User talk:SandyGeorgia

If you want me to look at an article, please provide the link.
I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.
To leave me a message, click here.

Featured article removal candidates
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Borobudur	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Polio	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now
Edward III of England	Review now
USS Wisconsin (BB-64)	Review now
Doolittle (album)	Review now

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

Getting Started With The Working Group

I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Whatever exchanges may have taken place in the past, between the various parties, it's in the community's interest for this discussion to go forward. Thanks. zadignose 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And...

File:Resilient-silver.png

The Resilient Barnstar

Not for your blunders or mistakes, but for picking yourself up and keeping up the good work ;) Remember, if you need anything I'm right here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Dismantling an FA..

Wanna put yer 2c in here? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618)

FA'd Nov, 2005, very few inline citations (less than 5, maybe), and 6 refs in the tail. My instinct says it should be a former FA, but I'm not familiar enough with all the details to be sure. Xaxafrad 01:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You could submit it to WP:FAR, but I suggest waiting at least a week or two, as there is currently another Polish article at FAR, and the same authors may work to improve both articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

When to cite

I'll have a look. What are you going for in the way of examples? This may not be a completely bad thing; see my recent creation 5-HT3 antagonist: much of its "backbone" is "synthesized" (but not to advance a position :) from two book sources, with inline references for specific data likely to be challenged; do you think this is insufficient? On a side note, as something I felt was a bit over the top: I once saw a {{fact}} tag slapped on the lead of sibutramine, following a claim that it is related to amphetamines. I felt like saying "well, look at the structure!" I didn't, of course—I found a reliable source, cited and reworded the statement, but you can see where I'm headed :) Do you think a compromise can be reached? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't thought any further yet than I don't know how one begins to give examples of what to cite in medical articles, and what not to cite (such as the example you give above). I don't know what kind of examples to give, so the entire notion has me uneasy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tricky; this may very well vary from editor to editor. The "subject-specific common knowledge" line makes me cringe. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim Vickers gave a good answer further down the page; whenever you make a statement based on someone else's work, you cite it. In medicine, that's almost everything. I just don't see how we make a list; it's one of those things you know when you see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. I like Tim's "rule of thumb"—seems pretty close to our current standards and broad enough not to discourage common sense :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

copy-editing

Hi, you weren't very clear about what to copy-edit, and I've wasted my time now on the wrong bit, Colin says .... Tony 11:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Backmasking

I was unclear about what you meant in regards to secondhand news sources - could you clarify? I'd also like to know if you agree with my interpretation of the reliability of the sources. Thanks. Λυδαcιτγ 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Itanium Again

I finally completed my latest try at a lead paragraph of Itanium. Please take another look at this and at your other open issues on hte review page., if you have time. Thanks. -Arch dude 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

sections

Sorry, I should have read the FAC page more carefully. Thanks for removing subheadings.--Paaerduag 00:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

TS epidemiology

Fingers crossed :) After comparing the new draft to the version that was featured, you know I have to say this one actually seems clearer to me? I hope it was worth the effort :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So do I, considering ... well, never mind. I guess I should view any opportunity to educate as a good one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There's the secret ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments! You've done more for this article than anyone else, and Colin's copyedits far outweigh my minor contributions :) Hopefully this new text will be to everyone's liking. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit help

Sandy, Could you try copyediting History of Puerto Rico? It is the first article I helped reach FA status. It will be featured June 18 in the main page and I know it needs some copyediting. Thanks in advance. Joelito (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll get through it as soon as I can, but remember, I'm not a great copyeditor :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Much better than me. :) Joelito (talk) 02:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what you deem worthy of citing. Joelito (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Did not notice your {{inuse}}. Joelito (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the referencing help. It seems the vandalism has already begun. Thanks for reverting. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 01:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Musical Theatre

Suddenly some of the old musical theatre folks have resurfaced and started to discuss changes to/finalization of the article structure guidelines for musicals. I know that when you were helping me on some of those articles, you expressed some opinions about these guidelines (I remember that you did not feel that they were as good as those at the film project). Feel free to weigh in at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. -- Ssilvers 15:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I might not make it there 'til tomorrow, but will weigh in ... Father's Day and all that jazz :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

FA

sorry I thought anyone could FA Articles Zalaza 17:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Margate F.C.‎

The fixes have been made. Epbr123 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Puerto Rico

Don't worry about it, but as I said on the article's talk page its more prudent to ask the user making the change the reason behind it before reverting it. It helps to avoid misunderstandings, Peace. -凶 01:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's why I don't enjoy the mainpage, because things move too fast for my fingers. Just trying to help, and I left you an explanatory note, but you still seem upset, so once again, I've learned to stay off the main page. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I wasn't upset perhaps the word selection wasn't the best but I certainly wasn't upset if I was I would have written the comment in Spanish ;) -凶 01:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda has been quite useful in my work on San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Bueno, me distes bien duro on the article talk page. I was only trying to apologize after correcting another editor's mistaken change to the United States, and considering the article previously had Partido estadistas unido ... I'm glad El Hatillo was of some use; Enano275 (talk · contribs) might be of help on San Juan. I try to help out in Spanish, but I don't do well on the fast-paced mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mi naturaleza es fogosa, hay veces que selecciono mal mis palabras. I have been looking for someone to help me to do some text cleanup is he good at that? -凶 01:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

Just curious as to whether the bolding utilized in the cast section of The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film) article is all that is keeping you from supporting the FA nomination? The "cast section" of the WikiProject Films' Style guidelines supports the format used in the article: "Pertinent casting information might also be included in this section (or in production), and only then should bolding be used to make the credits stand out from the additional information." As you pointed out, WP:MOSBOLD goes against the Film Style guidelines, and I can easily "de-bold" the cast section if it is preventing you from supporting the FA.-Hal Raglan 01:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

U2...

Hi SandyGeorgia. You come highly recommended as a copy editor, and we are looking for a fresh set of eyes to look over U2 which we would like to push towards FA. I've seen you help out on a few Indonesia articles in the past - Toraja? - and hope you could help out here. If not, perhaps suggest other good copy editors. kind regards Merbabu 12:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Take care

Keep well, Sandy. Marskell 07:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

Your return made my day, too (I was worried; sometimes people don't come back).

That foxglove is twelve foot tall now, with five spiky children further down. I've never seen anything like it, but I've now got an eight-foot-tall verbascum about to flower. If there's a secret with biennials, I think it's growing from seed and sowing early the previous year. But the warm winter has sent this year's crop crazy. My favourite flower at the moment is a pale mauve scabious, which I sowed a year ago February and has its first flower, like a pincushion, which the bees adore. (Now that I know you're a gardener, I'm not afraid of boring you with this stuff).

All the best. Don't do too much. qp10qp 23:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

From me as well! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're back

Unfortunately, it would add way too much code to check for everything people might do wrong. Oh, and if you could, could you use the "01:23, 4 May 2006" format for date when you use dates in the GA templates. I designed a lot of the code around the page history and the date format there is "HH:MM, DD Month YYYY". I haven't programmed the bot to recognize all variations, especially ISO. Gimmetrow 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out this at WT:CITE. Someone wants to allow footnotes before punctuation based on the Nature style. It's a little confused because a couple other people involved want them both ways in the same article, but I think the idea is that any particular article would be all one way or the other, not mixed. Also referenced at WT:FN.

In July and August, I may not be online regularly, especially on weekends. I take it you run a Windows computer and don't have an easy way to run a python script? Gimmetrow 03:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what a python script is <eeek>. Yes, I have Windows and don't speak anything else; can I learn to run Python on Windows? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(hope you don't mind if I butt in) Python is a programming language. Lots of bots are written using a python-based framework called PyWikipediaBot. I run it on a Mac, I'm sure there's a Windows version (you'd start up a DOS or cmd shell, then type some gobbledygook to get it going). This relates to a conversation we had some time ago. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Rick. It looks like our old conversation has a link to everything I'd need to get started. Considering the archaic state of my computers and computer knowledge, it may be a steep learning curve. Not something that excites me (particularly when Wiki can be such an unpleasant place and I'm re-evaluating how much time I want to spend here) ... but if you both think I can get it up and running without too much effort, I could try. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Very glad to see you appear in my watchlist once more. I've sent you an email. Colin°^Talk 22:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem lead

Hi Sandy - During the FAR for Monty Hall problem you expressed a concern about the lead, which was resolved at the time by shortening the lead. user:Georgia guy has been rating articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics and gave it a B+ (!?), at least partly due to concerns about the lead. I've reworked the lead and he's happy with it now. Are you? Please let me know (here, my talk page, the article's talk page - I'm easy). Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and BTW, the problem statement in the lead is deliberately a quote to avoid what was a continuing series of wordsmithing edits (I forget exactly when this was done - perhaps before the original FAC). The point is as a quote it can't be wordsmithed. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Daspletosaurus

Hi Sandy! Welcome back from your break! I hate to bother you so soon, but I saw you edited the talk page for Daspletosaurus (thanks btw) and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind running through the article real quick? It's up at FAC right now and I'd love to have the advice of one of Wikipedia's best-known copyeditors. I had a very productive exchange with Tony on an FAC last year and since then I've tried to take his advice to heart. I'd be thrilled to see if I've pulled it off this time. Thanks either way! Sheep81 08:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking it over, I added "Dinosaur Mailing List" to the ref as you suggested... not sure why I didn't think of that myself actually. Thanks again! Sheep81 07:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FICT

I don't know how passionate you are WRT fiction, but you might be interested in this:

User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction)

It's being discussed on WT:FICT. — Deckiller 16:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Hi Sandy. I was mulling through the references for this FAC and corrected up to ref #5. Wondered if you could have a look to make sure these corrections is what is needed. Also, just to clarify, do you mean that cite web template is okay, but the parameters need cleanup for consistent order, and add 'publisher', etc. ? Cricket02 21:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're always a great help, thanks much! Cricket02 22:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geology of the Lassen volcanic area

Hi Sandy - I think I addressed the awkward sentence you found. Anything else need fixing? --mav 00:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks

For helping format the refs for puberty. I am about a quarter way through the article, in case you would prefer to wait until all the refs have been added. I gather that empty parameter lines in book cites can be eliminated? Does that actually save much space? Also, I prefer a couple of the original section headings as providing more reader orientation, and will probably change back, but will wait until I finish referencing and minor amplifying and you finish fixing what you think needs to be fixed. This article may become large enough to split. I was thinking of splitting off a new article on Timing of puberty, and perhaps one on Endocrinology of puberty, which should hold about 30-40% of the content and should allow this one to be reduced by about 30%. alteripse 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

San Juan FAC

Well said. Joelito (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Glad you thought so; I didn't want to step on any toes, but goodness, it deserves so much more !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Gone to review

I have put myself for an editor review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Aditya Kabir. Check. Aditya Kabir 05:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: See also

Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers. Universe=atom^{Talk•Contributions} 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks...

...for cleaning up the mess I made with the articlehistory template at Tool (band). :-) Johnnyw talk 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!

Well met, SandyGeorgia! Good to finally get a proper welcome - I just sort of wandered into this whole shebang and am trying to help out where I can. I have not yet met Tony1 (talk · contribs) or Deckiller (talk · contribs), but I have been watching Deckiller's page for a while now since he seems to be on the ball. I've been editing at random when not working on the List of Missouri state parks, but I like the idea of helping with specific pages set aside as needing work. I'll check into the Schizophrenia page, thanks for the suggestion. Looking forward to working with you! - Kabethme 17:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Need advice

Hi Sandy! Wonder if you have time if you could have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Mayer. I've gotten my feet a little wet in reviewing FACs, and commented on this one, using your examples of the citation template usage, and I may not be explaining it correctly. So I said I would defer to an "expert" :) Maybe you could help clarify? Specifically, I'm not sure if this method is a hard and fast rule for FAs, although I know it is preferred, (by me too) Cricket02 19:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense now and I understand a lot more. A great big thanks for your input Sandy! Cricket02 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erie

I'm not totally done yet, but I was wondering what you meant about the citation publishers. I am not real sure what I need to do, so if you could please explain to me, I'd really appreciate it.--trey 16:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have personally checked all the references, checking and correcting titles, authors, and publishers. Ive un-linked some words, removed recently and currently, added some information on crime (that is basically non-existent in Erie). I've had to do this all by myself, as other editors that are part of WP:ERIE and contribute to the article are absent right now, so a thing or two might have slipped, just let me know. Also, thanks very much for using examples and fixing refs, I know normally FA-reviewers are reluctant to do things like that, so thanks for doing it. Please update your oppose. Thank you! --trey 04:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis, Minnesota

SandyGeorgia, thank you for your review and sample edits. One year at Wikipedia and I am still not sure which approach to references to take so it helped a great deal to have a solution in sight when one was needed. I would think they can all be morphed in the future if styles change. Thanks again and best wishes. -Susanlesch 00:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Greetings!

SteelersFan UK06 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

- Just a little something for your help on the Dominik Diamond. You kept my head in one place after i nearly ripped it off in confusion.... Keep up the good work! =) --SteelersFan UK06 06:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSICALS project

Thanks for your comment. I don't think the films project guidelines fully answer the question about Character Lists and Song Lists in musicals, as I've explained over at the musicals talk page. I'd say that the G&S article structure guidelines and examples are actually more helpful in these regards. By the way, speaking of G&S, I have now expanded the G&S article to finally include the important content that I thought was missing when the article was prematurely nominated for FA. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

???

What was this about..? mattytay Talk - mattytay 17:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it makes more sense now!!! mattytay 17:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help with FA

Search engine optimization is running on the main page Monday. Thank you for your help with this article! Jehochman ^Hablar 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi there

The acrimony seems to have died down at WP:V and people are now co-operating on a single version that should be able to accommodate all views. Please feel free to edit this draft. here or add specific comments on how to improve it, either for clarity or including more of the relevant viewpoints. Tim Vickers 20:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You're welcome anyway ;) I'll keep an eye on them. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, whaddaya know... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I did tell you...

• Well I suppose I should say that "I hate to say I told you so" [1]... but, well, like I said [2] ... Ling.Nut 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar of diligence is awarded to SandyGeorgia for having reviewed over 1000 articles—580 at FAC, 390 at FAR, and 85 Peer reviews, as of a week or so ago, but these numbers are almost certainly out of date already. Congratulations and keep up the amazing work. Dr pda 02:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I think you did a bang-up job on the FA stat audit. Raul654 02:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ditto. Thank you, SandyGeorgia. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 04:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus one FLC. Amazing. Colin°^Talk 10:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing indeed! No wonder you get a little stressed out sometimes... :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

United States housing bubble

FYI, left you a response at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States housing bubble RE note formatting:

SandyGeorgia, your comments about the reference format are simply wrong. These notes conform to The Chicago Manual of Style’s format, which states:

Quotation within a note. When a note includes a quotation, the source normally follows the terminal punctuation of the quotation. The entire source need not be put in parentheses, which involves changing existing parentheses to brackets and creating unnecessary clutter.

This is entire consistent with Wikipedia's policy Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Frothy 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded on FAC. This response is unrelated to my objection; I did not object on these grounds. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

FAC page

(You wrote)

Hi, Poeticbent; I'm not sure why you created Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion/archive1, but it's messing up some scripts that check featured article pages. Would you mind putting a speedy author delete tag on it? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The archive1 (although with a somewhat misleading title) was a necessary part of my FAC nomination of Kraków, currently stored at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kraków/archive1. The article Kraków was originally submitted to FAC over three years ago, long before the current system of nominations was established. It did not have a discussion page of its own, like it is practiced today. The first failed nomination is listed on the "archive1" page lower down in section "History", as a one-liner. I suggest, if there's a problem with some script, please rename that archive to retain its original purpose, which is to provide information about the failed nomination from the past. Sorry about the trouble. --Poeticbent talk 21:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not following your response, Poetic; we seem to be talking about two different files. I'm inquiring about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion/archive1, to which nothing links, and you're responding about Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing brilliant prose - History and religion/archive1, which is linked to in your archived FAC. Since the first has no links to it and was created by you, the script would run better if you could request it be deleted, as you are the author. Perhaps I'm missing something ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I seem to have missed the obvious difference between the titles of those two archives and mistook it for one and the same. I suppose I wasn't looking hard enough. Would you please remind me what the proper tag is for the speedy author delete? Thanks. --Poeticbent talk 21:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Poetic; it's {{Db-author}} SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that User:Gimmetrow is already trying to help, but the new edits messed up the link from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kraków/archive1 just like I suspected. Can you take a look at this? [3] [4] Thanks.--Poeticbent talk 21:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing what's messed up; the RBP archives can be linked to directly, so I'm not really sure what you're after. Gimmetrow is very well versed in all of this, so if he's on board, he'll get everything in the right place; just let us know what you're trying to accomplish. Why not link directly to the RBP page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong with the links to the RBP pages in the Krakow FAC? The Refreshing Brilliant Prose pages are historical, there was no need to move them to begin with. I reversed the move. Also Sandy, lots of people use FA related templates on user pages, and it shouldn't cause a problem for a script - just have Rick check which namespace he's looking at in the pywiki code. Gimmetrow 22:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gimme (you're supposed to be "off" on the weekends :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone decided to do promotions on a Friday/Saturday. Gimmetrow 22:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't said anything yet, because I'm afraid I'll end up with a job, and I don't really want to learn how to run your bot :-) Anyway, go enjoy the weekend !!!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Now everything's perfect. Thanks, Gimmetrow. --Poeticbent talk 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Various things.

• On the instructions, what if placing {{fac}} were the second step? If someone clicks on the link and there is no page or a brief text, then no problem, otherwise, do the page move.
• I was thinking about creating a "preload" for new pages with the appropriate level-3 heading, but there is another, more substantial change that could solve a lot of problems. The {{fac}} template itself could check a sequence of page names for the first one that doesn't exist. If someone wanted to nominate television, the fac template would see the /archive1 is used and go to /archive2, which is free, preload an appropriate header, and that would be it. There is a history of having WP:FAC/PAGENAME be the last successful FAC, and if necessary that could be made a redirect to whatever page it's actually at. The main long-term benefit is that whatever page is used in an archive would be fixed as there would be no reason to move any pages.
• The old fac pages you're going through seem a bit of a mess. I found a few doing the AH conversion, but a lot of them are not linked for good reasons. Redirects, not submitted, mistakes (attempts to submit to featured list or picture). Barely seems worth it.
• I will be away from the net next weekend. Gimmetrow 02:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Lost my previous response when I looked up and realized Poeticbent seems to have deleted the wrong file. Oh, well. Anyway, yes, good enough for <unpaid> gov't work, I feel like we fixed enough and the rest isn't worth tracking down. Raul seems to often promote on Sunday nights; do you want to drop him a note? On the instructions, we used to have that step second, but the problem is that a novice user gets into the FAC and then doesn't know how to move from there -- that's what causes the whole problem -- so we have to give them a heads up on the move first. I just ran through all of FAC, and there was only one article that needed the instructions. The rest were either first-time FACs or already-botified FACs. The more articles that get botified, the less the problem will be -- maybe we shouldn't worry about it? I don't know if you should bite off a whole 'nother chunk of work with another change. I'm going to keep a closer eye to make sure that moved FACs were updated in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I had the other file deleted. Sunday nights would probably be OK. Gimmetrow 02:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't check for oldscipeerreview. Treat it as a WPR. Gimmetrow 15:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

World War II#External links

I removed half of the links in World War II#External links and removed the {{external links}} tag. Check to see if there is something else that should go. -- Petri Krohn 03:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Much improved; not sure about this one, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Publishers?

I replied to you at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Plug-in_hybrid with a couple questions -- what do you mean by publisher in relation to WP:CITE/ES, and to which references are you referring? -- along with responses to your other concerns. Thanks for the comments, but frankly I'm a little baffled at the moment. BenB4 01:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re

Am I really back? Tough to answer! I want to be back, but I don't know if I can follow the same rhythm of work because of some personal reasons. Give me two days to think once again if and how I can work on the article, and then vote your "remove". Cheers! Happy to see you still around with the same passion!--Yannismarou 08:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Sandy,

Thanks for the kind note. All is well here. I probably haven't been editing as much as I'd like. I hope things are well with you.

Mike

Dashes

Hi Sandy - thanks for having a look at Introduction to general relativity. As for the dashes problem that you mentioned, I'm surprised, though – I did have a look at WP:DASH some time ago, and from that article gathered that spaced en-dashes are considered a valid alternative to em-dashes, as long as they were used consistently throughout the article. I then changed Introduction to general relativity so that all interruptions were indeed indicated by spaced en-dashes. A search I made just now reveals that I did in fact miss one hyphen that should be an en-dash, and I'm of course willing to correct that, but I'm reluctant to go through the whole text again without a compelling reason. Is there some rule I overlooked – are the dash criteria for featured articles more strict than what is stated in WP:DASH? Markus Poessel 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Psychoactive drug chart/diagram

Hello Sandy :) It appears that you are quite the wikipedia machine! Anyways, I am the original creator of the chart, and I would like to state that every substance was placed on the chart by first looking up its proper medical classification. Of course it will take some time, but I am prepared to make citations for every item on the diagram if need be. I would also like to point out that the chart has received far more accolades than criticism. --Thoric 16:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Atomoxetine and THC ? Also, it might be helpful to have a look at WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

THC is often put into its own class, and is in its own section in the chart -- the white area comprised of an overlap of the stimulant, depressant and hallucinogen circles. Often legally classified as a hallucinogen, medically its classification is not so clear cut, but science and medicine generally agrees that THC exhibits mild effects of all three of the above mentioned classifications. Some studies claim THC to be a sedative to be grouped along with sedative-hypnotics, but I would not agree as THC has not been shown to be able to depress the central nervous system to the point of death, as is the case with all other sedatives:

• Report of the Australian Government, 1996: "Cannabis has been erroneously classified as a narcotic, as a sedative and most recently as an hallucinogen. While the cannabinoids do possess hallucinogenic properties, together with stimulant and sedative effects, they in fact represent a unique pharmacological class of compounds. Unlike many other drugs of abuse, cannabis acts upon specific receptors in the brain and periphery. The discovery of the receptors and the naturally occurring substances in the brain that bind to these receptors is of great importance, in that it signifies an entirely new pathway system in the brain."

• Sedative, stimulant, and other subjective effects of marijuana: relationships to smoking techniques, Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1998 Feb;59(2):405-12: "Paradoxical subjective effects were observed in that subjects reported some stimulation as well as sedation after smoking marijuana"

• Drugs of Abuse, Antipsychotics, Antidepressants - Lecture 11, Elon University: "Marijuana - cannabis -- (flowering tops and leaves of hemp plants) classified as a hallucinogen/stimulant/sedative (thus in its own class)"

• Abnormal Psychology, 5th Edition, Ronald J. Comer: "When smoked, cannabis produces a mixture of hallucinogenic, depressant, and stimulant effects"

I'll dig up some references for Atomoxetine, but there is far less information on it. --Thoric 18:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out some things from the Atomoxetine article as to the placement on the chart:

• Strattera was originally intended to be a new antidepressant drug; however, in clinical trials, no such benefits could be proven -- this lends support to putting it close to other antidepressant drugs (I was also not comfortable placing Atomoxetine within the "psychedelic" circle).
• Some patients tend to feel lightheaded, dizzy, or "buzzed" as a minor side effect along with the drowsiness. To diminish these side effects, which can interfere with daytime work, study, etc., dosing time is sometimes changed to just before bed; as Strattera is long-acting, it does not "wear off" overnight. Mild hallucinations can be experienced under high doses (300mg) -- this lends support to putting it close to cannabis.
• However, rats, pigeons and monkeys trained to distinguish cocaine or methamphetamine from saline indicate that atomoxetine produces effects indistinguishable from low doses of cocaine or methamphetamine, but not at all like high doses of cocaine -- this lends support to Atomoxetine being a mild enough stimulant not to be considered a sedative.

Also, it should also be noted that Atomoxetine was/is being examined by NIDA for use in treating cannabis dependence. The medication given for substance dependence most often produces a similar (yet not as enjoyable) effect as the substance being substituted to ease withdrawal. --Thoric 19:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire chart is too ORish for me, but more, the article just isn't comprehensive and isn't FA material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

History of Tourette syndrome

I'd forgotten about your request for a lead sentence in bold. This is easy for normal articles but not where the title is a phrase, which is the case for Lists and summary-style daughter articles. With many lists (including my own) some slight variation of the article title may be better. I'll have a think about it. Now, what about the rest of the article....

BTW: You've got mail. Colin°^Talk 18:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the article <groan> ... I was almost done with the book when the other issues came up at the article, and now I've lost my train of thought and plan of attack for that article. I wanted to spend all summer focused on it; instead, we started the summer with other things. arrrrgh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm OK with whatever you decide (soon, later, never, not sure). I've plenty other things to interest me and never enough time. However, I have started down the road (read the book, got the t-shirt) and am prepared to invest more time because it looks like an interesting challenge. But taking it to the next stage involves much more effort than just reading a book on a fascinating subject. I can start preparing some notes (perhaps in the form of a timeline like you suggested) but there's not much point if you aren't committed too. It would be a bit of a gamble for both of us. Colin°^Talk 21:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking through Category:Graphical timelines for a sample; looks tough. I want a graphical timeline that shows what was going on in different parts of the world, in relation to world history events (such as WWII, Freud, etc.) Maybe we should set up a Sandbox and just dig in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to do something like Graphical timeline of the Big Bang, but with four or five columns. Lots of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Póvoa de Varzim

• Don't you want to be that native English speaker? It would be really helpful. Some natives had reviewed the article, but that was sometime ago.---85.240.5.203 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Radar FAR

Hi,

Thanks for the notice and I agree with the assesment of FAR. I've contributed to the article but I just to added some parts, I'm not the main writer so I was wondering why you have just contacted me and one other user, as far as I can see, on the matter. I must tell you that I'm not ready to take in charge any reorganization of this article, so you should contact more users if you want to find one that is available. Pierre cb 14:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Pierre; we routinely notify the top editors, and you're on that list.[5] Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page templates

Why are you switching WikiProjectBanners to Wikiprojectbannershell, which uses up more space? Raul654 14:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer Banners to BannerShell on most pages, but I'm seeing the extra steps I have to go through when doing FAR notifications for pages that use Banners. With Banners, I have to click through to get to the Projects for each notification (already a time consuming process); with the Shell, I have one less click per Project, since the link is directly accessible. For this reason— and now that most Projects support the nested option—I'm starting to like the shell. I don't usually switch them, though; there was a lot to be done on that page, because when I originally installed the Banner, I put things inside that didn't belong there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comments at FAR

Sandy, yes we know all about your campaign against Raul645 that you, Marskell, and Tony1 have been conducting, trying to undermine him at FA for some time, over a year now it appears. The entire project does, or soon will. Viewed in the light of your vendetta against Raul your comments are utterly transparent, part of that campaign. Your little group has recently tightened the FA criteria to the point of absurdity, without substantive community input I'll add, with all kinds of new ridiculous rules about how citations should be written, and quality of writing and sources, which you guys simply ignore when when it suits you. Your new rules go way, way too far. It's clear to observers that your little group tries to maintain the FA review process to give you more control over FA content and guidelines, and you frequently use it as a weapon, either against Raul or against individual editors; both being the case here. A good number of we admins have watching this from the sidelines for several months now, so don't make the mistake thinking that you're going to continue on like this at FA unopposed... the cat is out of the bag. This behavior of yours matters because it's spilling over to affect articles through FAR and several of the best FA writers have told me that they have stopped writing FAs because of your group and its methods I've outlined here. I'm sure they'd be happy to come here to say exactly what's on their minds if you have any doubts. I'll also note that both Marksell and Tim Vickers (another from your group) have recently turned up at NOR, V, and RS trying to force unduly tightened sourcing policies as well. This constitutes a pattern by a group, and that pattern shows that the group's aims are not the betterment of the project, but undermining and marginalizing fellow volunteers like Raul654 and SlimVirgin. Until you stop trying to impose the inane new FA criteria and cease engaging in selective enforcement of same, I'm taking a personal interest in seeing your group's vendetta against Raul654 and SlimVirgin aired out and ended for good. Either announce a ceasefire with these editors and stop disrupting FA with needlessly rigid criteria and its selective enforcement or I'll take this DR on their behalf... your call.FeloniousMonk 04:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)