental categories first. Thanks, Outriggr 03:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page) It's just that I (for one) look at categories to get a sense of an article's topic. The first category I want to see for say, Einstein, is "Swiss physicists"; that's what he is. That article is an FA, incidentally, and if the cats were in alpha order, the first categories I'd see are "1879 births", "1955 deaths", "American vegetarians", "Autodidacts", none of which really primarily categorize the subject. The current category order on Albert Einstein suits my needs better than alphabetization. So that is where I'm coming from. Thanks, Outriggr 05:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

The Working Man's Barnstar

I hereby award you The Working Man's Barnstar for repeatedly notifying relevant parties during featured article reviews, as it's an oft-forgotten task. -- tariqabjotu 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that was part of the instructions either; it's been awhile since I have requested an FAR or FARC. -- tariqabjotu 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About an autism related article

Hi there Sandy. I am sure you have a long list of to-do stuff, but I'm still sticking my head in here to ask your advise. I noticed that you were editing some of the extremely well-researched autism articles---which is the reason I'm here. I was wondering if there is a place where one may put a request for assistance from people who are familiar with these issues, with neuroscience, psychiatry, or with autism in particular, as well as with the literature about autism published in Scandinavia. The reason I'm asking is that the article about the Swedish neuropsychiatrist Christopher Gillberg is an absolute mess and needs urgent attention. I don't really feel that I have the background to write about something as specialized as neuropsychiatry, or autism for that matter, nor about the particular research done by Gillberg. I know his story well from a journalistic and from a legal point of view, but the lawsuit for public access that lead to such disastrous results for Gillberg is only a brief parenthesis in an active life filled with important work in the field, and it is a particularily negative and distracting issue in his Wiki biography. Still, as it stands now, this issue threatens to totally overpower the article about him. (The story: One of Gillberg's research projects has become the center of a heated controversy in Sweden regarding whether or not the principle of public access to official records applies to research material involving sensitive data about the private life of study participants. In 2003, a court case initiated by two private citizens, who had been denied access to the patient journals and the raw data collected about the participants of the study, was settled in favor of the complainants. The private citizens were a sociology professor and a pediatrician who had a long-running dispute with Gillberg, but they acted in their private capacities. The court ruled that permission from the participating patients was not necessary. The access was granted according to Swedish Principle of Public Access, without directives about how the identity of the participants would be protected and without the need for the two individuals requesting access to follow established praxis and present a proper research proposal for consideration so that the university's ethics council could control the use of the data. Rather than breaking the promises made to the parents in writing about the conditions of privacy offered, Gillberg's associates made a decision to shred the data when he was out of the country. The associates were charged for "destruction of government property" and Gillberg himself was later charged and sentenced to a fine for "breach of duty" for failing to turn over the documents.) This is a perfect scenario for his detractors who now claim that he destroyed the records solely to avoid scrutiny and that this proves that his research was a fraud. One such person is editing the page right now, with no regards to balance or to whether or not her statements are defamatory. There is a long and heated discussion about the court case on the discussion page, but facts about Gillberg's work, life and ideas are sadly missing. Please let me know if you can assist with a plea for input into this article from any of the Wiki editors with medical expertise. Best wishes, Pia 07:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, thank you so much. Sorry, this turned out to be a busy weekend. But you are right--I will need to dive in. It's just that there are so many other articles I'd rather work on, that are more directly within my field of interest and expertise. Working on this particular issue means that I will have to go through more journals and brush-up on stuff I haven't dealt with in a long time. I was sort of hoping that someone else might pull the load, like the user Denis Diderot for example, who seems well-versed in the issues. The only reason this article caught my eye to begin with was that I monitor Scandinavian issues (especially Swedish issues, since my family has roots there). This article was listed as troubling. It sure is, in more ways than one. One of the problems is that only the major news outlets, those with specialized staff covering medical issues, covered the story with an angle other than, "Man, this doctor thinks he can hide his files from the sociologist and the public." (Just whisper "threat against the Principle of Public Access" and see how high a journalist can jump..some in the pack will bounce up and down and howl bloody murder as well.):) This is the reason Daphne’s list of sources contains such a large amount of letters to the editor and non-peer reviewed articles, one private letter, one investigative magazine article from New Zealand, and one magazine that went out of business and was not around to detract the stories, as was done for example by the magazine published at Gothenburg University. Some are pure opinion pieces and contain statements that are directly contradictory to the discoveries and statements during the trial and with information in mainstream media reports. This has been pointed out repeatedly, but the stuff keeps getting reinserted in the Gillberg article and I think Denis is just running out of patience. The Gothenburg study article can deal more directly with this, and refute it in more detail. The secrecy issue has been debated on the parliament floor as well, in strong support of the secrecy laws Gillberg was relying on, referring to the need for Sweden to adher to the Helsingfors Declaration which states: "In medical research on human subjects, considerations related to the wellbeing of the human subjects should take the precedence over the interests of science and society. It is the duty of the physician in medical research to protect the life, health, privacy, and dignity of the human subject. Research investigators should be aware of the ethical, legal and regulatory requirements for research on human subjects in their own countries as well as applicable international requirements. No national ethical, legal or regulatory requirement should be allowed to reduce or eliminate any of the protections for human subjects set forth in this declaration." This is a very large issue to cover, but I will start to source and insert information ASAP after the weekend. Sandy, thanks again for taking the time to look into this and for your recommendations. You deserve all the praise I see you have collected here so far! Pia 18:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I support you on that move and I understand your position in regards to the language barrier. I think the objection might be that two unbalanced articles full of questionable information and mistakes, by an editor using inappropriate sources, are worse than having no information out there at all, yet. I'll get to work on it ASAP. Pia 21:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New England FAC

Thanks for your many helpful comments. They all make sense to me. I'll get to work on fixing the prose and finding sources immediately. --AaronS 13:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with bad "fair use" images

There is a disconnect between our policy (bad fair use images should be deleted within forty-eight hours) and our practice (tag them with a template indicating a problem which puts them into a week-long deletion queue, and discuss them endlessly if someone objects to their deletion). There are also more "dealing with fair use" templates than even I can remember. This is not just inefficient, it is also confusing. This will get sorted out eventually, but for now, you can see what I've done at Image:Chavezsurvivescoup.JPG and Image:October1993crisis.jpg. For all I know the former is some sort of uniquely iconic photograph that articles have been written about (although I doubt it), but we need to demonstrate that and discuss it, otherwise we're just using a convenient AP photo to illustrate our article. Jkelly 16:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review for San Francisco, California

Hi Sandy,

The San Francisco, California article was recently nominated for FA status and was rejected. You and several other commentators suggested that peer review would be a good process to go thru to get specific suggestions for improvement. The article has now been placed on the peer review list: Wikipedia:Peer review/San Francisco, California. If you have some time, could you please look over the article and make some comments on the peer review page?

Thank you!--Paul 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy,

Thank you for taking the time to review the San Francisco, California article and for making a good list of suggestions. It will take a while, but we'll get to all of them, and then ping you again. --Paul 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q re WP:GTL

Sandy, Thanks for being bold and rearranging the article US housing bubble according to WP:GTL. But this page says that the notes go last, and you've put them before other appendices. Would you mind explaining the preferred layout? Frothy 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read WP:GTL more carefully: it's really quite a confusing page. The See also and Notes that are shown last on that page are the See also and Notes *for* that page. The layout of sections is given in Section 7 of that page, here. Sorry it wasn't clear :-) Sandy 02:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Gillberg

Sandy,

First of all, I'd like to make clear that I really appreciate your help with the Gillberg articles. I reverted your addition of the link to the new article only because I didn't have the time to fix both articles at once. The new article created by Daphne A unfortunately contained the same kind of unsourced and potentially defamatory information that she had previously added to the Gillberg article. Therefore I wanted to keep the wikilink out of the Gillberg article until someone had begun to fix that other article. I fully understand that it's difficult for you with all the sources in Swedish, but I wonder if you could perhaps just take a quick look at the current Christopher Gillberg? Do you think the "criticism and controversy" section should be made even shorter, or perhaps moved out of the article alltogether? Also I wonder if the article seems sufficiently well sourced to you (understanding that you can't verify that the cited refs actually support the claims) --Denis Diderot 14:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, Denis, but it's darn near impossible for me to sort out the controversy and POV without some English-language sources. I can only rely on what I've heard in TS/ADHD circles, which is that DAMP is highly controversial and not well accepted. I haven't studied the controversy well. Isn't there *something* you all can find in English that can summarize the situation for those of us who don't sepeak Swedish? Sandy 15:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check with the IRS?

In re: your msg left on my talk page...

I've been trying to get hold of Wiki's latest 990s to see if Soros is a funder, but I haven't been able to get hold of the most recent. The pro-Marxist persuasion seems almost too much to be explained by the natural inclination of radicals to be attracted to this sort of venture.

Like the dreaded 503c organization's filings, I would be very surprised if wikiedia's "990c"s (I'm afraid I am not familiar with this particular filing) were not public record. I would contact the IRS directly and request all of w'pedia's 990c's for its entire existence.

If you get any static*, then there's always a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request.

One way or the other, the information can be had. Tho' persistence maybe the key since our Federal bureaucracies demonstrate some confusion between themselves and the medieval Papal Curia.

And, bravo for labelling these lefties for what they are. Liberalism is, after all, the vestibule of Bolshevism.

In my many explorations of wikipedia I have yet to find an article that has been highjacked by a conservative or right-wing claque. Not that I would approve of it. But it would certainly be a refershing change of pace from the Left-Liberal monopoly and gadflies (such as this gamaliel individual).

PainMan 00:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, even tho' it's mandate is financial rapacity, even the Internal Repression Service seems to be infiltrated by the Libs. The state of Ohio revoked Jessie "Embezzle-Cash-to-Support-my-bastards" Jackson's "Rainbow PUSH" coalition's charitable status--which under Federal law means that the organization must lose its Federal status, this has not been done.

Anyone who think this is an oversite is living "in the land of Oz."

"Vote stacking"

Ridiculous. He accuses me of vote stacking, and then of selectively contacting users. I showed him his error and now he's trying to cover it up with technicalities. My patience is through. I'm working on Israel-Japan relations for the next week or so. Unless someone tries something destructive and pointless, like an Afd, don't expect much interaction on Venezuela-pages from me. All the best, Republitarian 19:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My block

I posted that inflammatory thread hoping the thousands of people who watch my talk page would notice and take action ;). I don't know what's up. I'm fine now after I sent an e-mail to the blocking admin last night. I'm one of very few Wikipedians where I live so I get worried that the proxy might be blocked and it will go unnoticed. Thanks for the concern. Marskell 07:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm back. Or actually I was never really gone—I don't know. My wiki-work was often been short this summer and there have even been days (the shame!) where I haven't made a single edit.

Your edit count, meanwhile, has been phenomenal! Indeed, I have thought of leaving you a note previously about this. I absolutely hope you don't take this the wrong way, but are you editing too much? This is no comment on you, just an observation after 18 odd months on the Wiki: the people who edit for hours a day with thousands of edits a month often hit the wall hardest with wiki-stress. You've been doing so much in so many places (which taxes the brain) I wonder if you shouldn't choose a day a week off or something similar. Marskell 21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki/CC Image Copyright Questions

Would you please have a look at the CC image copyright question question posed at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Wiki.2FCC_Image_Copyright_Questions and chime in on the correct answer? Thanks -- Frothy 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Frothy, I am completely mystified by Wiki's (in)ability to explain and deal with copyright issues on images. I can't add anything to the discussion. Good luck, Sandy 15:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel-Venezuela relations

Thank you. I did look at the Talk: page, and noted that Superflanker is removing large amounts of material on purely spurious grounds, and has been doing it for some time. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the next step would be an RfC regarding a specific editor, or the articles in question. You could also request mediation, though that can be time-consuming. Ultimately you might have to take this to arbitration. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the Mediation Cabal, which is worse than useless. The Mediation Committee, run by Essjay. You'll find them at WP:RFM Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help with stub tagging on amputation article?

Hi Sandy,

I'm not sure this is really your area, but from my interactions with you about TS on the free will page, I thought you might be a good person to at least point me in the right direction. One of the pages that I am watching is the amputation page, as it relates to some of my professional interests. In the past two weeks, the page has been tagged three times as a stub [7]. Normally, this would be a quite reasonable tag in wikipedia (and not something likely to be picked up by bots), and I wouldn't be contacting an admin about it, but in this case there are a number of things that make it seem like vandalism or a joke in poor taste.

The article is not a stub. It is long enough (although it could still be expanded) that it is no longer editable by a novice. It currently includes 7 sections, and although it could use some referencing hits the major points.
Stub when referrring to amputations makes for a very poor-taste joke. Indeed, the first editor who tagged the article with "stub" included "huhuhuhu" as his edit comment.
All three users who have tagged the article are IPs. The first one has only this edit in his or her history. Obviously, this are at best circumstantial details, but I am only using them to add to the above. Especially in the case of the first IP edit.

Again, if the article were a stub, or in the absence of such comments, I wouldn't be contacting you. At this point, my question is, does the 3RR apply to vandalism of this sort? Is there any way to make certain that this article does not get tagged with an inappropriate stub notice? Please feel free to reply on my talk page. Edhubbard 19:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. It's nice to know that there are other eyes watching the page. I'll contact User:Commander Keane, and see what else he can suggest. Edhubbard 20:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US housing bubble for featured article?

Thanks again for making the effort to provide comments and feedback on the US housing bubble article. As summarized at the page Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Response_to_objections_raised_above, I believe that all the objections and issues raised have been addressed. Would you please have a look and consider supporting this for "featured article" status? Especially given the (unfortunate) recent news (see, e.g., today's New York Times "most-emailed" Op-Ed "Housing Gets Ugly" here), this would be an especially timely featured article, and help "Wiki" live up to its speedy name. Frothy 02:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia=waste of time

Im beginning to think Wikipedia is a waste of time. The trail of looniness never ends... Republitarian 03:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]