User talk:SandyGeorgia

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

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

FACs needing feedback view •
Mission: Impossible – Fallout	Review it now
Galileo project	Review it now

Template:FixBunching

Possible Signpost dispatches

• Writing FA: advice from the delagates
• An updated version of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-02-08/Dispatches, progress on Wikipedia over the recent period, perhaps?
• User:Ruhrfisch/Dispatch.

Just throwing a few ideas around. Would post this on the talk page (prob will), but wanted to see your reaction first. ResMar 02:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Two reactions: 1) the Dispatches Workshop has been killed off by The Signpost, after producing some really fine work; and 2) you don't have to go very far afield of the FAC and FAR and FAS talk pages and stats to find worthy topics to write about. FAR saves are decreasing (rather alarmingly);[1] FA promotions are increasing (WP:FAS); some FA categories have grown substantially, while others are stalled;[2] core and vital topics are difficult to bring to featured status;[3] FA reviews are becoming more strenuous in some categories, while stalled in others by lack of reviewers; changes in WP:WIAFA resulted in more strenous sourcing requirements for featured articles;[4] changes in nomination process attempts to address the backlog;[5] a handful of reviewers continue to do the lion's share of work at FAC; FA "rot" over time vs. claims of ownership as nominators (who know standards and guidelines) strive to preserve featured status;[6][7] Ships and MilHist continue to dominate FAC, while getting limited independent review;[8] some reviews are stalled because of lack of image reviewers or reviewers who don't check sourcing;[9] how the "Reward culture" affects FAC;[10] and on and on and on. Interviewing some of the prolific FAC reviewers and nominators is another idea. Interviewing Ship and MilHist coordinators about the issues with those FACs is another. Another work in progress is here. I was chock full of ideas, and herding cats to bring these topics to the Dispatches was a lot of work. But since the Dispatch Workshop was my pride and joy, and is now dead, you're on your own :) If The Signpost wants to write about the FA process without collaborative input from those most involved, I worry about the quality of the content produced. Perhaps someone at The Signpost will write an editorial about The Signpost; a collaborative workshop that strove to bring all editors involved in a topic together to produce accurate, factual and well written pieces is now dead, replaced by pieces written by one or two editors. It was a lot of hard work. How are Wiki editors served by this trend? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI: AJona1992

Hi, I've made a proposal (and comments) on AJona1992's ANI. If you have time and wish to revisit the ANI to help with it, I'd appreciate it; regardless of whether you support my proposal or not (your feedback is greatly appreciated either way). Best, Robert (ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC))

Repercussions

Thank you for the well thought out and well reasoned response. I'm hoping that perhaps you can come up with some proposed repercussion for each appropriate type of violation. And you ca nhave my promise, like I promised to AJona1992, that violations of the rules I've laid out for him (not being civil, 3RR, copyvio) may indeed make me be the first one to activate the agreed upon sanctions/repercussions. Thanks again, and thank you for even considering the mentorship approach as an alternative to stricter sanctions as an immediate solution. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 01:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the very valid suggestion. I've asked SarekOfVulcan, Xeno and Arbitrarily0 if we can count on them to impose the accelerated sanctions if the need arises (and noted such on the ANI). Also, I'm hoping that when Airplaneman and Explicit come back to review it, they will also agree to impose the accelerated sanctions if needed. So, hopefully, that will provide a large enough pool of active admins to turn to. My thanks again for you willing to entertain this solution and hope we dont let you down. Best, Rob /ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dancing mania

Very quick note re my comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dancing mania/archive1, as it's reaching the pr/ar zone; can I explicitly make it clear that my comments followed by non-support aren't a coded oppose, so don't treat it as such—I know that in the past this kind of comment has been treated as a de facto unresolved oppose. I'm not actively going to support it, for reasons given there—I have some 1a and 1b concerns—but they're mild concerns, and if others are supporting it then go with them. – iridescent 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet, but I hope it's clear there and you're not counting on Karanacs and me to remember this weeks or months from now ... well, maybe her memory is better than mine :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hee hee hee...my memory good...hee hee hee...Sandy you are funny! Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a well-developed selective memory :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to contact people who might be interested in reviewing it? Aiken (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you placed neutral (avoid WP:CANVASS) requests for review on the talk pages of the relevant WikiProjects? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't, no. How about "Dancing mania is at FAC. I'd appreciate any reviews of it here. Thanks."? Aiken (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it appears this is not ready now. Can you please withdraw it? Thanks, Aiken (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Tourettes? None of the sources I used mentioned that, but they do seem to share similar characteristics. Unfortunately they don't know if it really was uncontrollable, or just religious dancing, strange and unfamiliar to those who recorded it. Aiken (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect then that you are not using high-quality peer reviewed secondary sources, because St Vitus Dance is all over the Tourette syndrome literature, particularly the history of TS and specifically wrt how the St Vitus Dance diagnoses changed over time. I haven't had a chance to look at your sourcing-- I'm really sorry I didn't look at your article, as I thought it was a dancing article, not a medical article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You will need a much more thorough literature search: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. I also suggest you get hold of a copy of Kushner's Cursing Brain (you can find it at the bottom of the Tourette Syndrome article). It's the History of TS, which covers St Vitus Dance. I don't know where my copy is at the moment, as I recently moved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, St Vitus Dance and dancing mania are not the same thing. They are similar, but there are clear differences. This is discussed in the article. Aiken (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware-- I've read extensive histories of Tourette syndrome. At any rate, there is a problem with article naming, as we don't have an article on St. Vitus Dance, and the scope of this article has to be defined. You can't do that without understanding the history of all of these conditions, and how they developed over time and came to be better distinguished. You will need medical sources to sort this article. Like Nasty Housecat on his FAC, you happened to run into my topic area :) Had you not withdrawn the article, I would have had to recuse from closing it once I realized what the article was about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the article name. Justus Hecker, who researched this extensively in the 19th century, called it dancing mania, and its Latin name was choreomania. There is a difference between this and choreia, which is what I assume you are referring to. Aiken (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

But in the lead you're referring to it as St Vitus Dance, and we have no separate article on that. And research in the 19th century does not constitute a thorough search of the relevant literature, which you will need to adequately name, discuss, and sort the issues there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I certainly do - it's a misnomer :) One of the sources, Bartholomew I think, discusses how dancing mania and choreia were considered the same thing at the time, and only later on were they distinguished. Even now though, they are still referred to synonymously. Unfortunately, I'm no expert in that area, and have no interest in digging up yet more sources which (I don't believe) have anything to do with the topic. There's plenty more stuff to work on instead. Aiken (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(TPS comment) Hi Sandy, the main issue here may simply be the lack of a qualifier in the lead noting that St Vitus's dance was used historically to refer to this condition. True, we have no separate article on St Vitus's dance, because it is now considered synonymous with Sydenham's chorea. A little bit of content on the historical concept of St Vitus's dance should probably be mentioned in several articles instead of creating a standalone article. (And, for the record, I really don't think anything but a passing mention of TS, if that much, is warranted in Dancing mania.) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Fv-- it does need some level of sorting. I've got my head in about four different conversations right now, and am trying to do a literature search for a FAC, but I will dig through my boxes for the Kushner book later, to see if it can be more helpful. It is the definitive history of TS, and I'm almost certain it goes into the confusion that existed historically between chorea, Sydenham's, St Vitus, Jumping Maine whatever, TS, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Kushner is not in my house-- that means it's in a box in storage. But I did find a number of journal articles, posted them to the article. Still need to find Kushner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I've got Kushner to hand and have spent a short while scanning portions and consulting the index. I can't find anything in it on "dancing mania", I'm afraid. The chapter "A Disputed Illness" considers (in historical context) whether TS is a hysteria or a chorea. I am happy to scan those pages and email anyone who wants them. I've quickly read the Dancing mania article along with the two journal articles (the lancet and the psychologist). It seems fairly clear that dancing mania was a "mass psychogenic illness", and both journal papers quickly discard the old theory of mass ergot poisoning. What links this mania with the Tourette's story is the term "St Vitus Dance" and the dancing mania article doesn't make it at all clear what has happened to the meaning of that term. For example, it says "Dancing mania... was therefore known as St Vitus' Dance...St Vitus' Dance has been diagnosed as Sydenham chorea, a condition that displays similar signs to those shown by the dancers." This is very confusing and the words "St Vitus' Dance has been diagnosed as Sydenham chorea" aren't how I'd put it, nor are the "signs" (of dancing mania) particularly "similar" (to Sydenham 's). BTW, the NINDS Sydenham Chorea Information Page doesn't support the text it is cited for, nor is it an FA-quality source. What appears to be the case is that dancing mania was known as St Vitus' Dance but once dancing mania died out, "in the late 17th century the term “St Vitus' Dance” was appropriated to describe a quite different medical condition"[the Lancet]. Kushner (p33) says

"Modern textbooks delineate the symptoms of chorea's most common form, Sydenham's, as including facial movements such as frowning, raising the eyebrows, pursing the lips, smiling, and bizarre, generally bilateral, movements of the mouth and tongue. Long called "Saint Vitus's dance," chorea first was fully described in 1686 by British physician Thomas Sydenham (1624-1689), who selected the term Khoreia (for dance), and labelled St. Vitus's dance as "chorea minor". By the end of the nineteenth century the designation "Sydenham's chorea" was adopted for the most common manifestation of choreic movement disorders. However, throughout the nineteenth century the term "chorea" was widely rather than narrowly proscribed. It was used by physicians to describe a number of highly variable movement disorders that included Sydenham's chorea, tics, dystonia (muscle tone impairment), myoclonus (muscle spasms), as well as those behaviors called "convulsive tics" that Charcot labeled as "the tic disease of Gilles de la Tourette." Although medical commentators throughout the nineteenth century observed clusters of symptomatic differences that might justify separating each form of chorea as a distinct disorder, they were reluctant to do so because of a widespread belief that most, if not all, choreas were connected with a prior attack of rheumatic fever."

So, I think "dancing mania", a form of mass hysteria, was once known as "St Vitus' Dance", and "St Vitus' Dance" later became the term used for an illness now classified as "Sydenham's chorea", and Tourette's was classified as a chorea, of which Sydenham's is a common form. Sandy is right that TS literature discusses "St Vitus' Dance" but it is the latter (Sydenham's chorea) use of the term. I agree with Fvasconcellos that this article shouldn't mention Tourettes and that we need to ensure the confusing two meanings of "St Vitus' Dance" are made clear. Colin°^Talk 09:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The NINDS page isn't an "FA-quality source"? (whatever that is). It's published by the US government, particularly the US department of health. Aiken (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA requires "professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing", which is higher than merely WP:V. The NINDS Information Page is a lay summary text. A sort of patient information leaflet for neurological diseases. The NINDS information pages are very useful because they give us an idea of how to write about a complex topic in a way that can be understood by the "general reader" Wikipedia is aimed at. I'm OK with using them as a source for basic medical facts if that is the best an editor has access to, but I don't think a "professional" would use those pages of their website as a source. Anyway, the page in question only states that "Saint Vitus Dance" is a synonym for Sydenham Chorea, which isn't enough to support the text between citations [5] and [6] in the article. The article needs to say that "St Vitus' Dance" has referred to two quite separate illnesses at different points in history. Colin°^Talk 13:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much, as always, Colin, for taking the time to sort this. Aiken, the NINDS is sometimes, simply, wrong. They have long said that GTS was the first to describe TS. That is quite simply wrong. Earlier (although I can't locate a link), they were characterizing TS as a rare disorder, although it had long ceased to be classified as such. They mention coprollia, without mentioning that it is rare. Their info under "associated disorders" fails to specify *clinical* as opposed to broader populations, and makes recommendations that don't apply universally. They imply that all students with TS have "special needs". Most of their info is correct, but knowing where they are wrong requires a thorough knowledge of the topic. They should be used sparingly as a source. If you want a real problem with NINDS, PANDAS offers up an ugly example of COI, and since many researchers depend on the NIH for funding, the problem extends beyond the NIH, as leading researchers must tread carefully when criticizing the highly controversial PANDAS theory, advanced by the NIH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Mauna Kea

Apologies - I won't be able to finish reviewing on this; I'll be travelling from tomorrow, and I'm tired of trying to push water uphill. I can see that the article's Observatory section still needs work, but at least the Geology section is in shape now. Iridia (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know: safe travels. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, this FAC nom is having an interestingly negative effect on all parties involved—except me. I am highly opposed to my "hill" status, I should at least be a mountain. =) ResMar 21:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Observatory section needs work does not give me much to work on. I'm not sure if you saw this (or for the matter if I am even skilled enough to write such a summarization), but it is there and some people seem to be looking at it. Cheers, ResMar 21:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be discussing this with SandyG; you should be getting your nose to the grindstone and sorting this objection out by working on that Observatory section. Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I've started to bother WP:ASTRONOMY people, yes. ResMar 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Nergaal/sandboxFA

In case you missed it. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! I don't want to implement anything until Raul weighs in, since too many divisions on the page could be an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Closed FAC

Please explain I don't know why you closed this FAC; what are the unresolved issues here exactly? I responded to the commentor's question and I amended the article as he suggested. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And another GDallimore (Talk) 23:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Checking sources for reliability is tedious and time consuming work, FAC is backlogged, there are only two reviewers checking sources, and in these two cases, multiple issues where raised. When multiple issues with sources (WP:V is policy) appear early in a FAC, the FAC has less chance of ultimately succeeding. When articles appear at FAC, they should meet the criteria, and be ready for review. Resolving issues with reliability of sources, understanding WP:RS and presenting well prepared FACs will give articles a better chance of succeeding at FAC, and closing them if they don't allows nominators to work outside of the pressure of FAC, and reviewers to focus their limited time on other FACs. I hope working these issues outside of FAC will result in a successful next nom. There is more helpful info at User:Steve/Oppose rationale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you would have more reviewers if you took the time out to be a little more courteous towards those of us in the middle of the process. I came to FA because I believed that my article (John Babcock) had a decent chance of passing, but also because I wanted to learn more about the process so that I could contribute to reviewing articles in the future. I had only one "weak oppose" and it was closed before I even had a chance to review the concerns. Then, despite the fact that it had a very positive A Class review that only failed due to insufficient votes about six months ago, you tagged it as potentially in need of reassessment, which was needlessly insulting. So I no longer have an interest in contributing to this process. Few people get paid to do this and even fewer get any real accolades, but it is sometimes the smaller things like this that cause hard-working and valuable contributors (not particularly referring to myself here) to simply stop caring. Per the above, it seems I'm not the only one who has concerns. Canadian Paul 01:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving FACs is never pleasant and typically results in orange bars on my talk. I'm sorry that tag offended you, but the GA was passed in 2007, as I indicated in my edit summary. (I don't know where to find the GA Sweeps result, as it isn't linked in articlehistory; if you have a diff it would be helpful.) When a MilHist A-class review closes for lack of Support, that means the A-class didn't pass. You've gotten good feedback of issues to work on; if you satisfy the Opposer's concerns, please ping with a diff from Nikkimaria, and I can re-visit. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The article wasn't included in GA Sweeps as it was promoted in November 2007; Sweeps only looked at articles listed before 26 August 2007. Malleus Fatuorum 12:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MF-- am I correct in assuming that sweeps were noted in articlehistory? I thought that was the case, which is why I added the GA request here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. Sweeps were done exactly like GAs are done now, on a separate subpage linked to from the article history. Malleus Fatuorum 13:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MF; disgruntled nominators are unfortunately "part of my job", but I thought my understanding was correct on this. The article wasn't swept, was a very old GA, and failed A-class at MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a "disgruntled nominator" because my article didn't pass, that's part of the job of a nominator, to accept that your article may not be up to the standards; in fact, it's almost to be expect on a first try. The important part is what you learn from it and that you come back with a stronger effort. But it seems that if the nominated article was someone well-known, like Obama or MJ, it wouldn't be closed and have its GA status questioned on the basis of one weak oppose, especially before the nominator had a chance to review the concerns. I guess it's hard to tell from the limits of my recent experience, and I don't want to make broad generalizations, but I can say that this process seems to discourage potential new recruits to FA reviewing/submission. In any case, it doesn't seem like the process has much tolerance/respect for/faith in newcomers. Anyhow, I won't clog up your talk page with this any longer. Canadian Paul 03:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand, but the problem with the Thrud article is that, while some of the sources may be unreliable in general terms, they are acceptable in the context under which they are being used. This is something which requires explanation within FAC, not resolution outside of FAC. But only some of them require such an explanation, eg, the external wiki. Others which the reviewer objected to are clearly reliable - being websites publishing articles and having editorial oversight - just not mainstream; hell, some of them don't even exist any more! This is unsurprising since a small, self-published comic book is a very non-mainstream topic. GDallimore (Talk) 13:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way, there were some useful comments raised while the FAC was open and I am dealing with those in the meantime. GDallimore (Talk) 13:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, that is a reasonable explanation, but it helps to highlight that in your nom statement, to save reviewer time. If you can get clearance from a source reviewer, the nom can be brought back sooner than the usual two weeks. Reasoned explanations work better than attacking the overworked delegates, who have to balance reviewer and nominator concerns. :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused. Isn't it you I have to persuade to re-open since you are the person who made the decision to close. You're the only person who even suggested closing the FAC. Two reviewers raised RS concerns, but I would have thought that would be par for the course and raising a concern is a long way from calling for closure. I'm not sure what I could have said in my nom statement, either, as this strong reaction came as a complete surprise: RS wasn't an issue in either the last FAC (it was all about prose style) or the GA nomination. It's also a slightly unfair expectation given that the reviewer objected to essentially every source without checking them out themselves and instead just said "justify them", which I would have done given the time.

And another PS, I agree (generally speaking) with your actions of raising a GA review for articles that fail FAC. Seems sensible enough and not at all insulting to pass it to an earlier forum - on the proviso that there has been a lengthy time or significant edits since it went through that forum. GDallimore (Talk) 21:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

We may be talking past each other here-- I'll have a closer look and respond in more detail after I catch up on a few other things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thrud

I'm sorry for the delay, GDallimore; re-visiting and re-reading the FAC, two things led me to close it:

• 1. The size of the RS list query:
  • TRS2?
  • Bulletproof Comics?
  • The Ninth Art?
  • 2000AD Review?
  • 3dtotal?
  • Grand Comics Database?
  • enjolrasworld?
  • GameHobby.net?
  • Forbidden Planet?
  • Strike to Stun?
  • Collecting Citadel Miniatures wiki? (Wikis are always questionable...)
  • Heresy Miniatures?
• 2. A Wiki used as a source.

With that level of sourcing concerns, it's going to be an uphill struggle to get the article through FAC. Here's my suggestion. Put your answers to the reliable sources queries at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Thrud the Barbarian/archive2: I will look at them, and ask Brian or Ealdgyth to look at them. If we come to the conclusion that a case can be made, I'll put the FAC up anew. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Phew. Finally got the chance to do it. I've provided detailed background information about the sources and the context in which they are bein used at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Thrud_the_Barbarian/archive2. I'll drop a message to the editors. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 12:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to say that I am so thankful that you have come to the AN/I and decided to keep me around. I won't let any of you guys down, I want to keep reaching my goals which is to transform stub articles into GA and FA's which I have almost successfully have done. Thank you, your such a kind person who I am so happy to have meet in my life. Thank you. AJona1992 (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Anotre?

I believe Giants was teh fourth on Lindwall :) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look soon, probably today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

PS, you didn't leave a link-- if all is well there, you can add another nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a look (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1); Tony1's support was buried after a comment, so I didn't see it on my pass. (It would help my eyesight if nominators noted and fixed declarations that don't follow the instructions at FAC, added unsigned templates, things like that.) I'll read the article later today, but you can add another nom, since sources and image review are in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

FAC page adding wrong archives?

Hi Sandy. I just raised Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lat/archive1 and the system added Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Latter Days to the page. I am pretty sure that is a mistake (no relation to the subject). Jappalang (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It picks up everything that starts with the same characters; that can be fixed by adding a slash (/) after the "Lat" in the tools (but that causes some of the other tools to need manual intervention). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So that's why everything went wrong when I checked the links for that article. Ucucha 11:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you figure it out? Since I added the slash, it will try to check the article Lat/, so you have to manually alter it. It's a catch-22 :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Ucucha 12:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A possible solution to the catch-22 on these cases is that we leave the slash off until you've checked the tools, and you add the slash when done, to remove the extra FACs and FARs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry; I can find the tools if needed. It'll probably be possible to tweak {{Featured article tools}} to avoid this problem; I'll try. Ucucha 12:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone tried once, but I can't recall who it was-- most likely Dispenser, Gimmetrow or Dr pda (the FAC tools brainiacs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I found a partial solution, though there will still be problems with articles that have previous FACs that haven't been moved to /archive1. Ucucha 12:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I don't understand the technicals, could you run it by Gimmetrow, Dispenser and Dr pda? Perhaps point them to this discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked Dispenser. I don't see it as very necessary, though, since people who are interested in the template will presumably be watching it; and since I look at all new FACs, I'd notice it if there is a problem. Ucucha 23:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetrow would actually be the best person to ask, since he runs the FAC archiving bot. I'm not sure how much he has migrated to the new naming scheme, but if he's completed it then we wouldn't need a 'switch' for the two systems. Moreover, due to article moves the system is only a best effort attempt.

Hints: The {{PAGESIZE:}} function may provide a useful heuristic for determining redirect. Consider WP:Featured article candidates/Doom in the test set. — Dispenser 18:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many left that aren't at /archive1; see Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Ucucha 20:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There a total of 3,274 that at the base name and 56 that have been moved (30 of which to /archive1). Wouldn't be too hard for a bot to move them all and I could generate the list. However, we'll still have the problem with articles being moved. — Dispenser 22:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

Hello Sandy Georgia

You edited back a change on the item Schizophrenia I made and gave a comment on my talk page. I have a question about the situation, because I am not sure what the reason was. Could yo take a look at my talk page and explain yourself a little further? I was under the impression that I had quoted the original article and referred to the original source. And since this article was most valueable on the recent research of DNA deletions and duplications being related to autism and schizophrenia it seemed to me like a useful addition. The Dutch version on the item of Schizophrenia mentions the same item and it has been accepted without any comment.

Thanks in advance.SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your talk-- I will follow there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Renominations and WikiCup

Would you like to comment here at all, either you or Karanacs? --Moni3 (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiCup

I get that you don't like the reward culture, but I honestly value your opinion- has the WikiCup caused any problems? The problem people always talk about is poor articles being pushed through- have you seen that? J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow DYK and GAN closely, so I don't know if it's happening there (my hunch is that it's highly likely that it is). It's hard to game FAC; I'm not aware of that happening. If a deficient article gets support and no critical review, Karanacs or I will dig in and review it ourselves. Unlike some other content review processes, the buck stops with us. The problem is that many good reviewers work at both FAC and GAN, so if reviewer time is stretched, FAC may be affected. We've also had to put a provision in place that allows delegates to close nominations faster (for which we get regularly beaten up, see my talk page :), but I can't say what percentage of those may be due to reward programs. We've certainly had an intractible backlog at FAC, but I can't say that's because of reward programs. I can say they (reward programs) increase my workload, but that should not be a concern: maintaining the integrity of FAC is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just interested in your opinion of the situation at FAC. To be fair, you are in a good position because if there are substandard nominations, you can just archive them. You say you would not support points being awarded for reviews at FAC- do you feel there are enough reviewers at FAC at the moment? Or are you just concerned that that would encourage substandard reviewing? The idea was very much that they were token points- certainly not something that could be "farmed" (as in, one or two- a DYK currently gets 10, a FA currently gets 100). I have been doing my best to encourage people to take part in the review processes without incentive, but I worry that has not worked. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that giving points for reviews would encourage substandard reviewing, and uninformed Support declarations actually increase the backlog, by forcing us to carry noms longer, until they get critical review with Oppose declarations. I can't "just" archive them; a reviewer has to give me reason. My "job" is to gauge consensus, not act unilaterally. Also, remember the PR part of the equation. How much are Ruhrfisch & Co being overwhelmed, and are they being prevented from doing more indepth reviews by the reward culture? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I appreciate that- I guess, the bottom line is, is there a problem here that needs to be remedied? J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

There's clearly been a problem at DYK, and a similar one has resulted in the GAN backlog now being well over 300. My "solution" so far as GAN is concerned has been to ignore all WikiCup nominations. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply to both-- it's likely that the bigger problems are at PR, DYK and GAN, but to the extent that saps reviewer time, it bleeds over into FAC. But DYK and GAN have their place in the grand scheme of things, so who is FAC to say? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

My memory is just kicking in :) I did have a big problem with a past WikiCup winner doing what many considered to be "Original research" in recoloring old photographs. And that did bleed over into FAC, specifically, The Donner Party, where a recolored image was added. I haven't kept up with where our most knowledgeable image policy people stand on this issue, but I found it most troubling, and when I remember, I watch for OR images at FAC. If I have any strong feelings about WikiCup, it's more related to that than to whether content review processes are being overwhelmed. Looking over the WikiCup finalists, though, is suggestive that some of the lesser prepared noms (not all) are a result of WikiCup, and we did have to put provisions in place to contain that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair enough- we delisted one of Durova's pictures a few weeks ago over at FPC for just that reason. I don't think that was in any way, shape or form a WikiCup issue, to be fair- I've seen a few people critical of Durova's work. I think, inevitably, high content contributors are gonna have issues with some of their content, and the WikiCup attracts high content contributors. People seem very quick to blame the Cup for any problems. J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes; I'd like to see the data that actually show WikiCup nominations are typically ill-prepared. The two finalists I know best certainly aren't bringing up ill-prepared nominations, though some others may be. Ucucha 23:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ucucha, but as has already been raised by others on talk there, the abuse of a few can bring the entire program into disrepute. We have many nominators who are more than capable of shepharding multiple articles at a time, yet we were forced to stem the tide of ill-prepared noms due to a few nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're actually talking about on the WikiCup talk page. I think you're trying to hint at something, but I just don't understand. It's late where I am, and I've had a stressful day. Could you speak in plain English please? I do value your thoughts, I just don't know what they are at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

And, sorry, I appreciate I'm probably coming across as a moron... J Milburn (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's try it this way then :) Pointing fingers at individual editors is less helpful than solving problems identified on talk. Sleep on it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice on the WikiCup talk page that you noted that "the problem pre-dates WikiCup", that "most Wikicup participants are not abusive", "similar abuse has (sporadically) occurred from non-Wikicup participants" and especially that "singling it out, rather than individual abuses, didn't seem to make sense". I appreciate that you do not like the project, but I think this all adds up to point out that the problems are with users (and, as I pointed out there, the WikiCup will be prone to attract "trophy hunters", who would be more likely to cause you these kind of problems anyways) rather than with the project. Honestly, I hope we (we as in Wikipedia) are able to use the WikiCup to the advantage of the FAC project, and all the other projects, by encouraging high-quality nominations. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

We generally agree, but it is increasingly apparent that WikiCup furthers very ugly reward-seeking behavior, that impacts upon all content review processes. To gain a better reputation, y'all need to do something about that, whether it's individual behaviors or more. Last year's Cup promoted OR images, and this year's cup has rather obvious problems, affecting far too many content review processes. Can you say that WikiCup should be proud of the behaviors and OR of all its leaders and winners? Based on some results (which I agree doesn't apply to all or even perhaps most participants), it's looking to be less than an award, rather acknowledgement of an ability to game the system and harm the Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It was FPC which promoted the images, not the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point! But WikiCup could still become more respected if it found a way to discourage disruption of content review processes by reward-seeking editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't "reward-seeking editors" is a problem, and would be insoluble if it were - some editors like having lists of achievements on their pages. The problem with the WikiCup is that it creates a peak-load ("rush hour") problem. I agree with Malleus' ignore all WikiCup nominations. --Philcha (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring all isn't the most optimal solution. Quickly sinking the bad ones is the better option as it sends them to the back of the queue YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Psychology

With Johnbod's exhortation to work on "vital" articles ringing in my ears I took a look at psychology, a subject I know something about, although you probably wouldn't have guessed that from my block log. Anyway, I gave up on the idea after reading the first paragraph of the lead, and it didn't get any better after that. I always find it much more difficult to try and rework something written by someone else rather than write it from scratch, and I suspect that's the problem with these so-called "vital" articles; they just can't be written by committee. Discuss. Malleus Fatuorum 00:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The embarrassment that is Information technology is still there, if you want a Vital Article to play with… – iridescent 01:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked several times to rewrite Homosexuality, and a quicker, more forceful "NO" I can't give. On many levels, for many reasons. It isn't even a vital article; Human sexuality should be I think. If you go by page hits, Lady Gaga is the most vital article in the English language. Somewhat farther down are the articles for genitals and positions. You should give the people what they want. --Moni3 (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not even in the top 50; the most vital article by page views is, of course, Inception (film). – iridescent 01:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What? No effing way. Lady Gaga gets upwards of 40,000 hits a day, down from 60,000 two months ago. Inception (film) gets 4,000 hits a day. Doops, 30,000 hits. (Helps when you change the damn month on Henrik's tool) What a difference between Henrik's tool and that page. --Moni3 (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I keep looking at that information technology article and shaking my head. Hard to know where to start with it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I know it goes against the Spirit of Wikipedia, but I generally find it easier to write the article from scratch, and then work in the content of the original line-by-line. Nothing gets lost, but it means you're not constantly trying to second-guess the thought processes of the original author. For that IT one, to be quite honest I'd wipe it out completely and write it from scratch as if it were a brand new article. – iridescent 01:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

These folks have something figured out (Medicine isn't doing badly). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the vital articles list is an absolute crock. Who are these people to tell me that Pasteurization had more of an impact than Locomotive, that Elizabeth I of England (whose reign was characterised by, well, not much) was more important than George Washington, or that Combinatorics is more important than, well, List of Family Guy guest stars? – iridescent 01:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

How did I manage a math degree without ever hearing of Combinatorics? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As for vital articles, to be quite honest, I'd wipe it out completely and write it from scratch as if it were a brand new list... wait... have I heard that somewhere before... • Ling.Nut 07:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"Combinatorics" would be a great name for an evil robot, though. – iridescent 16:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for transparency

Sandy, I can not debate with you on your talk page because I get eced to death. If you want to talk with me about an issue I can be reached by email. You can respond on my talk. I would end up debating with you and a dozen others who would be ecing me on your page. If you wish to go one on one let me know. I have no interest in a debate with twenty people.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What transparency are you asking for, after sending me an unsolicited email in which you continued what you started at DYK, for which you should have been blocked, yet no one said a word? I'm not your punching bag. The conversation is already on your talk; my inbox is not open for you to continue abusing me, so don't e-mail me again. "Go one on one"; do you think you get to conduct a private cage match after attacking disparaging another editor and questioning the integrity of the FAC process? "Debate with twenty people"? You get to discuss your behavior on Wiki with anyone who wants to participate; that's what transparency means, and that's why you don't get to continue the behavior in private. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Slipknot FAC

You recently closed the FAC for Slipknot (band) and decided it shouldn't be promoted and I'm a bit unsure on what grounds the article failed the process. I responded to all of the comments that were brought up in the nomination and there just wasn't people who offered an opinion on wether they supported or opposed. I don't understand why it appears (to me) like there was a consensus that the article should not be promoted. --REZTER ^TALK ø 10:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Simple; because there was no consensus that it should. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have rather prominent notes at the top of my page and in my edit intro, requesting FAC links when posting a query here re a closed FAC. I have added another link to an editor page that explains closes. I invoke the right to ignore future queries from editors who can't take the time to read the info at the top of my page or do me the courtesy of providing a link, so I can respond easier and faster. Thanka, Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez, again

Sandy, here goes a very interesting article published by the The Economist on Hugo Chavez and the coming elections (Here: [11]) I won't dare to show it in his article, because we both know very well what will happen. --Lecen (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Comprehensive and accurate, with the exception of Chavez targeting anyone remotely affiliated with Maria Corina Machado in order to defeat her. The elections are already a done deal, per business as usual (abuse the state media to violate campaign laws, use state resources and lack of independence in the judiciary to persecute opposition candidates, use consolidation in the executive power to ram changes through that guarantee electoral wins). While the average Venezuelan gets poorer, and the wealthy Venezuelan continues to do nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The times of the old fashioned coup d'État or Pronunciamiento are long gone. They devour the democracy from inside, until they leave it completely rotten. The same is happening right here in Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Guaranteed win: Change the rules,[12] [13] abuse the election laws, strip any municipality or state who elects an opposition politician of any funding, throw the opposition in jail or force them into exile with political persecution, and then threaten the opposition "with arms" if there are protests afterwards of election fixing.[14] Facing all that, no doubt who will win the elections today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Exelon Pavilion thanks

	<font=3> Thanks for your helpful comments about Exelon Pavilions, which, as you know, is now a Featured article, and for all you do on Wikipedia! .--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) and Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe we have now responded to all of the remaining issues from the FAC at Talk:Exelon Pavilions. I removed two of the bolded names in the lead, removed some overlinks, and we tweaked the captions Brian commented on. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Visual thinking

I was looking at the Visual thinking article and i noticed that you have tried to improve this article in the past. this topic is one which can explain how many who have cognitive disabilities such as auditory processing disorder develop alternative cognitive skill to become cognitive strengths to work around their cognitive deficits. And there are also some who have cognitive skill preferences for a wide range of reasons some which we still do not have the technology to fully understand. Would you be interested in re-visiting this article dolfrog (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger

I started a thread on him Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TonyTheTiger. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 23:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

what

I don't know what the discussion they have of Tony that you brought me in. But I read alittle. I'm cutting down nominations beacuse we have a huge backlog(most of them by Tony) so I closed alot of his nominations. Spongie555 (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering the number of image copyright tags on your talk page, do you think you're in a position to evalute whether those images meet image policy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

When I first started wikipedia I didn't understand the image copyright so got alot but now I have improved and know now. Spongie555 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Turn down the heat

I would love to turn down the heat; we've already managed it to get the story posted on ITN, why can't we do it to improve the article?

PC

Television

I notice you removed television from the autism page earlier today. Do you believe that Causes_of_autism#Television should also be removed? I left it in because it's almost the same as the section above it, and I'm familiar with the hypothesis so I know it's been around for a while (which says nothing about whether it's true). I would appreciate your opinion. —Soap— 16:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

STFU

Your edits at Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010 and [Talk:Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010|its talk page]] are not merely unhelpful but are positively disruptive. Please refrain from using Wikipedia to try to promote your own political viewpoints, and respect the fact that this is a cooperative project where other contributors do not necessarily agree with you and where their views have as much validity as your own. As for the {{POV}} tag, I removed it because the editor who placed it had declined to enter into discussion as to which parts of the article he or she objected to: this is standard practice, especially for an article which is linked from the Main Page, as it discourages "drive along" tagging without any attempt to address the perceived problems. If you cannot constructively edit at Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010 and [Talk:Venezuelan parliamentary election, 2010|its talk page]], you should refrain from editong at those pages at all. Physchim62 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)