User talk:SandyGeorgia

Featured article removal candidates view edit
Anarky	Review now
Isaac Brock	Review now
0.999...	Review now
Mariah Carey	Review now
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now

Cladistics and vandalism

I'm afraid cladistics is out of my area of expertise, User:Opabinia regalis is better qualified on this than I am. As to the vandalism, it is only a few per day so seems pretty normal for a FA. Have a look at the Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages to see how comparatively lucky we are! TimVickers 16:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected influenza. Let me know when tuberculosis gets worse. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you nominate cladistics. I have half a handful of books knocking around about this somewhere. Someone translated the Willi Hennig bio a while ago. As for helping with issues on my talk, things seem to have calmed down, but you can take a look at this AfD if you've got time. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA nomination for Bacteria

Hi there Sandy. I've nominated this page for FA. Your comments or corrections on its nomination page would be very welcome. TimVickers 17:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I was running through my list of editors who have expertise in this area and didn't notice you'd already contributed! Thanks for semi-protecting influenza, I suspect it's getting vandalised simply because it is a FA high up in the alphabet and near the top of the list in the biology section. TimVickers 17:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has made some major changes to this article, could you please return to the FAC and provide some feedback on whether or not these are an improvement? TimVickers 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tazzie

If you aren't busy (which I'm sure you won't be after the holidays - ha), could you have a quick glance over Thylacine. I've rewritten it more or less from scratch over the past week, and I'm sure there wil be a few glaring mistakes to which I'm now blind (having rewritten and reorganized everything about 20 times). Any little improvements greatly appreciated. Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, I really appreciate your time. I thought exactly the same about the footprint pic, but haven't been able to find one yet. The capitalisation is a bit of a nightmare, as we use uppercase for the specific species references and lowercase for the more general groups; therefore "foxes" but "Red Fox", "Dingo" but "possums", "Hyena" but "kangaroos" etc. Add to that the different conventions for different areas (fishes are all sentence case) and it does look confusing, but I think I have them all right. Yomangani ^talk 23:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That helping hand

I will try to finish the work, but I do need to focus on school first and for most. During the last few weeks of school I view Wikipedia time as my reward for studying really, really hard; I typically take an hour or two to work on the articles and other things that I like if I feel I have learned something from my self-enforced study confinement. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing: Since you commented that the reference citations were incorrectly done I wonder if you wouldn't mind checking out the page Wikipedia:Inline citation to ensure that all information presented on the page is accurate and up to date. I would apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuberculosis check

Re:Tim, please check this edit - while reverting a bunch of vandalism and unsourced edits, I accidentally deleted this (and later re-added it), but I'm not sure if it's correct. [1] Sandy (Talk) 15:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information is correct. TimVickers 17:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAR templates

I won't get into a revert war with you, but please see the discussion at Talk:Super Mario 64 and Wikipedia talk:Featured article review, as well as User talk:Joelr31. Andre (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Oh, the humanity!

I had my doubts about a second RfA, but even I couldn't have predicted the way it caught fire and inexorably drifted to the ground in flames, causing quite a stir on its way down. Still, it was encouraging to see the level of support and confidence. Thank you for yours, and I hope I'll still have it the next time around. Kafziel ^Talk 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sad note

I didn't have a clue he had left - indeed it is most unfortunate. I hope he returns soon. Wiki users seem to be fast leaving, and it's hard to recognise any familiar faces these days. That can get rather lonely at times. LuciferMorgan 23:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear you feel he'll be back soon. I wish him a speedy recovery. LuciferMorgan 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Sandy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Joelito (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured: London Underground

London Underground has been a featured article for over two years now! Unisouth 09:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chess

I prefer Fanorona - I'll have a look, but I don't think I have much that will be useful for references. Cheers, Yomangani ^talk 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spyware FAR

Thanks for seconding my concerns. Amazing what doing this sort of thing can do ... I didn't even know there was a malware project. I think it would have helped to have had the project banner on the talk page all this time. Daniel Case 17:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"horrible, unreliable web site with a huge bias"

All fixed now. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's right, it's a terrible website. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I nominated you for admin

Would you accept? It seems you would be able to put the tools to good use. --Tbeatty 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - never - not my cup of tea. Thanks for asking. Sandy (Talk) 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Let me know if you ever change your mind. --Tbeatty 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect to :-) Again, thanks for asking. Sandy (Talk) 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say, I would have supported, even co-nominated, but I think you made the right decision. Being an admin is not as much fun as people think - especially if you want to be an editor at the same time. And you've got Opabinia, myself and others to ask for special admin favours if you ever have any. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind thoughts and wise words, Samsara. Sandy (Talk) 02:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick!

I'd barely hit "submit". By the way, do you want to be an admin? Reading your edit summary I can't be sure. Arf. Yomangani ^talk 00:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :-)) Sandy (Talk) 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for the footnotes fixes at Central Coast Mariners FC. If I may ask, did you do it by hand, or do you use a semi-automated bot (AWB etc.)? Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bot from User:Gimmetrow. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 01:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More info here. Sandy (Talk) 01:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V for Vendetta

He appears to have turned up now, but I weighed in anyway. Yomangani ^talk 15:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodyline unreferenced section

Hi, I noticed you've re-added the unreferenced section tag to the Bodyline article. I'm not quite sure what you want - there are multiple references listed at the bottom of the article. Everything written in that section (and every single other fact that currently has a citation needed tag stuck on it) comes from the book Bodyline Autopsy, which is listed in the references section for the article. Is it really necessary to add explicit citation tags for the exact same book to every statement in the article? It seems redundant and silly to state multiple paragraphs of facts and have a citation tag for the exact same reference stuck on to every single paragraph or sentence. If you have a good way to satisfy your desire for citations without making the article look stupid, please edit the article to add it, as I don't know what will satisfy you. -dmmaus 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't have the book, I can't add the references, as I don't have the page numbers. One cite per paragraph should suffice, but opinions attributed to various persons should definitely be cited. Sandy (Talk) 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, page numbers. Okay, I can add those. I'll do it when I have time. Thanks. -dmmaus 21:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez

Have left a comment on your other ID about the Chavez article.--Zleitzen 07:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA nomination for California Gold Rush

The California Gold Rush article has been nominated for Featured article status. If you would like to comment on this nomination, please go here to leave your comment. To leave a comment on that page, click the [edit] link to the right of the title California Gold Rush.NorCalHistory 20:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will read it soon, but the first thing I noticed is that a lot of the image placement is messing up formatting on section headings, etc., and that if you'll reduce the first image from 500px to 400, the layout will be much nicer with respect to the Table of Contents and the large white space left. With your permission, can I move around some of the images, and then if you don't like it, I'll revert it back ? Sandy (Talk) 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Sandy - give it a try. I know that it's different on each person's computer monitor. The current placement looks great on mine, but if you've got better, go for it! thx!NorCalHistory 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, wondering why all biblio, footnote entries correctly have author last name, first name listed first, except the Google buys Youtube entry, which doesn't list author first? Can you put author last name first on all for consistency? Sandy (Talk) 22:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Sandy - I fixed using a WP:CITE template.NorCalHistory 23:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting your list (gulp), on my talk page first, would be easiest for me, Sandy. After that, if there are things left undo, then a post on the FAC page would be in order. Thanks for your continuing assistance!NorCalHistory 23:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Bigger gulp!) - Thanks! Interestingly, many of your suggestions are actually reactions to other editors' changes where I said, "Well, what the heck" (like that question mark in the section title), and left in. Let me read through this list carefully, with all the same (much appreciated) attention you put into it.NorCalHistory 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through your very good suggestions makes me think that almost all of this can be done pretty easily this evening and tomorrow. Anything that I don't do by in the next twelve hours or so (or perhaps don't agree with!), feel free to post on the FAC page - but if I could have a chance to clean this up a bit more before you do so, that would be appreciated!NorCalHistory 01:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts: Of course, I love it. These are some ideas to make it even better:

Table of Contents: I don't like the section headings with question marks. Special characters should be avoided in section headings, and they aren't "encyclopedic". I also don't understand why "Path of the gold" is a sub-section of the Forty-Niners - not entirely related, shouldn't be a sub-section. I also have a problem that some of numbers that should be discussed in the Path of the gold are included later under Development of gold recovery techniques - a better discussion of those overall numbers would be included in Path of the gold, *after* the techniques for extraction/mining are discussed. I also have a problem with some of the repeated words in some of the sections (you should avoid repeating words in TOC). So ... I suggest the following order of sections: Overview Forty-Niners Legal Rights Development of gold recovery methods Profits Path of the gold Effects (on California and elsewhere is redundant - that's everywhere) Immediate Longer-term Modern-day (missing section - to be discussed) ??? Geology etcetera By doing this, you can discuss the methods, and then move the numbers that are currently (mis) listed under Techniques to Profits, where they are a better fit. I'd like to see the profits section expanded to give a better overview of all of the money/gold taken out of CA.

Done

Modern-day - not sure what to do with this. The article tells us when the Gold Rush began, but it never defines or explains when it ended. Did it end? Gold is mined today in California with increasingly aggressive methods. Where should/does the article end? Either 1) deal with current gold mining, or 2) define the scope of the article by detailing when the Gold Rush petered out. Remember, there are contemporary events such as the Ironstone Vineyards in Murphy's (the very successful conversion of a gold mine to a tourist trap), and the fact that the largest piece of gold ever was taken out of Jamestown in the last decade -- do you want to cover modern-day "gold rush" in CA, or better define the scope of the article?

Done

Now, line by line ...

This sentence is awkward: "The Gold Rush laid the foundation of the “California Dream” as a place to begin again, a place where untold wealth was just waiting to be found." The "dream" isn't the place to begin again - California is. You handled this well in the text - can you do the same in the lead? Also, you repeated the same twice in the text: the California Dream is first mentioned in Effects, and then the text is repeated in Longer-term effects - need to say it only once.

Done

Tailrace needs to be defined or wiki-linked the first time it's used - it's here in the lead: "found shiny pieces of metal in the tailrace of a sawmill he was building; ..."

Done

I'm not comfortable with "Stories of the fabulous "Golden State" and shiploads of California gold spread to every corner of the world," shiploads: were the entire ships really loaded with gold ? Or was gold spread by ship ...

Done

Something wrong here with punctuation, not sure how to fix: As Sutter had feared, he was ruined as his workers left in search of gold and squatters invaded his land and stole his crops and cattle.[ Short, choppy sentence should be better merged into surrounding text: The then-tiny settlement of San Francisco at first became a ghost town of abandoned ships and businesses whose owners joined the Gold Rush.[8] Then, it boomed as merchants and new people arrived. infrastructure ... was (not were)? Like many boom towns, the infrastructure of San Francisco and other towns near the fields were strained

Done

Something wrong here with change in tense: An alternative route was to sail to the Isthmus of Panama, take canoes and mules for a week through the jungle, and then on the Pacific side, wait for a ship sailing for San Francisco.

Done

Towards the end of overview, when you begin to talk about Southern California (blick), you should start a new paragraph. "Gold was also discovered in Southern California ... "

Done

Caption: Native Americans strike back at miners

Done

Expand the entire Path of the gold section by 1) including some of the numbers later given in the Development section, and 2) giving a better summary of the overall numbers. There are terms throughout that need to be defined or wiki-linked: I suggest starting the wiki link articles on each. "However, panning cannot be done on a large scale, and industrious miners and groups of miners graduated to "cradles," "rockers," and "long-toms" to process larger volumes of gravel ... Development section - move numbers out (they aren't "development"), and include them in the Profits/Path sections

Addressed by moving order of sections; will add a few more links

"Eventually, hard-rock mining wound up being the single largest source of gold produced in the Gold Country." I think (not sure?) this sentence is what brings you into contemporary mining, as this is the method used now - this is the sentence that leads me to feel the scope (time) of the article isn't well-defined and needs to be better dealt with.

Done

In Effects, this needs to be sourced: "In addition, the environment suffered as gravel, silt and toxic chemicals from prospecting operations killed fish and destroyed habitats." Without a source, it reads like POV and OR.

Done

Awkward grammar, not sure how to fix: "Within a few years thereafter, in 1863, the groundbreaking ceremony for the western leg of the First Transcontinental Railroad was held in Sacramento." Don't know what "within a few years thereafter" means.

Done

Don't know what he is referring to here with "more benevolent" - needs better explanation or expansion: "or at least been born to a "more benevolent group of founding fathers."

Done (and moved entire thought to footnote).

This sentence is unencylopedic - I think it could be completely eliminated, if not completely reworded: How the gold came to be uniquely in California, and not elsewhere, so that the "first world-class gold rush"[92] could take place there, is a story involving global forces.

Done (on second try!)

Still awkward, but I don't really know how to fix it - "Why the gold was in California involves global forces, and hundreds of millions of years. " I'm not a great grammarian, but maybe something like, "Global forces operating over millions of years resulted in the large concentration of gold in California. Sandy (Talk) 02:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Done

Thanks, Sandy, I think that these made it a better article! Much appreciated! NorCalHistory 02:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Punk Rock

Thanks for the request on my talk page, and sorry for the late reply. The main problem with the article is that to give it justice you'd have to own relevant literature on the topic, and I don't own as such. By right, this article should be a flagship article of the Punk Wikiproject and the main contributors there should be able to help with it - who helped with the Sex Pistols awhile back? They might be interested. I'm more of a Metal guy myself, but most of my time is focused on preparing for interviews with minor groups. LuciferMorgan 00:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could see if the Punk Wikiproject is interested? Even if an article is improved it's better than nothing. LuciferMorgan 00:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

|I'll just put it up for FAR and hope they come along. I have bit of a reputation as a grouchy so and so, so I'm not bothered about ruffling a few feathers. I'm surprised the Beatles Wikiproject hasn't swung for me yet! LuciferMorgan 00:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image questions

Hi! I think you had been sorta mentoring User:Jamesshin92, I just wanted to let you know I updated a question he had asked you, and then cross-posted to my talk page. No big deal, but those images are probably going to be deleted. :( Anyway, If you or s/he have any other questions let me know, or ask at WP:MCQ. - cohesion 18:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to tag them as copyvios etc on the off chance that he is actually the photographer, rather than deleting them right away. This way he can see that process too I guess :) - cohesion 18:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat

Hi Sandy, I responded to your questions/concerns. But I did have a question about the "There is a large number of references that need cleanup of the blue links" what do you mean by that? I'm not sure how to fix it, so could you let me know. I'll watch this page and the FAC for a response. AS for the "Useem" and "Deployment Center" those are websites/studies that are reported in the references. There are no page numbers/dates, but if you look at the references, you will see them listed as names.Balloonman 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to do a few as samples than to explain: I'll go edit a couple on the article now. Sandy (Talk)

Thanks, I'll look at it probably tomorrow... I have a book due tomorrow that I want to finish rereading before I have to turn it in...Balloonman 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, you have really impressed me with your perfectionism (it's a trait my wife has, but she hates to review my work for some strange reason ;-) )Anyway, I know that you are opposing the Military Brat article for FA, but I was wondering how close you thought it was? I know you said it needed to be copy edited and had concerns about the references, but beyond that anything else?Balloonman 09:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

superscripted punctuation separating refs

Added a line to handle superscripted commas, semicolons or dashes (-) between refs. HTML comments would still interfere. Gimmetrow 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Gold Rush FAC map

Sandy, after reading through all the other stuff that you were doing at the same time (above), I'm triply impressed that you found the time to lend a hand on this little California Gold Rush FAC project! If you do have another 35 seconds to spare . . .

Following up on the suggestion to include a map in the article, two maps are available. If you get a chance to go to my talk page, both maps are posted there for your review, and any comment you might have would be appreciated (unfortunately, neither map has Highway 49 (which would be a squeeze to fit in!) NorCalHistory 07:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That Highway 49 map reference is appreciated! Thanks!NorCalHistory 21:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a very educational exchange of views. I think that if all that's done is a transparent application of the Dec. 2006 valuation of gold to "273 pounds of gold," that shouldn't be viewed as OR. PS: I will remember that Feather River gold amount for a long time! NorCalHistory 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by your comment

What did you mean by "refer to peer review" in your comment about Parâkramabâhu I? Did you mean it should be peer reviewed before it is nominated as a FA? I am the one who assessed it as a GA, and pointed Doc to either a Biography project peer review or FA nomination as options. Could you elaborate? I should add I have no emotional stake in what happens to the article. Though the subject holds no interest to me, I am very impressed at how Doc managed to expand a stub to what I consider FA quality. Thanks for your time. Jeffpw 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I got crossed up with you in attempting to correct the nom; we were doing the same work at the same time in trying to get it correctly listed, so some of my edits weren't recorded, as you were slightly ahead of me on correcting the faulty nom. It means that, rather than list everything that needs to be done still, it would be better to list it at peer review to better prepare the article for FAC, since it still needs work in many areas. Sandy (Talk) 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll pass that on to Doc. Jeffpw 23:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've been unable to find a WP:GA or WP:GAC listing - can you please let me know which section it is in at WP:GA? Sandy (Talk) 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from the article talk page: *Doc originally asked me to assess this as part of the biography project (I have assessed several articles there). I originally gave it a B rating, then after he wrote to me that he had completed it, I reread it and assessed it as GA. If I did not follow protocol, please accept my apologies. I wasn't aware that it needed to be nominated for GA. I thought it could be assessed that way. Hope this clears up any confusion. Jeffpw 23:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly question

Sandy, are you the same person as User:SandyDancer??? I'm just curious. I owe you a reply to your post of last June in my talk page, which I have postponed (rather: procrastinated) until now. Sí, debemos tener amigos en común, me interesa tener trato epistolar contigo (I'd like us to become pen pals). Regards, AVM 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not me, but it's curious that there's another Spanish-speaking Sandy on Wiki. Saludos, Sandy (Talk) 00:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, sorry, just checked your talk page, and I did leave you a message once, and it does sound like we may have friend in common - but I'm not SandyDancer. Feel free to e-mail me anytime, Saludos, Sandy (Talk) 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Sandy, I'm honored you included me in your list of recommended cawpy-editors at User talk:Balloonman. Thanks. –Outriggr § 05:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really do appreciate the time and effort that you and Outriggr have put into this article to help get it over the hump.Balloonman 16:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re DS

Yes, I certainly do... It makes you wonder whether the exposure an article gets on the Main Page is worth the barrage of vandalism it attracts. I like to think of myself as something of a policy wonk, but this made me wish some rules would be seriously broken. Fvasconcellos 20:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the problematic citation (Mikkelsen et al.), what exactly is wrong with it? Do you mean the year of publication? Fvasconcellos 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can't be sure it's the same source, and after things calm down, we need to try to determine who deleted it and if there was a valid reason. Sandy (Talk) 20:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

look again

that editor was removing vandalism.--Kchase T 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've lost track - which one ? Sandy (Talk) 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. I think we're all reverting past each other (like talking past each other), but somebody else seems to have figured it out. Anyway, thanks for your help with today's FA.--Kchase T 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kchase, sorry if I goofed one. Sheesh, this is no fun. Sandy (Talk) 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both instances of vandalism which you tried to revert were (separately) courtesy of 88.106.38.255 and 167.128.62.94. Both have been {{test4}}'d, I'll report on WP:AIAV if they try again. Fvasconcellos 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FV - you're the best. I lost track of a couple of them. Sandy (Talk) 20:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That was unexpected... :) Fvasconcellos 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello Sandy, I know you're commonly on FAR and I've noticed Raul has left a comment. Do you know what he is referring to when saying I made 20 or so nominations at once in the past and been disruptive? I never have done so. LuciferMorgan 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really follow that - maybe he meant to say you left twenty *tags* on the article? I recommend taking a breather, and backing off for a day, and hope that Marskell will rejoin Wiki soon. Things are much too tense on FAR right now, and stepping back a bit might be the wisest course of action for now. It's always regrettable when an admin uses his/her own power to protect his/her articles, but I understand how defensive FA authors can get. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your course of action Sandy, which is likely for the best. LuciferMorgan 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't condone what happened - just trying to find the quickest path to cooling off the issue for now. Wiki is an imperfect place at times. Best, Sandy (Talk) 21:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It' some editor called JudgeSurreal who made a few noms (Lord Emsworth's), but whether it was 20 I'm unsure. I'm not going to respond to Raul's reply as I've stated my opinion quite clearly numerous times - I particularly despise him leaving comments on my userpage. Many thanks though for trying to cool things down, which I heavily appreciate - you're quite reasonable and a voice of sanity. LuciferMorgan 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cooling off would be best for all at this point. I'm still disappointed in Raul, as his actions could be perceived as weakening the integrity of the FA process, and I believe admins should call in another admin when their own work is involved, but getting worked up about it won't help right now. Take care, Sandy (Talk) 22:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Down Syndrome

I shall undo my edit. My mistake. Sharkface217 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but I only reverted once. I didn't want to start an edit war, just in case I was wrong. Thanks for pointing it out though. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ No need for me to revert, per above post. Everything is good now. Sharkface217 00:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, who's going to put it back ? :-) Sandy (Talk) 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but 3RR can be broken when fighting vandalism. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you mean is that 3RR does not apply when removing vandalism. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just need someone to put it back - it wasn't vandalism, but if I put it back, I could be brushing 3RR, since I made so many changes on the article today. Sandy (Talk) 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sandy nice work on that Down Syndrome article. Good article, looks nice. SmartGuy 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notification template

I created a template for this at my userspace (see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review#Notification_text). Let me know what you think, and if we should move it to the Template namespace. Gzkn 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Hi, i noticed you review a lot of FACs. I have recently been doing a lot of work on Slayer to get it up to FA status. Perhaps you could take a quick browse and point out any thing thats missing or not written well. If you don't, thats fine as i see you're very busy. Thank you for you time :) M3tal H3ad 06:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really swamped for the next few days (both in real life and on Wiki), and should be able to get to it by the weekend. Can you make that timeline a bit smaller - it wraps off my screen. If I forget to review it by this Sunday, pls do ping me again - I'm so busy, I might forget :-) Sandy (Talk) 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDMOS

I know you're a fan of MEDMOS, and I'd like to thank you again for your excellent work there, and also with the FACs, by the way. But maybe you should refer to MEDMOS a little more cautiously, since it's only a proposed guideline... When I'm back I'll try to resuscitate it, but for now I'm afraid it'll just lie there for a little while longer...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Steven: Requirement 2 of WP:WIAFA is, "It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects" (bolding mine). Do you think my interpretation is incorrect? Sandy (Talk) 08:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't, I noticed that one and I think it's a correct interpretation. I just think it has to be balanced with the fact that our consensus on MEDMOS remains relatively unvoiced for the moment. But hey, it's just a detail.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Film Archive

Hey, I noticed you fixed some of my footnotes in this article -- problem is, I can't seem to see what it is that you did -- the diffs looks identical to me. If there's something I'm missing about the footnote process, I'd love to know it so I don't keep making the same mistake. Cheers Dina 19:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dina. It's a bot to correct refs to agree with where to place ref tags. In this case, it only removed the blank spaces between the punctuation and the ref, which doesn't show in the diff. Sandy (Talk) 21:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Correction noted. Dina 03:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proud to be a Brat

Hi Sandy,

How do I say this, right now I am quite pissed at you... and I think the reason is because I have so much respect for you. I've only seen your posts for about a week, but I have a high regard for your thoughts and opinions. You've earned my respect. Having earned it in such a short time, I find myself very frustrated that you seem to believe that not "ALL" brats are brats. Let me quote

Use the name(s) and terminology that the individual or organization themselves use.

Self identification: When naming or writing an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use. Transsexual people, for example, should be referred to using the personal pronouns (male, female, or another) that they themselves prefer.
Do not assume that a different term is more inclusive or accurate. For example, a person who appears female or who was born female may identify as male or something else other than female.

The term brat or military brat is the term that we use and we take pride in that term. I've cited a few outside sources. ALL of the research use the term. NUMEROUS professional studies use the term. Military news agencies use the term. A quick search of the web will show numerous websites/books/organization that use the term with PRIDE. The FAC has had two people object to the term---you and Tony. I think it is safe to say that neither of you are military brats. It has also has a least 5 different peole , none of whom I knew before last week, who are self identified brats. ALL of them support the article because they recognize themselves as brats. NONE of the self identified brats has objected to the term, in fact they support the term. The name IS how we identify ourselves. It IS the appropriate name. It is the term, we use. There may be a few people who don't like the term, but there are people who don't like the identification of "caucassian," "African American," "Hispanic," etc.

Again, I would not be as frustrated as I am if you hadn't earned my respect. PS I'm watching your page, so for ease of communcation, please respond here... I hate jumping back and forth between talkpages.Balloonman 01:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to have disappointed you, Balloonman. I understand the term and how widespread its use is: my confusion is over the implication that *all* military children identify themselves as brats, or that all parents of military children identify them as brats, and more importantly, the extension of study results to entire populations without specifying the breadth of the study or methodological limitations. I think you can incorporate all of this without diminishing the "brat" terminology. Sandy (Talk) 01:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NP, I don't mind explaining it to people. When used in this context, "Brat" is in no ways derogatory or insulting. It is the term that is universally accepted in the U.S. military community. It is one that most brats have come to take great pride in. I suspect it is also one that every brat has struggled with at some point in time. (E.G. when I first heard the term, I hated it... I wish I could find something to make that non-OR) But then it becomes a badge of honor. It is who/what we are. When you said, "As if ALL" that is what caused me to get upset, because the answer is, in the United States at least, the answer: yes. Here are some blogs and 'non notable sites' discussing pride and being a brat.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

Brats take pride in our heritage, but we do often feel alone and like outsiders... which is why your "As if" got to me. I think the reason why the brats are in favor of the article is because it is the first time they realize we are part of an identifiable culture/community.Balloonman 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's not considered derogatory and that those who consider themselves brats take pride in the term, but that's different than the assertion that *all* military children identify themselves as brats, or that all parents of military children identify their children as brats; that is not an assertion that should or can be backed on Wikipedia by blogs. Again, I'm sorry to have disappointed you, but my concern is assertion of fact versus attributing opinions to their source. Of course, if there is a broad-based, controlled, randomized, replicated study that shows that the *vast* majority of military children/families consider themselves brats, I'll reconsider - it's a matter of discussing the strengths of the studies you present, rather than presenting study results as fact, without discussing the study samples and methodology. Many studies are flawed, based on small samples, have poor design, or contain ascertainment bias. Sandy (Talk) 08:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The acceptance of the term brat is not something that you are going to find an actual study on. Nobody is going to sit down and survey brats about this because it isn't even a question in the community. It is a term that has been around since the at least the Civil War! I suspect that there is more acceptance of the term in the brat community than there is in the "Native American/American Indian" community. Like I said in the FAC, many of the researchers were reluctant to use the term "brat," but chose to do so after investigating the subject. But even if you did find some brats who didn't like the term, or object to its usage, that doesn't change the fact that they are brats and fit the definition of an objective term. A Native American is still a Native American even if they prefer the term "American Indian." The term has grown beyond its original exclusive usage in military communities. So, even if you found some brats who opposed it, it is now an accepted research term.

But I digress, I wanted to let you know that I've indicated that I wanted to pull my FAC nomination. I want to try to address your concerns in more detail. I doubt if I'll address them all because I don't agree with all of your concerns. (The issue of the name being foremost and the consistency of the research.) I'll probably renominate it next week, but I want to go through and make some changes that I've noticed this week about the article... changes that you and Outriggr reaffirmed to me.Balloonman 10:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture), where there is also ongoing discussion, to keep everything in one place. Sandy (Talk) 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Deer Hole Creek

Thanks for your support and praise at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White Deer Hole Creek. I believe I have now addressed all the issues raised. I removed 51 duplicate or non-essential wikilinks from the article and fixed a couple of disambiguation links that had snuck in there along the way. I also fixed the extra bracket in the second footnote, but left my beloved very long title (for now at least). Is this OK? Please let me know if you have any more concerns or suggestions for improvement. Yours, Ruhrfisch 03:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not crazy about the long title, but since you indicated that is the actual title, although the website listed an abbreviated title, that's the right way to go. Nice job! (I added my support earlier today.) Sandy (Talk) 08:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parakramabahu

Hi Sandy. Thanks for looking over Parakramabahu - I've changed some things as per your suggestions and would appreciate if you could let me know what you think. I'd really like to get this up to FA status and any help/advice you can offer is very much appreciated!DocSubster 12:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did some work, added comments to peer review, more later. Sandy (Talk) 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodyline

I have been a contributor, but I wouldn't say I was a significant contributor. I did not even see the article before it had become a featured article, and whilst I started the section on Bodyline in England, the real work on the article has been performed by others. I don't recall it being standard that minor contributors to articles declare themselves as such. If things have changed though, please let me know. jguk 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I used to have a brag-list of FAs I considered myself to be a major author of on my userpage. Bodyline was never on there: the credit belongs elsewhere.

On another matter, Sydney Riot of 1879, which is my favourite of the FAs that I am a major author on, I'm afraid I still don't know what you're driving at. When I have time, I'll add the page references in History of Australian Cricket to the relevant sections. However, I really do feel I have added all the references used here, and that anyone who really wishes to locate those references would be able to do so based on the information provided. jguk 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sure wish I didn't have to do that work myself: I'm already doing it for about four other articles which have new and less experienced editors. Did you look at the list and the samples? Sandy (Talk) 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I ceased being very active, around March this year, there was nothing wrong with the article as measured by reference to the criteria in place at that time. Whilst I've returned, I'm nowhere near as active as I used to be, and I don't intend becoming that active either.

At present, I can't really see what's wrong with the references. I'm not trying to be difficult here, if I knew what to do, I'd do it, because I really don't want to lose this one as a FA, but I just can't see it. If you see something wrong with them that you are able to fix, please do so, and I will take note. But I can't see what you're up to with just one example that I still don't follow. Kind regards jguk 18:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to it this weekend: I have a growing list, and it's hard to keep up. Sandy (Talk) 18:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. jguk 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space opera in Scientology doctrine's POV premise and title

Hello Sandy.... could you take a look at the discussion (or attempt at one) currently going on at Space opera in Scientology doctrine? Although they were indeed mentioned by Hubbard in lectures, most of the wacky things the article gleefully chooses to dwell on are not "Scientology doctrine", and the article does not back up these specific assertions with specific sources. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the discussion on the article talk page, or on the FAR? Please leave me a link - I'm going to be out for the entire evening. Sandy (Talk) 20:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly on the article's talk page, starting here and scrolling all the way down, although I've also mentioned it on the FAR. Highfructosecornsyrup 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]