User talk:SandyGeorgia: Difference between revisions

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Mission: Impossible – Fallout	Review it now
Galileo project	Review it now
Worlds (Porter Robinson album)	Review it now
I'm God	Review it now

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:27, 1 February 2010

If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, please provide the link.

If you are unsure if a FAC is closed, please see WP:FAC/ar.

To leave me a message, click here.

Tools and other
useful things

Some of
my work

Nice
things

Yukky
things

Communism

Dear Sandy, I know that you usually deal with the best of articles and not with the low-end ones, but you are one of the few experienced editors I know here and I feel that your advice and help could perhaps solve my problem. The problem is about the article Communism. I think that it is in a bad shape now - a rather unbalanced and POV list of communist sects, not a systematic explanation. I invested many hours to improve it (you know that I lived long years under a Communist govt so I am very interested in this matter) and my new version stuck for some time (this is the last version of it, after many colleagues changed it in this or that way). After some moths, an editor reverted it without previous discussion to the older version. I tried to revert back, but another editor, Bobisbob2, asserted that "my" version is not neutral enough and reverted again. I tried to discuss it (see Talk:Communism#Reverts to the previous version) but nobody else appeared and Bobisbob2 looks like a more able edit warrior than myself.

So my first question is: As an independent observer, do you think that "my" version is clearly better than Bobisbob2's? Perhaps I deceive myself and my text is really not as good as I think... And if you think that the current version is worse, what would you suggest me to do?

Thank you for your time. Best wishes,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to think on this, Ioannes. I had a similar, unfruitful experience at Hugo Chavez, and finally decided to walk away, so my advice could be biased by personal experience and the lack of Venezuelan Wiki editors to help out there. Good to hear from you, and I see we have a Chess article proposed at WP:TFA/R; we should hear more from you folks in the FA department! I'll think on this and get back to you. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your advice, Sandy. But on the other side, Communism is a too important theme to be left to communists. Much more important than a minor chess master from the 19th century. It would be really nice if you (or another experienced editor) could compare the two versions of Communism a tell me which one is better. Best regards,--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illumination

Hi, Sandy, wondering if you could talk to User:John Cardinal about ref consistency and what exactly that entails. I noticed he wholesale changed the ref style to Hey Jude and looking at his talk page he's been doing the same to other articles due to a misinterpretation of WP:CITEHOW (in the example of Hey Jude, he changed it from this to this, the latter implementing the use of Harvard-style cite templates). Other editors have brought the issue up to him regarding other articles but he doesn't quite grasp what's the matter, and I figured you might be better at explaining than I, particularly with your FA/FAR experience. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

In case you haven't seen it, you have email. ceranthor 18:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet been able to figure out what the mail refers to; could you please send a diff or some sort of clue stick? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletion?

Please explain why you butchered my further reading on scrupulosity. No reason to delete those at all. The article is partly clinical, partly general, and no reason to delete teh general references. History2007 (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get it. Did you object to content, or to style. If to style, why not fix it instead of delete it? Or was the style a reason for objecting to content? In any case, it is best to fix, not delete. Just wastes time on these talk pages as they get put back in. Some peopel may have OCD for style, but I am sure neither of us does... just a joke.... Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The additons to the article have both content and style issues; I will get to them as soon as I can access the sources (one of which I recently donated to a book sale, so I will have to go to a library or bookstore before I can do further work). "Scruples" is not the same as scrupulosity, so the content issues are substantial, and the Catholic Encyclopedia is not a WP:MEDRS for medical articles and doesn't even mention scrupulosity; there are plenty of reliable medical sources that discuss scrupulosity in, for example, Ignatius of Loyola, so I have left the text pending better sources, but the "scruples" wording needs adjustment to reliable medical sources and has introduced confusion. Please refer to WP:CITE for how to correctly format sources. Accusing me of "butchering" the article isn't the best way to begin collaboration. Also, when you add content, please indicate so in edit summary rather than adding content with an edit summary of "ce". It would also be helpful if you would follow the conventional citation formatting already established in the article; as an experienced editor, I assume you are familiar with WP:MOS and other Wiki guidelines, so others should not need to clean up after your edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved over to article page. History2007 (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

RE: Scrupulosity, after a long discussion you hand your friend editor Eublides have still butchered my edits, removed references etc. I view this as edit war warning and will hereby reinstate those changes in 24 hours unless you do so yourself. Given that he arrived on teh page via Canvassing, your joint edits are highly inappropriate. History2007 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your views of Wiki policy are most interesting;[1][2] I continue to suggest you adopt a more collaborative approach to editing Wikipedia, which will result in a more enjoyable and productive experience. Please do point out which of my MoS tweaks in the diffs above you would like reversed. Diffs to your allegations of edit warring, canvassing, and removal of references would also be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, I've received no answer from History2007 as to which of my edits he felt were problematic, in spite of this request and several others.[3] [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removal warning

Please do not remove POV tags from articles while discussion continue as you did for Scrupulosity. That is clearly specified in the tag. And a 3rd opinion is already in progress, hence you can not remove the tag.History2007 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no guideline or policy that states that POV tags must be left on while a discussion is in progress. Karanacs (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be confused about the very 3rd opinion you sought, vs. the POV tag that you added and I questioned after you sought the 3rd opinion[5][6] (and which you haven't yet justified per policy or reliable sources). Reading and understanding Wiki policy (such as WP:NPOV) might help. If you plan on continuing to issue invalid warnings here, would you like me to set up User:SandyGeorgia/History2007 so you can just archive them all in one place? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is established practice to archive your talk page rather than deleting past threads. Since you routinely delete your talk page posts, I'll save diffs of the deleted posts here. "baby" [7] [8] [9] [10]

Hey there

Happy New Year to you too, and now that I'm back, I might as well tell you that this might need tending to. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem there is that none of the top contributors are active, so I might let it run ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Karanacs archived it earlier today. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAR - no active delegates at the mo

Sandy, you were asking earlier at FAR urgents, you've probably seen that the three FAR delegates haven't been editing recently, i think Joel has been on a break for a month, YM hasn't edited in almost a week - maybe YM is taking a break too, anyway you've probably got better a handle on this just thought I'd let you know, Tom B (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware, and have put out some inquiries, but thanks for the mention ... on the other hand, there are very few that can be closed anyway, as reviews are lacking. I don't think there's much the delegates can be expected to do if we don't get some reviews! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier I had a thorough look through from the bottom up and there's quite a lot of review/discussion particularly on the bottom FARs, I thought it had reached a point on quite a few where it was now a judgement call for the delegates but maybe I'm missing something? it's 4.30 in London i should probably go to sleep, Tom B (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I probably glazed over on those; maybe I should go to sleep, too :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like The Monkey is back in business. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like The Bomb is back in business, too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Final Fantasy FAR only seems to have author-group keeps.... Darjeeling, Falg of India, Manila Rail and Music of Minnesota have had work ongoing, so they aren't getting closed, although it would be good if there were more prompts in the meantime. I'm not closing the NASA one. I was wondering whether there would be a shift in the status of Piotrus's articles or a rewrite now that a lot of the Polish editors have been incapacitates, especially as some other ethnic groups in EE are usually fiercely critical of them YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial era of Minnesota

Thanks for the copyediting! --Mcorazao (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

Due to the latest controversy, perhaps it would be better if I waited awhile before trying for admin. Cla68 (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better if you never try for admin in my opinion. Wikipedia needs to be run in a different sort of way, not by the cowboys presently in control. Nothing will change until they're forced to come to terms with that. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following Wiki developments closely lately; can anyone toss me a clue stick about the "latest controversy"? Who's picking on Cla now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Join a worthy project...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Magical Realism Reconsidered! Awadewit (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I lost patience with magical realism about 200 pages into Cien Años de Soledad. (I did like Love in the Time of Cholera, though. "It was inevitable: the smell of bitter almonds always reminded him of the fate of unrequited love.") And as you can see, I never got past Garcia Marquez. MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jbmurray dislikes me; he left out my favorite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The smell of bitter almonds kind of smell? ceranthor 01:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the one (the book opens with one of the main characters, a physician, pronouncing the death of an acquaintance who ingested cyanide). Check it out - it's worth a read. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Awadewit, for spreading the news. MastCell, this is a reconsideration rather than a love-fest. I personally am ambivalent at best about magical realism. SandyG, I taught the book but in a course on "bad Latin American literature"... sorry! FWIW, my thoughts are here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice, Jb :) Now I feel so much better about my culinary skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question re: The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie FAC

Hi SandyGeorgia!

I'm helping ATC with the FAC of The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. ATC is a little stressed at the moment, and I have a question about one of Tony's comments. Is it acceptable/okay to jump in as a non-nominator to ask reviewers for clarification? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is! Tony is a diligent and respected reviewer ... I haven't checked the FACs recently, so am unsure what the comment is ... thanks for helping ATC, she has really been plugging away at that article for a long time, but I'm sure the help is welcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what to do, but might need clarification. Thanks, didn't quite know whether to jump in or not. I follow Tony's comments at FAC and appreciate his work (am also in awe of his skills!). Yes, ATC has worked hard and I enjoy helping. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii hotspot

I'm helping with the Hawaii hotspot article. I understand that it's been up there for a while, but I will address all of the issues I have with it in (hopefully little) time, so please don't close it (or warn me beforehand). I'll do my best to get a good start tonight, Awickert (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also on this note, I see that Susan has Music of Minnesota pretty well, and since the Hawaii hotspot article will need quite a bit of work, I'm going to leave the music article to her and focus on the hotspot one. Awickert (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muy agradecida ... I'm just catching up, more later. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2002 coup

Dear Sandy, I have seen you have edited and commented on articles linked to the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Maybe you could chime in on some issues currently discussed, see the talk page for "JRSP reverts and "Chavez options". Thanks, Str1977 ^(talk) 10:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to get over there this week; thanks for letting me know! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Str, those are some long discussions, and I'm not anxious to get involved when JRSP and his cohort Rd232 will prevail via verbosity and obfuscation that leads to lack of interest from other editors. If you want to make any progress there, you need to carefully avoid letting them draw you into obfuscation and long discussion, and simply focus on sourced facts, keeping the discussion as short as possible. Lengthy off-topic discussions is one thing that keeps other editors from getting involved on those articles; while some, typically with an agenda, seem to have unlimited time for that, others don't. What are the key issues? I see that the use of "illegally detained" in the lead is the first issue raised. Unless I'm missing something, the source doesn't back the use of that word. The State Dept said:[11]

In April, during the short-lived government of Pedro Carmona, military officers held President Chavez for 36 hours against his will. Additionally, security forces conducted raids without warrants and took some Chavez supporters into custody illegally, including National Assembly deputy Tarek Willian Saab, a member of the Chavez-aligned MVR. Forced exile is illegal; however, during the short-lived Carmona government in April, military officials attempted to force the exile of President Chavez.

That text does not support that Chavez was "illegally detained"; on what does JRSP base this text? Further, JRSP frequently argued in the past that the US State Dept was not a reliable source on Chavez; in this case, he likes it? What independent source, according to JRSP, claims that Chavez was "illegally detained"? Please explain to me what the other issues are, so I don't have to read through a long talk page involving a lot of POV and original research; I see the lead is blatantly POV as of now. To make progress with editors who have unlimited time to put forward one POV, you will need to keep your arguments as concise and focused as possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reluctance but the nature of the conflict would make your help all the more needed. Especially when they play their "I can edit the article but you can't" game. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

archive to Archive move

Sandy, why was this page moved from /archive1 to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/Archive 1?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving it back - I deleted the incorrectly named page. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ruhrfisch! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish help needed...

Hi Sandy! I'm working on a GA for Pichilemu, a city in Chile, and many of the references are in Spanish. Among the English references, I have found quite a few whose reliability I question, and this is making me suspicious of the Spanish ones, especially as I've already found two that were obviously blogs. As my Spanish is just good enough to introduce myself and ask for the restroom, I was wondering if you (or any Spanish-speaking TPWs reading this) could spare a few minutes to look at them? The review page is at Talk:Pichilemu/GA2. I know that you are quite busy, and also that you've expressed your disinterest in becoming involved in the GA process before, so if you don't have the time or inclination to jump in here, I quite understand. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had the quickest of looks, and think that you're on the money with most of your evaluations: a lot of tourism puff-pieces, brochures, and blogs. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JB; Dana, I'll get over there tonight for a look, after I promote, unless Jb has finished it off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dana, there are more problems than the quality of sources, but the WikiFoundation Error Gods ate my entire post; I will re-do it after my morning errands. I'll need a few more hours to get back to you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, there's no big hurry. And I know the article has further issues - anything you wish to point out is fine. I haven't even begun to look for copyvio issues, the prose needs some serious work, etc. The editor seems to be willing to work on the article, so I'm just taking it one step at a time - reference reliability is my current stack of issues! Thanks also to Jbmurray for your comments. Dana boomer (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back :) Yes, in addition to the problem with unreliable sources, there are also breadth of coverage, prose, MOS, and other sourcing issues. The main editor is a high school student in Chile; he might benefit from collaborating with an editor who has access to an English-language library database, bookstore, and other sources. As a sample, he could consider El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda; Enano275 had worked diligently on it for several years before I got involved to help him exhaust a search for English language sources. El Hatillo also offers an example for breadth of coverage of a region relatively unknown in the English speaking world.

This list is not comprehensive, but may serve as a first pass.

Google Scholar turns up several journal sources discussing problems with tourism development in the area; this isn't mentioned in the article at all. Coverage of several areas of the article is spotty.

There is some inconsistency in language use on translations; the article should consistently either mention terms in Spanish with an English translation, or mention them in English with the Spanish translation. Since it is about a location in Chile, I would think it better to use local (Spanish) terms and then translate them to English. There is also WP:OVERLINKing of the Spanish and English language on translations (as well as WP:OVERLINKing in general). Notice sample:

Villa Los Navegantes (English: Village of the Navigators) is a village of Pichilemu, ...
El Alto Lagoon (Spanish: Laguna El Alto) is located in Chorrillos Beach ...

The first is in Spanish with an (ovelinked) English translation; the second is an incorrect English translation with an overlink to the Spanish name.

Looking at the lead alone:

Pichilemu (Mapudungun: Small forest)^[1] is a beach resort town located in central Chile.^[1]^[2] It is also the capital of the Cardenal Caro Province.^[3] The city hosts 5 historic monuments and was declared a "Zona Típica" (English: Traditional Area or Heritage Site) by the National Monuments Council in 2004.^[4]

The beach of Pichilemu is considered one of the world's best for surfing.^[5] In particular, competitions are frequently held at Punta de Lobos.^[6]^[5] The city is mainly known because Agustín Ross Edwards, a Chilean politician and member of the powerful family Ross Edwards, made the city a beach resort for upper-class Chilean people.^[7] Particularly, the city owned a dock in its beginnings, but it was fired.^[8]

The city belongs to the District N° 35, and to the 9th Senatorial Circumscription of the O'Higgins Region. The current Mayor of Pichilemu is Roberto Córdova.^[9]^[10]

The second sentence, "It is also ... " Also is almost always redundant, and this sentence could be combined with the first for better flow.
"The city hosts 5 ... " should be five; these WP:MOSNUM issues occur throughout.
Lead should mention that that National Monuments Council is Chilean. Unsure how zona tipica gets translate to Heritage Site, but this leads to confusion with other, better known international heritage site designations.
" The beach ... world's best for surfing." The source given, a local Chilean news broadcast, is not sufficient to justify this claim. A higher quality independent source, such as a reputable surfing magazine, should be used for a claim of this type; I don't know surfing, and wasn't able to find any mention with a quick google search.
"The city is mainly known ... " This sentence seems to contradict the claim that it is known as a world-class surfing destination, and is unclear.
Redundant and repetitive prose, "in particular" followed by "particularly" in the second paragraph.
Prose: "Particularly, the city owned a dock in its beginnings, but it was fired." ESL issues there, unsure what the sentence means, in what beginnings, and what was fired?
Clarification for those who don't know Chile: District No. 35 of what? 9th Senatorial Circumscription of what? Historic monuments of what (country of Chile)?
WP:MOSDATE#Precise language ... "Current" mayor (as of when, until when, what is his term?). Why is mention of the mayor in the lead, instead of a better overall description of the area, covering more than politics?

Before examining the sourcing problems, just scanning the rest of the article for similar sample problems:

Early exploration section, first two sentences could be combined for better flow.
Clarification, "... remaining Promaucaes" ... remaining after what? Text is frequently underdeveloped. Actually, this paragraph leaves me with no clear idea of early exploration, and requires the reader to click on links to determine the story.
"Ortúzar family", flow, why is the origin of the name abruptly mentioned in this section?
"During more recent times" ... precise language ... better expressed as something like, "beginning in <year>" or "since <year> ... " or something similar. More sentences in this section that could be combined for better flow, the prose is choppy.
ESL, unsure what this sentence wants to say: "The city's plane was made detailing the Ortuzar avenue." Is "plan" the intended word instead of "plane"? Why "detailing"?
ESL, "He regularized the city plan" ... regularized ?
"Subsequently, Pichilemu ... " Subsequently? When?
Ross Hotel should not be in italic, see WP:ITALICS.
Geography contains almost no geography and little weather; conversions are needed. (Strangely, the census section includes some geography :)
Why did the city population decrease?
ESL: "elected in 2008 with 42.08% of vote ... "
Why does the first casino opening need four sources?
Pichilemu has many attractive places. ... throwaway sentence, says nothing.
Fudor's Chile says best surfing in South America, different than claim made in the lead. "Surfing is one of the most biggest tourist draws ... " ESL issues.
Why is a song recording mentioned under surfing? No culture or arts sections?
Education has peacockery: most important according to whom or what? Why is a children's garden mentioned in education? "Remarkably" ? Receiving what award?
Ross Casino is included in See also when it's already in the article.
WP:MOSCAPS in citations (I realize not all of these are applicable to GA, but list 'em as I see 'em anyway :)

There is more; the list above is only samples. In summary, the prose needs considerable work, and the text is underdeveloped and unclear.

Turning to some of the sourcing issues:

El rancahuaso seems to be a minimal quality reliable digital news publication, but I wonder why there isn't more use of better known Chilean newspapers?
I can't find anything indicating that pichilemuchile.com is a reliable source.
Pichilemunews is a blog, and some of the text it is used to cite should be citable from reliable Chilean newspapers. It seems that most of the research for this article may have been done online.
Visitingchile.com is a publicity, promotional site. Ditto for Gochile.cl Many others of this type, hope I don't need to list them all, please let me know if you have questions about any particular source. Corrugated City is a blog.
I'm unsure what the original source of this internet archive article is.

I stopped there; there is really very little in the article that is sourced to reliable sources, and I'm not sure expending more effort on checking each source will be productive. The article will need a major sourcing and prose overhaul. Please don't hesitate to ask me if you have any specific Spanish questions.

Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Sandy. I've copied them over to the review page (I hope this is OK, if not, please feel free to delete them), so that they can be struck or expanded upon as necessary by myself and the nominator. I realize that the prose and MOS compliance is quite bad; I think I approached it basically backward from the way you did - I looked at sources first, then prose. Thanks for the comments on some of the Spanish sources; if the nominator continues to improve the article and we get to the point of almost to GA status, I may ask you to look at a few more :) Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like horses ("no hooves, no horse"), Wikipedia articles have a saying... "bad sources, bad article" . I find the sources are the best spot to start with GANs, myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, but there were almost no reliable sources in that article, so there wasn't much to check :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Drinker Cope

I've added a bit of an explanatory annotation to the text, hopefully that addresses your concern? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archival of FA of Killswitch Engage

Just wondering why the FA nom of Killswitch Engage was archived. All the concerns were addressed by the two people that opposed, and nobody else has brought up any more concerns about the article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a link to the FAC so I can get to your query faster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Killswitch Engage/archive1 TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm pestering, but it has been nearly a week without an answer. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but when you don't supply a link the first time, things get lost on my page. If you've cleaned up all the sourcing issues, and addressed Indopug's Oppose, the article can come back to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pichilemu

I saw your comments on Pichilemu. Can you help me covering these issues?. Thanks. --MW talk contribs 02:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inquiring! I wish I could, but I'm afraid the article needs a sustained amount of attention to searching for reliable sources, and I just don't have enough time to be able to help effectively. If you can locate and cite reliable sources, pls do feel free to ping me as you progress, and I will help with the prose and other copyediting. As the article progresses, I may be able to add more. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free State of Galveston

Thanks again for the copyediting!

Notes:

WP:Citing sources says that web citations should not display both a publication date and a retrieval date. It does, however, recommend adding comments in the wiki text with the retrieval dates so I'll add these in.
I tend to prefer the standard date style instead of the American style. It's one less character and quicker to parse mentally. From my reading of WP:Dates and feedback from more experienced editors my understanding is that the references can use either format as long as they are consistent.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 2, you are correct (references can use either format); I raised the query only because some editors aren't aware that their dates in citation formatting differ from their date formatting within the article. If it was intentional in your case, there is no problem. On 1, that page has (arrrrgh) gotten completely out of control of late. I can't find where it says that web sources do not need a retrieval date; could you please point me to the exact part of the page? I intend to argue against that, if this is a recent change. Websources should always have an accessdate. Very nice article; I asked an off-Wiki friend who grew up in Galveston to look it over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading "Citations for World Wide Web articles typically include:", it says

“

the date you retrieved it (invisible to the reader if the article has a date of publication: )

”

Taking quick look over the history it appears that it was changed early last year. There seems to have been some major debate on that.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer! I have to go out now, so won't be able to look at that until later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

81. ^ "The Balinese Room: Farewell to an Icon". Humanities Texas. October 2008.
82. ^ Thompson, Carter (9 May 2004). "Gambling advocates not cashing out". Galveston County Daily News.

From archive, "What is the rationale for requiring access/retrieval dates for online versions of past printed materials?" ... "If a cite gives a 1983 New York Times story's publication date, title, and author, and also gives a convenience link to the NYT archive, what is the value of having the retrieval date for this?" "The harm is that the "Retrieved on" takes up extra space ... " "I second the notion that (visible) retrieval dates for off-line media are visually irritating, cluttering and superfluous ... " "I do not see how an accessdate on sources which do not change - such as journal articles - is beneficial. However, on sources which may change, such as web content, it helps clarify which version of a page is being cited." "True web sources, which are rarer than most editors seem to think is another issue altogether. Websources are not permanent, and even if they are long term the content may dramatically change. Therefore it is not only essential that access date is recorded and reported, but also that when updating text for such sources a critical reflection whether the text is still covered by the website has to be applied. In printed articles, this is not so much an issue as you refer to the website once, and your text will not change, even if the website content does." "It indeed seems we have consensus that access dates for online copies of offline sources, while helpful as a comment in the source, should be hidden from the reader." Followed by several editors opposing any change-- including very valid samples from Eubulides of even journal article online content that changed-- and archival of the thread. The next discussion is again archived without consensus and opposition.

It's unclear to me how this change (no accessdate on websources) was implemented with no consensus; regardless, if there was any consensus, it was for print sources, not web sources (see the difference in sample refs 81 and 82 above). I'll ask Ealdgyth for feedback before taking it to the talk page of Citing sources. The current practice makes no sense at all, since including an HTML comment adds more space and irritation for editors, while adding no benefit to readers. Thanks again for pointing this out!

Further complication, per the usual mess that occurs across the various templates and citing pages, where there is no consistency {{Cite web}} does not say accessdates on websources are optional, nor does WP:CITET. Citation templates on Wiki are a diseaster, and there is no consistency across these guideline pages. WP:Citing sources was once a nicely maintained page. What is the rationale for asking editors to add an HTML comment about an accessdate, cluttering the text, when the citation templates do it automatically? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any discussion on changing this in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. For Free State of Galveston the remaining calls to {{cite web}} (I just now changed it by replacing one with a call to {{cite news}} and replacing |date= with |accessdate= on another where I couldn't find a publication date) look OK to me, in that the URLs seem to be pretty stable. "Stable" is a relative term, of course, and different editors might have different judgments, but it's not that big a deal surely. Eubulides (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You presented some good examples here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy asked me to comment here, since I was one of the editors pushing for not having to get accessdates on old or fixed print news sources. I saw the "put accessdates in comments" text go in to the guideline, but I didn't agree with it and haven't done it. I've gotten a number of articles through rigorous GA reviews without accessdates on most or all {{cite news}} instances; the date of the source is always seen as sufficient. I still use accessdate on most {{cite web}} instances, because the pages being referenced are either undated or subject to change over time. Citation in general continues to be a bad scene, and I think the best reviewers are now adopting a commonsense approach of "does this cite adequately describe the source if someone wants to check it". Wasted Time R (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been strictly enforcing an accessdate on newspaper/journal web links at FAC for a while. If they do SOME they need to do all, but if they don't do any news/journals, I don't scream. I do require them for web pages, even when there is a year date, as a year is a wide range and the last accessdate can also help with finding a version at a web archive for a deadlink. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page ranges

The intent was to use |p= for everything, but I see that people are so used to using |pages= and |page= that I just now added them as aliases for |p=. In NLM Vancouver style there's no difference in punctuation for single page versus a page range; you always say "p." for everything. I should probably mention this in the documentation. Eubulides (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This p., pp., pg., pgs. thing is becoming a bugaboo across other articles, which is why I raised the question. I just came across a mixture of p. and pg. somewhere (but I've already forgotten where, I think it may have been Free State of Galveston, but not sure), and I couldn't figure out how to fix it. I'm losing my MOS maven skills :) I wish those darn templates would be more consistent and flexible! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt

Edit summaries are generally insufficient to explain {{POV}} tags. Please elaborate on the talk page, eg on whether it's something merely lacking from the lead, or not in the article at all, and details of what you have in mind. Rd232 ^talk 17:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will, as soon as I have time to read through the article, but the omissions in the lead are so glaringly apparent that little justification is needed. I may not get to this until later today. In the meantime, it would be helpful if someone pointed out exactly where (with a specific quote) the State Dept said that Chavez was illegally detained; that source says no such thing as far as I can tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and done that. Rd232 ^talk 17:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And removed; please provide reliable independent unbiased sources, relative to WP:UNDUE. Which reliable media sources, for example, say that Chavez was illegally detained? None, to my knowledge. This is but one example of the POV that predominates in that article; independent unbiased sources are needed to back exceptional claims. That a source (State Dept) that does not back the statement alleged has been allowed to stand in that article for so long is an indication of the POV that has crept into the article. I suggest that you not re-add the term "illegal" if you cannot justify it according to due weight of multiple reliable media and independent sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That a source apparently is used to support a statement it in fact doesn't support is evidence of sloppy editing, nothing more. Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not when that same source (State Dept) has been rejected by the same editors as biased many times in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's my point: it's not about the source, it's about the inadvertent creation of the impression that the source supports everything in the text it appears near, when in fact it only supports some of it. This is regrettable but not uncommon, and can happen very easily through sloppiness (especially by adding things to existing text, which is particularly prone to happening in the lead). Rd232 ^talk 18:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This also happens with biased editing and editors :) As it stands now, without even reading the rest of the article, the lead is clearly biased, focusing on the flaws of the Carmona installation while completely overlooking any factual analysis of the actual events that led to Chavez's removal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "partial source"? it's cited in an academic paper (which is part of the ref, since the source itself is in Spanish). And your request for reliable media sources for this kind of analysis leaves me befuddled. Bias aside, journalism is the first draft of history; 8 years on, we can do a lot better than that. Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please give due weight to multiple independent reliable sources. Which of those say that Chavez was illegally detained? None, since he wasn't :) You can only cherry pick one source until someone objects and points out WP:UNDUE; the text should reflect a preponderance of reliable sources. I suggest that the lead spend some time actually discussing Chavez's removal (dubiously referred to as a "coup", but on Wiki, we must respect reliability over truth, and since all sources call it a "coup", we have to go with that, but that doesn't excuse a factual analysis of what actually happened there) rather than the flaws of the Carmona installation; focusing on one aspect while neglecting the other is clear POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've got to take pretty strong issue with your declaration that it is an "exceptional claim" that the detention of the head of state during a coup is illegal. And the Cannon article (which I can email if you like) is all about the coup - it is a very high quality source, far better than a random news piece. Rd232 ^talk 18:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preponderance of sources, please; not cherrypicking of one source. I'm quite sure you're aware that even "detention" can be labeled dubious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not "cherrypicking" - this is the only academic article I'm aware of specifically on the coup. And no, I'm not aware that anybody thinks Chavez's "visit" shall we say to Fort Tiuna etc should not be considered detention - sources for that view? In general, a reminder of WP:AGF seems in order; seems to have slipped your mind, or maybe you've encountered some WP:MASTODONs. Rd232 ^talk 18:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This not so much about whether a source says "illegally detained" (as it happens, the source doesn't say this) - as "illegal" is a matter of judgement and hence a matter of controversy.

Rd you said that the "that the detention of the head of state during a coup is illegal" - if that is so we do not need to hit home in every sentence that a single act was illegal. We already say it was a coup - and there is no going around it: it was a coup done by the military leadership with at least some popular support but still a coup.

I also do not see a discussion about whether it was "detention" or a "visit" - this is a strawman set up by you. Sure, it was detention as Chavez was supposed to stand trial sometime in the future. I don't see why "coup" and "detention" is not enough, why you have to add "illegal"? Str1977 ^(talk) 19:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's quite a strawman, and cherrypicking of sources as well, but your analysis of the "coup" is also lacking history. As is the entire lead, which instead focuses on the Carmona debacle. Methinks POV has overtaken the article long ago! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My groping for a neutral term not synonymous with detention, since you said "detention" was also disputed, clearly did not constitute an argument as such, so calling it a "straw man" is rather missing the point. I've already addressed the "cherrypicking" on issues of both AGF and fact, yet you repeat the claim. Finally, please provide a rationale for the POV tag sooner rather than later, such that there is a possibility for the concerns to be addressed. Rd232 ^talk 18:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - as I noted on the article talk page replying to Str1977, an explanation of your concerns of things missing from the lead would segue neatly into a discussion about how to expand it, which I think would address his concerns too. Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll weigh in there when I find time, but I find it comical that a description of the POV is even needed in a lead which includes a word supported by only one source, no mention of Chavez's involvement in the events leading up to his removal, while focusing on the Carmona debacle. I would think this POV is apparent to any thinking person and hardly worth my time to deal with a clearly biased article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's unhelpfully dismissive. You don't need to write a thesis, just a note on the general themes missing from the lead and/or body. Rd232 ^talk 20:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy VIII

Hi Sandy. Can you do a MOS check on this please. Most of the other stuff seems to be in order now YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to it as soon as I can, but I'm swamped on Wiki and IRL, so please ping me if I forget :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bit of WP:MOSNUM cleanup needed, but otherwise it was in pretty good shape. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dabomb ... are you pitching for a barnstar? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dangling FAC nom, uninvolved nominator, probably delete

Hi Sandy, Just a quick note I found Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xbox 360/archive2 hanging out there. The nominator doesn't appear to have ever edited the article. Do you have a stock message you give for these kinds of nominations or any general procedure I should have read up on? Thanks, -Optigan13 (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that; there is some sorta documentation in my userspace. I'll take care of it now, and you can follow my contribs to see how it's done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, well, following my contribs there wasn't very useful, because there was no FAC template on the talk page to remove, the FAC wasn't transcluded to WP:FAC, so I only needed to notify the nominator with {{FAC withdrawn}} and db-g6 the FAC page. And I see the instructions in my userspace are out of date :) Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best FA

Someone suggested looking at an FA to see what is "compelling prose". Can you point to a FA that you think has good compelling prose. The FA discussions seem to point to a lot of technical requirements but there is little discussion about prose. Do you remember one or two FA that you think have exceptionally good prose, or at least very good prose? Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it helpful to highlight any one particular FA as an example; there are too many to pick one out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be shy, Sandy. You can list mine. --Moni3 (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one ? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have to be the best. Just one that you think is very well written. I'm looking for prose, not technically meeting the citation requirements. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, eh, just find the only coherent sentence I've written amid the babble and screech. --Moni3 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably work with this one: "Letters began to pour in for her from all over the country. There were mostly propositions from men." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to be looking at FAs on commercial companies I think. One that springs to mind is Elderly Instruments, but I'm sure there are others. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article. The sentences flow well. I can think of some ways to improve it but flowing prose is not one of them. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, I (and the purple one) will remember this ... I'll repay you some day with an obnoxious Youtube :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it. I've got no idea what "twang" music sounds like, and I very much doubt that I'd be able to understand the accent of anyone who tried to explain it to me. I'm reminded of Stephen Fry's televised visit to Kentucky (I think it was), when subtitles would have been very helpful. It's easy to larn different words, but bloody hard to understand the strangulation of the language ... I think I'm digressing here, probably best shut up now. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're just waving your willy again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is he wearing a hat indoors? That's just so ... well ... unsophisticated. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you interrupt me while I was starring Graham's barn to call me a hick? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You all may find more nourishment in the State of Tennessee.[12] Kablammo (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picking on FAC women is all the rage these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call those folk bands? This is a proper folk band. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real dirty town. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate musicals. With a deep passion. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you deserve the best, you might find this worth your while. I expect royalties each time you use it on your talk page or at RFA. Big royalties, since I have to give a cut to someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, the twang musicians are mostly retired college professors in the American Midwest with nothing else to spend their time or money on. About the only speech infraction they're guilty of is pronouncing "about" as "aboot". --Andy Walsh (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember attending a windsurfing course in Scotland some years ago.The (very) Scottish instructor had just returned from the States, and insisted on calling buoys "booees".

By the end of the week I just wanted to strangle him, slowly. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like what happens to me when I see someone write or say "no problemo". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say "boy" - what do you say? Of course I live somewhere where "Dawn" and "Don" sound the same, and my Argentinian-taught Spanish doesn't go over very well. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the "throw a well-written FA to the prose wolves" department? Let the carnage begin. Since the introduction of criterion 1a all FAs must have had prose that was "engaging, even brilliant" or they wouldn't have got through FAC. QED. You can't argue. No, you can't. No. Stop. Yomangani ^talk 19:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. In fact it's got nothing to do with FA at all; it's to do with this. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pity, I was hoping for a bare-knuckle fight over some MOS ephemera. I'll go provoke a punch-up in the pub instead. Yomangani ^talk 19:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Ya forgot to invite me to the pub (this isn't my first rodeo, 'ya know). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get no fight over MoS ephemera from me. Mine's a pint BTW. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my humble opinion is that there is no universal formula. The style of the prose needed depends very much on subject of the article. In an FA, this has to reflect, and somehow empathise with the subject—and most of the FA contributors whose contributions I am familiar with know this. The (wonderful) prose of Moni's FAs has a completely different style to FAs on video games, and Colin's style—as can be seen in Ketogenic diet—is even more distinct. Brian Boulton's many FAs demonstrate very well in my view that passion for the subject comes first—like Moni, he is a talented writer; but the passion for the subject is the first thing one notices. Please don't look for a magic FA-achieving formula for engaging prose. To misquote Moni, "If you love what you're writing about; write about it".Stick to WP:MoS, act on good advice and read User:Tony1/How_to_improve_your_writing. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are such a dear, Graham; I'm going to have to compose another collage for your talk! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point I was hinting at in my comment above. Writing about a work of great literature is quite different from writing about a bridge, for instance, and the former will likely be held to a much higher standard of prose than the latter. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GrahamColm is a shameless flatterer (thanks, darlin'!), but he does have it right that you must absolutely love what you are writing about. If not love, then find it so extraordinarily compelling that you would go through the potential abuse festival that is FAC. It must sustain you enough that you seek multiple opinions on your topic, you copy edit it for weeks or months, you can take harsh criticism and still work to improve the article, all without lashing back and telling the editors who comment with less than wonderful words that they can shove it. Something in your writing must shine through, yet must be contained by the encyclopedic tone and all the thousands of rules at the MOS. Be prepared to fail rather spectacularly and happily for a bit. --Moni3 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never have I heard such a strong explanation of higher level content work on this project. Bravo, Moni, bravo! *throws flowers* ceranthor 23:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to articulate a different viewpoint here. I would actually not encourage people to write about something they love, especially for their first few FAs. It is hard to write using NPOV on a topic one has a very strong opinion about and it is hard to hear criticisms about a topic one loves. I always tell my students, for example, not to write on the movies and novels they love. To effectively distance yourself from your emotional tie to a topic in order to dispassionately research and write an article is extremely difficult. Not for the faint of heart. :) Awadewit (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gracious, what would you think of me as your student? I simply would not do the assignment. It's all about motivation tempered with the parameters set by the FA criteria. --Moni3 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, all your passionate adjectives will have been beaten out of it by the time it gets to FAC. I got one through once^{[citation needed]} (back in the good old days when FAC was green fields as far as the eye could see, and you could have a night out for tuppence and still have change left over for a bowl of scraps and pea wet). Yomangani ^talk 03:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I often advise people they need to love their FA topics, but with the stress on "love," not "like," which for me means warts and all. When I see editors try to keep criticism out of their articles, I always think, "you don't love that thing enough." :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But she says "shameless flatterer" like it's a bad thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That puzzled me as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just happy to be called "cute". ceranthor 00:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to FA delegates, you must lay it on with a trowel. Kablammo (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus hates musicals with a passion; maybe he'd prefer a power tool? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but no cigar. That's just piling breeze blocks one on top of the other as fast as you can. Do you have bricks in the US?[13] --Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subtitles would be helpful.

Tony might do it, but there's no crying women. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Hammond

Hi, I have just finished (for now) expanding the Wally Hammond article. I am considering putting it up for peer review or possibly FAR. However, I wondered if you could have a quick look and see what you think of it in terms of having it reviewed. It is still probably in need of a good tidy and copy-edit, but I'd appreciate any opinions on strengths and weaknesses before I put it forward for anything. Thanks.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the article seems a bit long. At 63kb of prose (98kb total) I think it's pushing the accepted norm for length... I didn't get to look over the prose much, it looked okay at a glance. Some more images could be beneficial. I hope you're willing to cut down parts, it will attract some disapproval at FAC. ceranthor 23:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it through peer review before FAC never hurts; you can follow the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to get better feedback, and possibly ask User:YellowMonkey to have a look. (By the way, there's a mix of p. and pp. on page ranges, should be consistent.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Idlet

Sandy, could you please look at John Thomas Idlet and the recent edit history? I believe the new single-purpose user User:Pegarty, is Philomene Long, one of the persons mentioned in the article (actually inserted into the article by User:Pegarty). My edit summary is pretty clear on my concerns about recent edits. It is a delicate situation, and I want to know 1) if anyone else agrees with my assessment of the edits, 2) if my reading of the sources (letters to the editor) are correct about the conviction not being overturned, and 3) how to proceed. Thanks for any time you take on this and any guidance you provide. --Paul (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot of time to delve into this, but User:Slp1 is very good at addressing these sorts of issues (they can tend to drag on, or end abruptly, once you confront a suspected COI editor :). The first step might be a {{subst:uw-coi}} notice on the user's talk page. Why was the Elaine Woo news source removed? Letters to the editor aren't good sources for BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technetium FARC

Since you were interested in it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On my way to FAR after a long day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carabane

Hi Sandy,

That means a lot to me. Thank you. It's also encouraging to know that most FAC's are more straightforward; perhaps I'll pursue others in the future after all.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multi's

Hi Sandy, I'm not quite sure if "cluestick" means "gives me a clue", but in the event that it does, I've thinking in particular of these submissions [14] [15] I don't really want to name names, was just wondering if multi's were acceptable, as I have a long list of articles I'd like to nom at FAC :) Sasata (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Sasata. With the page size being so large, I sometimes miss multiple noms. In the case of Cyclonebiskit, his first nom does have support, but I haven't promoted because it has no independent review; in that case, it's valid for him to submit another nom, because it's a problem with lack of reviews. But I'm still glad you pointed it out, as I hadn't noticed he had two noms up. I will have to deal with the Hunter Kahn case; again, I had missed it. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Sasata, for your reference, as soon as you have a couple of valid supports, and no unresolved issues, you can add a second nom. I'll leave definition of valid to the peanut gallery :) I let HunterKahn's second nom run this time, since it's already underway, and it's my fault for missing it, but I do appreciate when others let me know. I also give leeway on multiple noms to nominators who put up well-prepared FACs, that aren't a drain on reviewers, and help out by reviewing other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying. I hope to fit clearly into that latter category when my dual submissions appear :) Sasata (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Hi Sandy. I was wondering if you would mind taking a quick look at List of named waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park to see if you think it could be submitted to FAC or if it is too listy? (If we submitted it to FAC it would be under a new name, probably Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park). Our original thought was to submit to FLC, but it is currently at peer review where Brianboulton thought "As it stands this could not be accepted as a List - far too much text." I asked The Rambling Man and he also suggested splitting out much of the text into another article before FLC. Before we do that, I wondered if it were too listy for FAC. (We plan to eventually get the article on the park itself ready to submit to FAC too.) Thanks in advance for any advice, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for overlooking this. I'm afraid I'm not the best for opining on list vs. article; for a long time, I've been trying to get someone who is to write a Dispatch on the distinction, and none of the FAC talk threads on the topic have come to convincing conclusions one way or another. I don't know what to advise, except try it out at one or the other (FAC or FLC) and see what the reaction is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - we will talk this over at the peer review. Don't feel bad about overlooking it - recently I had someone remind me a month (!) later, that they were still waiting on my second look at an article (after an archived peer review) (sheepish grin). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FA reviews

You said on FAC talk "...content review specialists, for example, an art article..." - which one's that? Alexander? Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was concerned that the "Art Cabal" missed it because the title may be making it appear as a MilHist article; it was strange not to see you all in there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a MILHIST article too. Depictions of battles are included in our scope, but we are welcome to letting the "Art Cabal" have primary control over the article ;) -MBK₀₀₄ 02:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I've commented a number of times on this & the 1st go-round, and on the talk page, but as the 2nd largest contributor don't feel I should !vote. Ceoil is now taking an interest. Johnbod (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ah, ha ... I hadn't looked at the edit count, and didn't realize you were in there :) Glad Ceoil is back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think there would be any FACs that would have content issues that were glaring to the rank outsider, except the naive FAC noms, but I found some on the spot on some sport articles. I'm surprised that so many sport articles just give stats to explain performance/productivity without explaining the strengths and weaknesses or styles of the players. Maybe I should check more sport FAs YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! There aren't enough reviewers who are interested in sports. I try to tackle some of the college football ones when I have time, but my interest in the other sports is very low. Karanacs (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't follow or find American sports interesting at all, but the lack of meat on the articles on the baseball, basketball and hockey team at FAC apart from stats was quite stark! It took only a handful of minutes to get the buzzer ringing YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G-spot amplification

You realize that since this procedure is performed and marketed by exactly one physician in the world ([16]), your 20+ edits to our article on the topic make you, arguably, the world's #2 authority on G-spot amplification? I'm not judging - everyone has their niche. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I'll have to open a Camp or something and spread my knowledge :) Google shows that he's no longer the only one doing it: 132,000 hits, including even a find-a-doctor page. Scary stuff! Can't you pharm schills come up with something better for the other half? "Imagine the locker room banter ... "; you could be rich. Shall I e-mail or post to the talk page of my usual source, asking him to send me "In Search of (Better) Sexual Pleasure"? I dunno ... that might prompt him to design a new template in honor of my new expert status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't fault the drug companies for a lack of effort in medicalizing the issue. There was bremelanotide, which made people horny with the added effect of also making them tanned. Those sticks-in-the-mud at FDA rejected it just because it caused life-threatening elevations in blood pressure. Occasionally - like when I see a really nice boat that I can't afford - I wonder whether I should write a fad-diet book or exploit modern Western hangups about body image and sexuality. I haven't gone down that road yet, but for a nice enough boat... :P MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the fast route to that boat. (On the "where did you hear about us" part, tell 'em Sandy, the world's #2 authority, sent you.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carabane - dispatch?

Is Carabane the first translated article to reach FA status? Or the first translation of an FA on another wiki to reach FA status? If so, I think we ought to have a dispatch on the efforts of Neelix and Ji-elle...and I'll volunteer to put it together if they both agree. Karanacs (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, it is, but we would need to do some investigation to be sure. I do think a Dispatch is a very good idea, because there were some unresolved concerns there, although those editors were exemplary in how they handled that FAC. My concern there was that reviewers may have overlooked the special circumstances: the original editor acknowledged less than fluent English, and the translating editor didn't have full access to all French sources (different than the circumstances when I worked on the El Hatillo Spanish FA, where I speak Spanish and had full access to all sources, and the article wasn't a translation). Maybe we could broaden the Dispatch to also address articles whose sources are mostly non-English? I could work on it as well, but we should define the scope. My other concern is that Carabane was a topic area that was less subject to comprehensiveness and POV concerns because it was Geography: in a more difficult topic area, the FAC might not have gone as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, in a more difficult topic area there are likely to be more English language sources. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image reviews at FAC

Hi Sandy, I took a quick look at a few, but I was mostly taken up by Battle of the Nile. Jappalang (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thanks...

... for this edit summary. Here is an orange bar for you too, but I promise I won't edit this comment again, even this tpyo :-) Geometry guy 17:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a hint for a famously sloppy editor (on talk pages, that is ... I do move to another computer and a different editing mode when I pr/ar ... wish I could spend more time on that computer, but I can't). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Durrah

No worries about the delay. I realize it's a lot of fair-use, and I know I may have to relinquish some of them. It's just that my hope in rewriting this article was that it would be a really comprehensive resource, and the images are very much part of that, which is why I've been clinging to them. :) If Elcobbola is, indeed, able to look at them, I'll abide by whatever he says. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry...

I guess I need an eye appointment too! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cystic fibrosis

Droptone managed to get those papers. It's too late for FAR, but it's never too late to spruce up the article :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fv! I am swamped over the coming weeks, and may not be able to keep up with too much other than FAC and FAR. If things get moving there, I'll pitch in as I can. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatch question

Hi Sandy, do you happen to know whether it's acceptable and/or good form to make changes to already published dispatches? Some of the image examples in the non-free dispatch are now red-links (having been replaced for otherwise removed from articles and, thus, deleted) and I'm curious whether I should make an update to replace them. Thoughts? Эlcobbola _talk 16:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that should be a problem-- go for it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are ok....

I saw a reference to surgery on a talkpage? Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, A; I'm perfectly fine, no big deal, just "growin' old ain't for sissies" routine stuff. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, take it easy anyhow, and see you back fairly soon I hope. You know the wicked don't get to rest for too long! Ceoil ^sláinte 12:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlMBcTGJ4YM&feature=related SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your visual needs :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eF06fNK3Ng&feature=related SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so thats what your up to - defying gravity! Har! Getting less young is such a pain, though. I have 3 grey hairs now, two on my left eyebrow, and one on my head. Could be worse though, I have a friend who has to pluck his ears. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not defying gravity healthwise ... darn, unintended consequences of the Youtube :) You got it wrong! Obviously, posting with brain fog, I didn't think that one through very well ! Getting less young is wonderful ... goes with getting wiser :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha - no worries, you did walk into that one! I'm certainly getting older these days, but wiser? No evidence of that yet. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ: I see plenty evidence of that. PS, see the talk thread on Iridescent's page ... you myspacer !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wot? It all work and no play for me. Serious business. Ceoil ^sláinte 14:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's no fun! Well. Clearly, our myspacing socializing served a Wiki purpose; considering how I walked into that one, I know my brain isn't ready to pr/ar FAC today :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the sum of human knowledge is at stake, I hear by ban you from my talk page for a period of 2 days, and 2 nights. Come Monday - you can do what you like. Tuesday and wednesday - no postings. Grand again Thursday and Friday. If you can wean like that, im sure the project will survive! Ceoil ^sláinte 16:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard closure

I found tonight that a FAC was at AFD as a possible hoax, and the nominator was blocked 1 week for socking. Certainly the strangest one I've seen in a while. I archived it the usual way; just wanted to let you know so you won't have to go contributions-hunting :) Maralia (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Maralia; I've got a bit of fog brain today, and didn't quite follow it all, but if it's deleted, that will leave a redlink in archives that we'll have to deal with. So we need to follow up ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, never mind, that was wrong. <fog brain> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 World Series FAC

I don't mind the closure, I'll go through GA for now and give FAC another go later, but why exactly did you close this? I was actively responding to reviews and there are FACs almost a month older than this still left open. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you give me a link, I'll get there faster. When you don't give me a link, this is likely to get lost in my busy talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed sections?

Sandy, I know you've said in the past that we can't use collapsible sections in the body of the article, so you may want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Accessibility#MOS:COLLAPSE outdated advice?. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help

You have earned this 1956 Hungarian Revolution Barnstar for stepping in at the right time to keep its FAR from spinning out of control István (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Durrah

Sandy, is there anything else that needs to be done with this? It seems that Elcobbola didn't get round to the image review, so I'd prefer to proceed without him because there's no knowing how long it will take. Is there any issue apart from the images? The reason I ask is that I'm finding the current situation somewhat draining. The longer it stays up, the more people can find things to comment on, or ask me to change, but every change I make triggers, or risks triggering, someone wanting some other change, because the balance is a delicate one (unavoidably). It currently has one strong support (Tony), three regular supports (Brian Boulton, Peter Cohen, and Laser Brain), one qualified support (Hamiltonstone), one weak support (Ling.Nut), and one oppose (Wehwalt). Wehwalt has moved from oppose to strong oppose to neutral to weak support and back to oppose. That in itself has been exhausting. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sandy. I think I aged 10 years in the last few weeks. I never thought I'd be glad to be asked for non-breaking spaces, but today I was delirious with joy, because it suggested home stretch. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny! Now I need to find time to scroll back through my talk page and see what all I missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Minnesota

Maintaining an FA can sometimes be like cooking a steak with a hair dryer... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you how many problems that statement is creating in my brain. Bad hair days plus cooking in one post ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image reviews. alt-text reviews, sourcing reviews, prose reviews ...

Just wanted to share a few thoughts with you.

When I, and I'm sure many others reviewers, support an article at FAC, I've looked at the whole thing; image copyright, sourcing, prose, alt-text, the lot. As I did yesterday with this one. I support because I believe it meets all of the FA criteria, not just one or two of them. I'm thinking this specialist reviwer idea has become more of a hindrance than a help, and may actually be inhibiting non-specialist reviewers. It's for sure useful to have experts to call on where the sitation doesn't appear to be clear-cut, but routinely? I'm not so sure that's either necessary or helpful, and just places a burden on a few experts who could probably be better employed elsewhere.

Feel free to disagree. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; I wasn't aware you also looked at images. Maybe it's time to throw the burden back on specialist reviewers to oppose when there are issues. I'll see if I have an opinion after reading through 60 FACs today :) I'm only through the top third, have found so far six ready to go but lacking explicit image reviews, and am reminded of Qp's thoughts on being nagged "to distraction" as the "mother of the whole process". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I objected to one quite recently because I wasn't happy about the copyright.[17] --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'm so sad I even check the copyrights on GANs. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for a barnstar, or an RFA nom :) :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you mean you can't get both at the same time? ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want either, especially not that RfA death grip. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but let's get The Bomb up at RFA so I can stop db-g6ing faulty FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If folks want, I'd be more than happy to stop doing FAC source reviews. Would certainly free up more time for actually editing... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't! You are a separate and wondrous entity! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to thank you for promoting Jay Pritzker Pavilion without a second explicit image review, and was going to offer to ask someone to review its images anyway if you wanted.

As a followup on the above, I also look at the image licenses when I review FACs, though I am by no means an image expert. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's two. So, on images, perhaps I should no longer do all the babysitting of asking and waiting for explicit image reviews, and leave it to people to oppose when there are problems. The page is stalled, too many FACs are waiting for review, and we need to get it moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the wilkipedia way? If image reviewers have a problem then they can say so, but it's probably too much to expect them to sign off every FAC. Same with Ealdgyth, that girl is far better off spending her time more productively. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey now! I've got enough on my plate, thank you... all those bishops to deal with... gotta get them ready for the copyeditor...Ealdgyth - Talk 01:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad al-Durrah

So I said I had some concerns that I'd like to address, and two hours later you close the discussion? That doesn't seem very considerate to me. Why couldn't it have waited a little longer until I had a chance to voice my concerns? Gatoclass (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was a sole oppose among several supports, I'm not annoyed about the oppose being overridden, such things happen when you are a minority of one. I'm more miffed the NFCC issues never got addressed, or rather, the nominator kept negotiating with the reviewers by deleting images, but never got a reviewer to agree with her (that's assuming that you can reviewer-shop). I don't think it would have hurt things for the article to await resolution of the NFCC issues and Gatoclass's concerns as well. My objections were not large, but I'd rather have seen a cleaner promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good wishes

I hope the surgery was minor and you're fully recovered. By the way, I don't know how long it's been since I posted on your talk page, but that's one big ugly header that popped up and shouted at me when I clicked edit. It's ugly! But I hope it achieves what it tries to. Best wishes. Mike Christie (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't :) I should probably give up on it. It's great to see you around again; I hope you're settled in! Surgery was nothing (although I walked into a faux pas with Ceoil in an earlier thread -- read up :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started playing the videos and had to stop as I have a fourteen-year-old in here trying to do homework; but I got the gist. Glad you're well. I don't think I'm really back yet; I got a wild hair early last year to really learn Latin properly, and I am only a bit over halfway through the program so I think it'll be a while yet. But I'm not feeling like memorizing vocabulary or uses of the ablative tonight so I am browsing FAC. I think I'm about to comment on Flag of Japan; prose is not great. Later . . . . Mike Christie (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media of Venezuela

for god's sake Sandy, I just turned a listy mess into a stub. Wouldn't a talk page message on how to proceed from there, maybe with some sources if you have any to hand, be more constructive than a tag at this point? Rd232 ^talk 11:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, I corrected your "listy mess" by adding the correct templates and conforming to WP:LAYOUT (which you have now reverted). I don't think I need to point an experienced editor towards reliably sourced mainstream versions of accounts that are omitted and easily available on google news, while a known biased source is retained (venezuelaanalysis.com-- see Center for Public Integrity National Review, and venanalysis bias has been discussed many times on Wiki.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "listy mess" was this version. I don't pay much attention to WP:LAYOUT (except by osmosis), so if you really want the list articles referenced as see also's from the Overview rather than the See Also section, could you point me to the relevant bit. As for the sourcing - OK, I see we'll have to take this to WP:RSN, like I already suggested. Rd232 ^talk 12:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Items should always be incorporated into articles where possible, to avoid a long list in See also which turns the article back into a list (what you were trying to avoid). Templates or wikilinks are preferred to long lists of See also, as they incorporate the info into the body of the article. I agree the listy mess cleanup was good, but templates instead of long See alsos are preferred. "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, ... " The goal is to aid in writing articles and keeping info where it's relevant and easily availabe to readers, rather than ending up with long lists at the bottom in See also; the templates do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but these are simply lists. It's a pretty useless referral from an overview. If they were in depth overviews of each media type I'd agree. Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, one list is replaced with another list (in See also); the use of templates avoids that in one line, and templates are quite frequently used to link List articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of templates doesn't avoid that - it's just a horizontal list instead of a vertical one. Again, due to lack of sufficient helpfulness of the links, I'd leave them to the end. I doubt there's any policy adjudication between these two positions, it's a matter of consensus. But it's so damned trivial, I'll leave it up to you. Rd232 ^talk 13:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a damn trivial correction I made, and your revert was unnecessary ... since I do spend my time at FAC and FAR, I have a tendency to know best practice in articles, and using templates to link Lists and avoid See also is one of those :) Fix it if you want; I already did it once, and don't really have time to clean up everything on every article (I'm more concerned when non-reliable sources are added in articles to introduce bias, and complete citations including publisher aren't given, so readers and other editors might not be aware of the iffy sourcing ... and it would take me days to identify all of those in Venezuela/Chavez articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I almost always give complete citations. It's less experienced editors who profilerate unadorned weblinks to God knows what. Rd232 ^talk 14:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost, but not always; I expanded and completed that citation, and it took me a while to figure it out. I could spend 24/7 checking and fixing citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ref was copied from Bank of the South. I hadn't noticed it was Global Exchange when copying; although it turns I did add it originally to Bank of the South. Rd232 ^talk 14:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now why you were confused, and why we seemed to be talking about two different things. I always appreciate apologies; thanks ! And I'm glad that's clarified ... I really couln't figure where you were coming from, but now I see the confusion. Perhaps my comment that you seem to becoming agitated needs to be clarified now that I see you were merely confused about the cn tag, but I'm out of time-- will get to it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Venezuelanalysis. Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Harvey_Whittemore

Would you mind taking a quick look at Harvey Whittemore and commenting on potential BLP violations? I have edited the Xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus article since mid-October. Observing intense POV editing and recruitment by chronic fatigue syndrome patients and advocates, I created Whittemore Peterson Institute in an attempt to shunt the divisive editing atmosphere away from XMRV and into an article where the dictates of WP:MEDRS would not be paramount. During my research, I discovered that a founder of the institute, Harvey Whittemore, is a rather notable and interesting individual, and I created an article about him, as well. Several of the CFS advocates have labeled this biography with NPOV and BLP tags. In my obviously quite biased opinion, the biography is well-referenced and contains nothing resembling a BLP violation. Given your recent involvement in several BLPN issues, I thought I would ask for your opinion should you have the time and inclination. Thanks in advance. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, time is what I don't have, but since it's medical, I'll try to get to it soon ... you might also ask User:Tim Vickers, User:MastCell, User:Colin, User:Fvasconcellos or User:Eubulides. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does User:Mastcell get all the credit for my work? :P MastCell ^Talk 20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busy brain :) Fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SandyGeorgia...I sent a note to a a few of the editors you recommended. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and my apologies for not getting right on it; real-life pressing duties call! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC ... "cull"...

You done? I am waiting until you finish before I start a source run. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep ... thank you :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. Everyone you archived was one less I had to do! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Gimmetrow will put up with us, we may have to start more aggressively archiving more often. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useful stuff

Hello, Sandy's talk page stalkers. Tell me, are there any tools for spotting duplicated refs and/or for automatically converting them to that whizzy new list-defined reference system? (Hi Sandy, thanks for having a popular talk page). Yomangani ^talk 23:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Menos mal que para algo sirvo! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O_o... servir de ejemplo no te basta?? ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, pobrecita. Nadie la quiere...but please don't distract those eager helpers from my question. Yomangani ^talk 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ejemplo de que? Y cual de ustedes no me quiere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of use. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was, thanks. Now I just need that citation converter and then I can leave Sandy to await genuine visitors. Yomangani ^talk 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"City of Blinding Lights" FAC

Hi Sandy (if I may call you that) and all knowledgable lurkers; I recently listed the article "City of Blinding Lights" for FAC. On the last occassion I was at FAC, No Line on the Horizon was not promoted for a second time. I was told that for future nominations I should "aggressively recruit music editors to review [the] FAC". Taking this advice in hand, I have left notices on WT:SONGS and Talk:U2 (since the U2 WikiProject is currently inactive) notifying editors of the FAC. I made it clear that I am not shopping for votes, just for feedback on the article, but I thought that I should post this message and let you know in case I have done it incorrectly. Does everything check out? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with your wording, which was neutral, not canvassing ... thanks for asking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the quick response; I wasn't sure if I had worded it correctly or not, so I'm glad to know that I did! Cheers! MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Japan/archive2

The only thing that was needed was a copyedit, which was being done before you closed it. I am not sure what else could be done, but the rest of the issues have been solved (but folks are not striking them out). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check back with all opposers, and then you can re-nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing that now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted everyone of the opposers; no one has replied to me in any way shape or form but one of the opposers has made edits to the article. I also think the copyedtior bailed on me or just really busy (so it is like halfway done). One of my source links is having a server upgrade that should be complete now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviews and Article History template

Hi Sandy, since you know a lot about the article history template I wanted to ask if you thought it would be OK for a bot (perhaps Gimmebot?) to add peer reviews to the article history. PeerReviewBot currently archives peer reviews, but does this by just modifying {{peer review}} to {{oldpeerreview}}. CBM (Carl), who runs PeerReviewBot, is busy and not able to modify it to do this. Before making a bot request, I thought we'd ask you and will also ask Gimmetrow. FYI, TonyTheTiger originally raised this issue, which I am in favor of. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme is already terribly overworked (and seriously underappreciated, like FAC reviewers, he never gets thanked), but you can ask him. He originally started doing this work on FA, expanded into GAs (and was whacked for it), and now he's carrying quite a load. You can ask :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand - this was more a heads up to see if this raised potential problems (and if Gimmebot could do it) before a bot request. I appreciate all you and Gimmetrow do here. I almost always thank FAC reviewers, but I am never sure if I should leave thank spam here - figure you're busy enough as it is, but say the word if you like it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker admin alert

Any admins TPS around? I just went to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and the backlog there is outrageous; can anyone look at Music of Minnesota? Two different Panera Bread dynamic IPs added unsourced text to the article (which is at FAR, and has had massive cleanup) some time ago, and didn't respond to my user talk or article talk posts. Now a RoadRunner IP is adding the same unsourced text, and also not responding to talk queries, and way beyond 3RR as another editor tries to clean up after him to keep the article's star. Can anyone see if semi-protection is warranted, since the IP won't respond on talk? I left a query at Raul654's talk, and YellowMonkey can't semi because he nommed the article at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, RFPP isn't backloged, the requests there have been actioned but the archival bot isn't working from my look at the situation. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh, my, I certainly misread that page :) I saw the long list, and thought it was a backlog (as you can see, I've never been there before). Thanks to both of you !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelanalysis

This comment of yours at WP:RSN tickled me: "I have never seen neutral reporting from Venezuelanalysis.com, while sources like The New York Times, the LA Times, the BBC and CNN go to (irritating) pains to put forward the pro-Chavez point of view along with the anti-Chavez point of view." I'd be interested in seeing some examples of non-neutral news from VA (as distinct from opinion, of course), and equally examples of those sources going to "pains to put forward the pro-Chavez POV". Your framing is of course revealing: you're looking at it solely as an issue of opinion whereas I keep arguing it's an issue of information. International sources just leave so much out - and the odd quote from a Chavista (generally presented in such a way as to make it look as extremist or silly as possible) doesn't address that. Finally, the "pro-Chavez" or "anti-Chavez" framing is also revealing: it's the opposition view which completely ignores the social movements which brought Chavez to power and continue to broadly support the Bolivarian project, but are often sharply critical of particular individuals and problems.

Finally finally, it's worth pointing out that if I seem "pro-Chavez" it's actually purely down to the dynamics of editing on Venezuela topics. Beating back waves of US-based rightwing ignorance about Venezuela is unfortunately quite time-consuming, so that I get far too little time to work on the flawed reality of the Bolivarian project, which is what actually interests me. Rd232 ^talk 11:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV about democracy, freedom of the press, human rights, and small matters like, say, students dying in their fight for press freedom, is as clear as mine is. Why don't you go write Media in Venezuela correctly, neutrally and comprehensively? Show me you can do it, go ahead!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't - primarily because I can't do everything all at once - not least since I have a real life. WP:WIP. Rd232 ^talk 13:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priorities ... you do find time to link Eva Golinger all over the place, but no time for neutral reliable sources :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fair, and putting a smiley face on it doesn't make it any more so. (More of your misrepresentation - do you even notice it? Is it deliberate or unconscious?) I don't remember the last time I cited Golinger, and seeing as she's a Venezuelan journalist, I kinda thought it would be OK to cite her for a Venezuelan newspaper headline. Rd232 ^talk 17:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I know I need new glasses but this was a few hours ago. Since *you* frequently misrepresent or misunderstand, I frequently smile ... it keeps me healthy and happy. Since El Nacional is available online, why not also cite them, and represent the full story, not Golinger's account? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously I meant "I don't remember the last time I cited Golinger before the recent edit that we both know prompted your remark". The point is your over-generalisation that I'm adding her everywhere is ludicrous and misrepresentational. As for linking to El Nacional, the paper in question - yes of course, if that edition is online (I doubted it, but didn't have time to look, and not having the Spanish original title doesn't make it any easier). But I do find bizarre both your implication here and your tag in the article, that the mere mention of the headline is opinion. Finally, in the context of the situation being described, it is beyond funny that you'd suggest that El Nacional would have "the full story". The full story emerges best from multiple accounts - but at RSN you're currently engaged in an increasingly hysterical crusade ("the future of wiki is at stake!") to effectively ban a key source you don't like. Rd232 ^talk 18:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Exhibit for the day: do you just not see POV section headings when you edit articles? It's not that hard to correct while you're in there. It only took me 13 minutes to clean up and tag the article, but you could have at least removed the POV section heading while you were editing it. This is the kind of selective editing that indicates tendentiousness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't know that fixing a minor issue in passing imparted a responsibility for a general cleanup. And "Turbulent history" is hardly "oh my god that has to be fixed right now" POV (the fact that it had been there since March 2009 suggests that, no?). Nevertheless, well done for sorting it out. Rd232 ^talk 19:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, but you would have fixed it if had been, say, a claim that Chavez was "illegally" detained, no? Or Weisbrot is described as an advisor to Chavez. You revert those lickity split. Edit equally across all articles; that's how you gain respect of other editors. Not selectively. That indicates tendentiousness. You were in there, and apparently it didn't even trouble you that the section heading was utterly biased and POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I place a higher priority on WP:BLPs: shoot me! And "turbulent history" as a heading isn't good, but "utterly biased and POV" is a completely off the rails assessment. I do apologise for attempting to get away from Wikipedia for five minutes to my actual life - I won't make that mistake again in case it pisses you off! Rd232 ^talk 19:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing you towards good editing practices doesn't trouble me in the least! A la orden, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS, does your concern over BLPs also extend to Hugo Chavez or Thor Halvorssen Mendoza? Chavez is a POV unbalanced poorly sourced wreck, and Thor, well, we know that story. Consistency is key. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Thor, well, we know that story." - no, we really, really don't. Because you've declined to deign to give even the merest hint of a clue as to what the hell you think the problem is. Whatever it is seems to be egregious, yet you have made no attempt to fix it. You're a very confusing (if not confused) person at times. Rd232 ^talk 22:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) I don't think I'm confusing at all; maybe you're not listening :) You were quick to cry "BLP violation" on Weisbrot when there was none, yet you saw no problem on Halvorssen and don't seem to see a problem on Chavez, which is contradictory editing and appears tendentious. You are quick to revert accurate changes to inaccurately sourced text (four times, without checking the sources yourself, on the Coup article, even though *everyone* who has dos dedos frente a la cara knows that reliable sources do not say Chavez was illegally detained), but slow to remove a simple POV heading from a short article, that would have taken you one second, because you were editing that section anyway. Your method of editing is revert, revert, revert anything that isn't pro-Chavez, but you rarely seem to build content or neutralize content. In other words, what I see is an editor showing all the signs of tendentious editing. Your bite-iness and ownership tendencies chase off other editors, because your edits support JRSP's POV, so it's usually two against one. Now, JRSP clearly has a POV, but he's not hard to work with; when policy is pointed out to him, or sources are supplied, he backs off and doesn't edit war to enforce his POV; he does discuss, is not rude, and I've collaborated with him successfully on several articles, where between the two of us, we were able to respect each other's work and balance articles. You, on the other hand, have edit warred across almost every article where I've observed your work, have practically forum shopped when you didn't get the answers you want, harrassed with me the "libel" statement, don't seem particularly aware of policy or guideline or willing to read sources, and are quite a bit ruder than JRSP (undue much? is a sarcastic edit summary, and not conducive to collaborative editing, but that's your style ... noting that JRSP has a POV, but doesn't edit like that). In other words, I see an editor who edits Venezuelan content not to build articles, but to impose a specific point of view ... classic WP:TEND. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, despite our recent disagreements and the fact that I could write a similar paragraph about you, I do appreciate you expressing your concerns, particularly on tone, which I accept isn't always optimal. Most of this, though, is a rehashing of recent issues, and since I've previously explained my actions in those respects quite clearly enough, I'm not going to do it again. (Though I can't resist remarking on the ludicrousness of suggesting that in an editing dispute people should be checking every statement to its source even when the sourcing isn't disputed. And the "everybody knows" claim is rather contradicted by how long the statement stood with a suource not supporting it - if it were that outlandish a claim (illegality of detention of head of state during a coup... ), shouldn't somebody have noticed that problem a bit sooner?) Well, the claim of "constantly reverting" is new, I suppose. Sorry, but when there is contentious disputed content (especially if it's BLP-related) it is generally best to revert to a stable version or a version without the disputed content until the matter is settled. That requires more patience and more dispute resolution, but in the end it's a better result. When editors don't get that, or, as you have frequently done, seek to close down discussion instead of letting it run its course, that involves more reverting than ideal. Rd232 ^talk 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally your comments (and actions) suggest you do not understand WP:BLP. In short, it means being more cautious and demanding better sourcing in BLPs and of BLP-related statements in other articles, especially for material which is contentious, and especially for material which reflects negatively on the living person. Caution is most obviously understood as removing contentious material whilst discussion is in progress, and not re-adding it prematurely, when discussion is still ongoing. Rd232 ^talk 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS ChildofMidnight has been tweaking the Thor Halvorssen article. Has he fixed the problem you decline to explain or fix, or are you going to bollock him for not doing so? Rd232 ^talk 02:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FA prose

Hello Sandy. Many FAs are excellent. Others meet the technical requirements but aren't written too well. How to solve the problem without looking sour? Still others are a huge pot of facts that are referenced but are not too good.

I want to know because I have some ideas to turn 2 articles into FAsSuomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAR is where FAs that no longer meet standards are reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, you misunderstood me. I am trying to make articles become FAs. The prose part is confusing because when I look at FAs, some are clearly good but some are not. I am beginning to wonder if technical requirements are the most important, not prose. If that is true, I will concentrate on technical requirements, like references, but still work on prose. Any hints to good prose or it is not that important? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is important - it is criterion 1a. Awadewit (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the prose is central to the readers' understanding of any article. It is the first criterion that must be satisfied and probably the first that will be critically reviewed. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC reviewers

Hi SandyGeorgia:

Though we haven't really met, I've been floating around the FAC page for the past couple of months, reading articles and reviews, because, as you know, I promised to help one nominator through the process, so decided to learn about the process. I see that you need reviewers. If you'd like, I'd be happy to pitch in when I have time. I have an advanced degree in literature, and spend quite a lot of time "reviewing" other pieces of writing IRL. Or do you prefer to have reviewers who have already written featured articles (if so, I can't help!) Also, have you ever considered some sort of a rubric to facilitate the reviews? Just wondering. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll be very welcom Truthkeeper, whether you've written an FA or not. FAC needs all the reviewers it can get. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can review an FAC, so please jump in! Don't worry about the structure of your reviews; as long as your comments are based on the FA criteria, anything you bring up at FAC pages is helpful. You may want to see Template:FAC welcome. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely TK88, anything you can do would be most welcome and appreciated. This guide to reviewing might help, and we all appreciate the offer (and that's why I like to let others speak up before I do :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all of you for the links and for the welcome. Don't expect me to jump in immediately (not really my style!), though I have been slowly making my way through the list and reading the articles. I'll take a little time to get up to speed and to fully familiarize myself with the process, but I'm more than happy to help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC withdraw

Excause me, Sandy, but can you close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay/archive2? I want to get another article up to FAC as fast as possible and I don't know if I have the time to finish the problems for Escape from Butcher Bay right now. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, sorry, but no. There are currently long discussions on the FAC talk page about the problematic backlog at FAC, and running back-to-back noms through turns FAC into peer review. Taking one down just so you can put up another is a bit abusive of FAC reviewer time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was gonna do it two weeks later. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so keen to get an FA now? Awadewit (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prizes? Money? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you archived "Escape from Butcher Bay"s FAC. While most people would be upset about that, I would like to say thank you, escapcially since I finally know what problems it has. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this: [18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Reward board: it encourages an "awards" culture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have something on that. As a reviewer for articles at the FOUR Award, thats just not right. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC withdrawn

Hi Sandy, I just thought I'd give you a heads-up and point out that the nominator of Nina Girado has agreed to withdraw the FAC. I know that you'd find this fairly quickly, but I thought I'd try to save you the time in perusing all those articles. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 05:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone else has time to look in there and do the diligence, it would be great ... I have a cold and am going to bed with tea and kleenex, behind on my talk page replies. Thanks for letting me know ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope your cold gets better soon! Awadewit (talk) 00:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		Thank You
		For your excellent and wonderful contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of December 2009. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:COLLAPSE discussion

Re: [19] In case you missed it, I've replied to your comment and asked for additional information. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T_C 17:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like such a bastard sometimes...

... in one evening having to derail this FAC and challenge this GA review. No wonder I'm so unpopular. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ah, but those who know and love you don't count? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finishing that off

Adding numbers to the sections, that is. I was called away to consume nachos and beer, and when I came back you'd done them all. Hope you feel less cotton-brained soon. Mike Christie (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for fixing the mess I made of the hat. JN466 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki isn't very logical, is it? Hat and hab don't go with usual HTML conventions. Thanks for working on the cleanup; I am so behind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC closure for MSM

Hello. I noticed you just closed the FAC for the MSM. You noted image concerns, which had all been addressed, but I couldn't get the commenting editors to return and strike their comments. You also noted a lack of support (or participation). How can I get more people to participate in an FAC? One editor (Madcoverboy) was diligent in seeing his issues through until he was confident in supporting the nomination, but other editors just jumped in to comment on minor issues but never returned to see the FAC through, despite my invitations. I don't feel this FAC got a fair chance. Please advise. —Eustress ^talk 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About your closure of...

Just kidding, good call and no worries on Mystery Train; it was an oversight on my part. Keep up the good work, Skomorokh 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SECR K and SR K1 classes: remaining issues.

Hello, just an email to ask whether the website titles you highlighted as wrong are now accurate. For some reason I changed the titles to suit the article, but I have now copy and pasted the original titles as per example on the PDF document. I've also gone through the NBSPs as per MoS. Thanks, --Bulleid Pacific (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you never get enough appreciation...

		Like a Box of Chocolates...
		... your contributions at Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates during the month of January 2010 are greatly appreciated. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandboxed section for FAC

Sandy, I don't know if you overlooked it on the FAC talk page but I did create a sandbox, as you suggested, that illustrates the marker idea. It's here. When I started it I was thinking a line on the page would be the easiest way to do it, but looking at the ToC I think this works pretty well. It couldn't really be easier to use. With regard to whether it substitutes for the urgents list, I'd say yes, but I would suggest the rule you would use is: move the "older" heading up so it includes all the urgents; if the resulting list seems short, move it up a bit more. I wouldn't mess with the order of the candidates on the page -- that way lies confusion and recriminations, and it's more complicated for you. Anyway, let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it, I appreciate your work, I agree that is the way to go should changes be needed, but I just haven't had enough time this week to follow through on everything (surgery, cold, and keeping up with some egregious BLP issues in article editing). However, because yesterday's pr/ar reduced the page size of FAC to under 40 for the first time in a long time, I'm hoping the FAC backlog will stay low enough now that we don't have to implement that just yet ... keeping an eye on it ... I'm sorry for my negligence, after you did such good work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem -- no hurry at all, and of course if the volume comes down to a low level there's no need to do anything, as you say. Personally I think it would be wise to go ahead and implement whatever the most popular ideas are, since the problem is perennial, and it would be best not to have to go through the whole discussion again at WT:FAC next time around. Mike Christie (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but others have expressed concern that we're moving too fast, and if the page size is reduced, we can take some time to evaluate changes before implementing them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was what I was envisioning, too - thanks, Mike, for making an example for us! I haven't visited WT:FAC again this morning, but my guess would be we'd need another 2-3 weeks of discussion before implementing anything, and most likely require another round of the RfC with a smaller subset of proposals. Karanacs (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my thinking ... things seem to have picked up again at FAC, and before we adapt new wording at WIAFA, we're going to have to have another round of viewing the wording we'll use on those items that are passing anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icos FA classification

Hello,

I noticed that Icos is classified as a "Business, economics and finance" article at WP:FA. However, most of the featured articles on companies are listed under the subject of their business; for example, Microsoft is under "computing". Since Icos was a biotech company, could you move it to "Health and medicine"? Shubinator (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please post the request to the talk page of WP:FA, and give it a few days to make sure no one disagrees? Deciding where to classify FAs is the hardest part of my "job" :) If no one disagrees, you can move it yourself in a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks :) Shubinator (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English sources

Sandy, ideally, what would you like to see WP:V say about this? It currently says:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.

So, in brief, if you're quoting, the original and a translation are expected in the text or a footnote. If only citing, translations are needed only on request, and if they're very long, they can go on talk. The problem with making the latter mandatory even when not requested is that some editors use non-English sources extensively, so we'd in effect be asking them to type up whole pages of books, even if no one had asked for it. This would create copyright problems, not to mention that no one would do it anyway. Is there some way of tightening the wording that would help with the kinds of issues you're seeing? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I'm after. Cited text (not a quote), faulty translations (POV), short excerpt (one sentence, in this case), contentious material. Whenever a translation is challenged, it should be added to the footnote so more editors can see it and recognize the faulty or POV translation ... by putting it on the talk page, we minimize the number of editors who may see and recognize the faulty translation, and we don't serve our readers. Since I work with Spanish-language sources so often, I agree with you that making their inclusion in footnotes mandatory in all circumstances would be cumbersome, but when a faulty translation of contentious or controversial material is challenged, and the quoted text is requested, that non-English text should go in the footnote so that 1) more editors will see it and opine, and 2) our readers can see exactly what was said. Our readers may often speak the language of the article they're reading. It seems to me that this is similar, anyway, to good practice in English (when interpretation of text is challenged or contentious, we add the English quote of the cited text to the footnote). On BLPs, we should err on the side of always including the non-English text in the footnote (I saw that in one case at FAC, where the material might have been considered defamatory, and seeing the exact text was important, to make sure it was translated correctly.) Does that help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More context for the particular situation I'm dealing with. I've been through more than half a dozen iterations and attempts at getting contentious material removed from the lead of a very controversial article. That text is completely unsupported by reliable sources, including a Lexis-Nexis search. The tendentious editor is adding a Spanish-language source that does not support the claim as fact, yet citing it as fact in the lead, no less (serious case of WP:UNDUE). What few of our readers may realize is that 1) Chavez owns the judiciary in Venezuela (and that statement is well supported by RS), and 2) in Venezuela, anyone can be charged with a crime and held practically indefinitely in jail, without trial. Saying that someone was "charged" with X is not the same as saying that X is true. The full Spanish text would help show the problem in this case, even though the claim is completely unsupported by RS and the text doesn't belong in the article at any rate, much less in the lead, rather the issue should be explored in the body of the article with attribution and detail on the controversy, including Chavez's ability to charge anyone with anything and throw them in jail or force them into exile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further context. Not understanding the messy transitions in power that occur in countries that don't have well developed democratic institutions, the world (and reliable sources) persist in viewing what happened in Venezuela in 2002 as a "coup", although it was never considered a coup in Venezuela. It was ruled by the Venezuelan courts as not being a coup, rather a "vacuum in power" after Chavez resigned under popular protest when the military refused to fire on their own countrymen who were peacefully protesting. Once Chavez got control of the judiciary, that ruling was overturned. None of the vagaries of this situation are well explored in the text of the article, which has been whitewashed since I stopped following it years ago, and now reflects the pro-Chavez POV almost exclusively. Relevant exploration of the issues leading up to the "coup" has been removed from the article, or sourced to pro-Chavez sources, and the relevant articles-- that should be wikilinked-- orphaned or merged out of existence (General strike that led to Chavez's resignation, Sumate, and Raul Baduel also went orphaned after he turned on Chavez and was highlighted by human rights groups as an example of Chavez's political persecution). Yet we have a statement of fact in the lead, which is not fact, not supported by any RS, and no mention of the events leading to the "coup" in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, Sandy

Meant to say "Niiice archiving" before the weekend, but then went out and the rest is a bit of a blur. So here goes:

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For exquisite mass archiving. RB88 (T) 15:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you :) Very kind of you ... and thanks for all your work at FAC! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual Rosales

Yes, I'm sure you'll do a bang-up job on "cleaning up" Manuel Rosales; I have no doubt that after deleting sources you claim are unreliable, even though the issue is still under debate you'll make a big effort to replace those sources. Not at all likely that negative information will magically disappear; that one of many corrupt Venezuelan politicians (this one happening to be anti-Chavez) suddenly becomes a martyr. Will Interpol's acceptance of the arrest warrant survive? Who can guess!

Sorry, but everything you've said and done recently, and not least the way you said and did it, makes it perfectly clear that you are interested not in collaboration but in war: this is a political battle for you. Well it isn't for me; I'm just an academic trying to contribute to encyclopedia articles, some of them on Venezuelan topics where few are active and there is little content, and what there is is generally poor and based solely on recent news sources. More debate with and above all contributions from collaborative editors from a variety of perspectives and a willingness to use sources that go beyond the oppostion/US media bubble would be better. Collaboration like that is supposed to be Wikipedia's strength, and occasionally it really does work. But it's obvious that you're not interested in collaboration; Exhibit A: the Halvorssen thing: you want to discredit one of a handful of editors who don't share your views on these topics, by any means necessary.

Anyway, if you are interested in collaborating, then drop the "VA is unreliable" shtick - follow what Jayg said at RSN, and replace it where possible; dispute it where necessary; leave it where it's sourcing some uncontested information or providing a balancing opinion. Rd232 ^talk 16:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ ^a ^b "Cardenal Caro Province, Chile". Grupo Visiting. Retrieved 2009-12-03.
^ "Chile Destination Pichilemu". GoChile.com. Retrieved 2009-12-04.
^ "Cardenal Caro" (in Spanish). VI.cl. Retrieved 2009-12-04.
^ Cite error: The named reference CMN was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b "Surfistas esperan "la gran ola" en Pichilemu" (in Spanish). Chilevisión. Retrieved 2010-01-06. (Video)
^ "Punta de Lobos". WannaSurf. Retrieved 2009-12-07.
^ Cite error: The named reference Corrugated City was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Washington Saldías (2006-11-16). "Puerto en Pichilemu: Histórica Bitácora del Engaño" (in Spanish). Pichilemu News. Retrieved 2010-01-06.
^ Cite error: The named reference Roberto was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Roberto2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Cardenal_Caro_Province-1] "Cardenal Caro Province, Chile". Grupo Visiting. Retrieved 2009-12-03.

[Chile_Destination_Pichilemu-2] "Chile Destination Pichilemu". GoChile.com. Retrieved 2009-12-04.

[3] "Cardenal Caro" (in Spanish). VI.cl. Retrieved 2009-12-04.

[CMN-4] Cite error: The named reference CMN was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[La_Gran_Ola-5] "Surfistas esperan "la gran ola" en Pichilemu" (in Spanish). Chilevisión. Retrieved 2010-01-06. (Video)

[WannaSurf-6] "Punta de Lobos". WannaSurf. Retrieved 2009-12-07.

[Corrugated_City-7] Cite error: The named reference Corrugated City was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Puerto-8] Washington Saldías (2006-11-16). "Puerto en Pichilemu: Histórica Bitácora del Engaño" (in Spanish). Pichilemu News. Retrieved 2010-01-06.

[Roberto-9] Cite error: The named reference Roberto was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Roberto2-10] Cite error: The named reference Roberto2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

@@ Line 759: / Line 759: @@
 |}
 : Why, thank you :)  Very kind of you ... and thanks for all your work at FAC!  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
+== Manual Rosales ==
+Yes, I'm sure you'll do a bang-up job on "cleaning up" [[Manuel Rosales]]; I have no doubt that after [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manuel_Rosales&action=historysubmit&diff=341064859&oldid=341055459 deleting sources you claim are unreliable, even though the issue is still under debate] you'll make a big effort to replace those sources. Not at all likely that negative information will magically disappear; that one of many corrupt Venezuelan politicians (this one happening to be anti-Chavez) suddenly becomes a martyr. Will Interpol's acceptance of the arrest warrant survive? Who can guess!
+Sorry, but everything you've said and done recently, and not least the ''way'' you said and did it, makes it perfectly clear that you are interested not in collaboration but in war: this is a political battle for you. Well it isn't for me; I'm just an academic trying to contribute to encyclopedia articles, some of them on Venezuelan topics where few are active and there is little content, and what there is is generally poor and based solely on recent news sources. More debate with and above all contributions from ''collaborative'' editors from a variety of perspectives and a willingness to use sources that go beyond the oppostion/US media bubble would be better. Collaboration like that is supposed to be Wikipedia's strength, and occasionally it really does work. But it's obvious that you're not interested in collaboration; Exhibit A: the Halvorssen thing: you want to discredit one of a handful of editors who don't share your views on these topics, by any means necessary.
+Anyway, if you ''are'' interested in collaborating, then drop the "VA is unreliable" shtick - follow what Jayg said at RSN, and replace it where possible; dispute it where necessary; leave it where it's sourcing some uncontested information or providing a balancing opinion. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 16:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)