User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch36

Need your opinion of the Lyme disease article

Hi SandyGeorgia. I was wondering if you could take a look at Lyme disease, which is currently a Good Article. I'm thinking that it should be delisted, but I would like someone experienced like you to look at it. I noticed that you reviewed the article a while ago when it was up for Featured Article status. I feel like the article has been slowly degenerating for the past few months, and I don't think that there are any experienced editors following it anymore. Among other problems, there seems to be too many assertions in the article that are unreferenced or poorly referenced, especially some of the more controversial ones.

I think that the main issue here is that there are opposing views of just about every topic in the article, including the frequency of the erythema migrans rash among those infected, the reliability of serological tests, and the recommended length of treatment with antibiotics of those infected. I am especially concerned about the Controversy and politics section, where there is strong disagreement by editors whether to include a description of the supposed link between Lyme disease and biological weapons research. If you look at the Talk:Lyme disease pages (including the archive), you'll see that someone always seems to raise a POV issue regardless of how the section is written. I was hoping that you would have some suggestions for resolving this issue. NighthawkJ (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will get to this next week; traveling now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine (sorry for the late response). NighthawkJ (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the article. I've had no time to work on it during the last few weeks (or even respond to someone questioning me on the talk page; it looks like someone responded for me). Fortunately at least one editor recently has made numerous changes that have significantly improved the article, although there's certainly more work to be done. I looked at the Good Article criteria again, and my only concern now is the stability of the article, primarily involving the Controversy and politics section. There's certainly an ongoing dispute about the content of this section. However, as I'm not an experienced Wikipedian, I'm not sure if the dispute is serious enough to delist the article. NighthawkJ (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to neglect you, NighthawkJ; it's on my list, but I'm in the midst of another big edit right now. I promise I'll get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

NighthawkJ, I'm sorry I took so long; I have no patience for uncited articles that need copyediting, and they certainly shouldn't be listed at GA until they get their act cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. I would like to thank you for assessment of the article. I know how busy you are! It's a little difficult to work on it right now since the current editing dispute encompasses several sections, but I'm hoping to work on it once the POV issues are resolved. NighthawkJ (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See here and here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn

Hi Sandy, could you please close Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1947 Sydney hailstorm as withdrawn? I don't know if the bot only works for you, and don't want to break something (and I saw you were active). Thanks! Daniel (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot goes through to botify it to articlehistory. Hope to see you back at FAC soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sure, will do. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Vacation

Hey there. I'll be away a few days. If you or your stalkers have a chance, could you look in on Template talk:Reflist. Also I recently tried to clean up some problems at Sean Combs; it seems to get a lot of vandalism and may need some more attention. Gimmetrow 06:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a good time off, Gimme; I'll have my posse of "stalkers" help me watch those. Of course, I'll be eagerly awaiting your return :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No vandalism unreverted yet, but goodness ... are those reliable sources for a BLP? I don't know anything about that guy, but that article makes me uncomfortable in terms of sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish I hadn't seen this article; the entire "Assault charges at Club New York" section is uncited. If I knew anything about the guy I'd know whether to delete it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, now I know why I shouldn't be watching your talk. It's got lots of interesting stuff, but then it leads me away from my happy place of cities and science articles. I put an unref'd tag on that section, but you gotta love the whole article. "inked a multi-year deal"? "With the media circus over"? "He has donated undisclosed amounts to..."? - that's probly my favourite, hey, if I don't have to disclose the amounts, then I've donated to everything in the world! No stars at the top of that article... Franamax (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Makes me very uneasy. If I knew anything about the guy, I'd wholesale delete anything that's not cited, per BLP. Don't know what to do there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on my memory, I think at least some of the content did happen, the gun charges and asking the driver to claim ownership of the weapon. I don't follow the rap scene at all and I'm certainly not going to go digging up the sources. I think the refneeded tag is appropriate for BLP, if it's on a tight leash - two weeks max and it comes out? We've identified a problem and are acting on it. Large parts of that article read like Gossipedia though. Franamax (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh darn it! I thought I invented two new words today, now I see gossipedia already exists. Curse that prior art! I may have coined a new one though - cookie-culture: excessive seeking and awarding of honours on Wikipedia. Do I get a prize for it? :) Franamax (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Moni posted a book about that culture somewhere on this page ... it seems to be part and parcel of certain kinds of upbringing, and now we're seeing the logical conclusion in a certain age group on Wiki  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Found it, down here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC wobble

There's a new FAC for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song). The previous FAC was under the article's previous name Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song)/archive1.

This leaves a "spare" FAC page - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song), which was created ready for the new FAC - dangling. I mention this because it will probably muck up something somewhere down the line.

What best to do? Change the spare page to a redirect?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

um ... I don't want to decide that until Gimmetrow is back. I was going to suggest just maintenance deleting it. Can you see any reason not to? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the important links so it's in limbo. I can delete it altogether if you wish. I was thinking of this anyhow, the only reason I didn't was in case the bot needed it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, we really should be OK to go ahead and maintenance delete Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song); it's nothing but the move and clear redirect, and shouldn't ever be needed again. I'm sure the bot doesn't need it. Unless you see any reason not to, I say go ahead; if I had the tools, I would. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, done. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger. By the way, see the message above from Gimmetrow, and my notes at User talk:Maralia; we're going to be botifying manually for a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, noted. I'll do what I can :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing/deleting. --Efe (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Being treated like a servant

Here and here. Are any other featured-content reviewers being ordered about like this? TONY (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Very strange stuff; I'm sorry the AN/I thread was closed, because I'm actually more concerned about the posts from Gwynand and JaySweet, and would have liked to respond to the misunderstandings there (the FAC closer?). Well, Tony, I guess you pay a price for being a good copyeditor when those are in short supply :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, that's... not ok, to understate. --Moni3 (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, would you mind elaborating on what concerned you? I was trying to be prescriptive in addressing DMN's issue, not summarily judge Tony. I totally agree that FAC reviewers aren't required to further their work elsewhere, they aren't required to do anything. I also totally admit there is no way to compel Tony to respond to to talk page messages. That being said, it didn't mean that DMNs concern was silly, I was trying to help him address his issue as best he could. Note, I basically said in the beginning that it shouldn't be on ANI. I suggested going over to WT:FAC talk first because I believed the issue had directly to do with a FA review and how an editor goes about getting feedback... and what the etiquette regardnig that is, something I admittedly am unaware of. Lastly, I only suggested going to WQA after he specifically told Tony he was having a problem that he considered an etiquette issue. Anyways, thanks for any further input on this. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Several things (and I'm still reviewing the situation so I may add more, but for now ... and you are correct that the place to raise it would have been WT:FAC). First, Tony1 is not the "FAC closer" as stated by someone on the AN/I thread; he was one reviewer, and as such is not under any obligation to copyedit the article (this was implied during the FAC). It seems the AN/I thread was comparing this to a situation like AFD, where the closing admin refused to discuss a close. Second, the FAC closed about a month ago, yet there seems to be some misunderstanding on the AN/I thread that Tony's response is somehow urgent to an ongoing Wiki process. If Tony chooses to review any article that is not at FAC, he would be doing so as a volunteer doing a favor. (When I ask Tony to help with a copyedit, I presume a one- to two-month timeframe, considering how much his talent is in demand.) Third, (and I haven't yet checked the article to see if this has been resolved), that particular article at one point had issues with reliable sources; since Tony typically reviews for prose, I'm not clear on the urgency there (still reviewing). And finally (again, I need to re-check history on this), I seem to recall that D.M.N. was equally demanding of the time of a volunteer editor who reviewed sources, so D.M.N. may not be clear about the volunteer nature of Wiki or that he might want to seek out uninvolved editors who may be able to help him bring the article to featured standards via consulting a list of volunteers. The strangeness is that Tony1 would be demanded to review an article that isn't at FAC and hasn't been for a month, and the notion on the AN/I thread that Tony was the "FAC closer", hence, responsible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] FAC reviewers aren't even required to review at FAC, let alone elsewhere. As I've said at my talk page, I can't keep up with FAC nominations, let alone the review of other articles. If DMN had just asked me again at the bottom of the page, I might given that article a quick look, but it just got buried and I forgot about it. You were out of order suggesting it had anything to do with Wikiquette. And now DMN has walked out of WP. Sorry to see that, but I hope I'm not being blamed. S/he is welcome back any time. TONY (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've changed it to a Wikibreak. Sandy, the reason why I contacted Tony was because he was the only person who said the prose was bad, the situation at that time was the majority supporting, see here. I do too want to see a conclusion that benefits everyone. D.M.N. (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he wasn't the only one. There are two prose opposes, unresolved image issues, unresolved reliable sources, and two supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be best do you think to do something like this on the article talkpage and work through issues one by one? Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think all of that is necessary. It seems that you need to locate an independent copyeditor who will work with you, then recheck the image issues with either User:Elcobbola, User:Black Kite or User:Kelly, after you've made sure the sources are reliable and before re-approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

(2xec)Tony, I apologize for making it seem like you were ripe for being taken to WQA. That wasn't accurate, nor my intention. If and only if there was a situation where a particular editor was being purposefully ignored, then maybe WQA would have been the best place. Taking a look at the whole situation, I don't think you were intentionally ignoring or trying to be incivil. The thread DMN recently started on your page wasn't what I intended... something much more along the lines of "Tony, Im feeling slighted by X... could you explain?" Not a threat to do something or be reported. I apologize for trying to be generally prescriptive at ANI when in reality I had to realize that those reading it would assume I'm saying "this is what needs to be done with Tony". I'm also specifically trying to avoid advising on proper FAC procedure... others are experts on that, not me. It was more of a talk page etiquette thing, which in the future I'll try to take in all accounts before publicly advising on ANI. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded again how much I dislike it when AN/I threads are closed too quickly; I really would have liked to have cleared up some of this there rather than on my talk page, when I'm still getting through my morning watchlist :-) Anyway, thanks for the help, Gwynand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

To reply to SandyGeorgia's message on my talk page, yes, I saw the correction earlier that Tony was not the "FAC closer", but only a "FAC reviewer". I'm not sure that would have changed in anything in how I responded -- I never implied (or at least, I thought I didn't) that Tony was under any compulsion to respond, so in my mind the exact nature of his past role isn't all that important. Whether he was the closer, a reviewer, or whatever, he still didn't have to respond. I'm sorry if I ever implied that.

Since we are all trying to do the right thing here, I'll try to avoid stirring the pot any more than it already has been. I'll just leave you with this: I'm reminded again how much I dislike it when AN/I threads aren't closed quickly enough. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm also a little put out by your closing of that discussion. For three reasons: 1) You were an involved editor in the discussion itself; 2) Your closing seemed to suggest that consensus had indicated that it would be "appropriate" for Tony to be taken to WP:WQA, when I think that is far from the case; 3) You didn't allow for certain inaccuracies and misapprehensions to be cleared up. I don't particularly want to open the discussion up again at this point, although I did insert a note to address at least one misapprehension. Still, if I were you I would be a little more careful in closing such discussions. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I thought about this for awhile, and I think I see your point. My feeling was that since no administrator action was required, there was no reason to have a flamewar. I figured that any further "clearing of the air" could be done elsewhere. But I can understand how the failure to do at least a little bit of air-clearing could leave some people feeling stung.

I'm still not 100% convinced I was wrong to close the discussion when I did, but I'm no longer 100% convinced I was right, either. I'll take these points into consideration in the future. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, grand. Thanks for this. I'm happy to leave it at that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Jay: the concern is that unfortunate impressions may have been left (although Jbmurray's post-closing comment may have cleared that up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've already left messages on a few users talkpages, but I'll contact them later anyhow. While I'm here, do we actually have a page with a list of people willing to copy-edit, I know we have WP:PRV, but that's just for reviewing articles. I know we have LOCE, but quite frankly, that project needs a rework and putting the article I'm working on there would require a wait of nearly a year probably. D.M.N. (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

LOCE is dead (someone should MfD it). The only recent list I'm aware of is the one at WP:PRV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Should I be bold, or maybe start up a discussion at WP:AN about it (after all; I doubt WT:LOCE will get looked out. Another brief thought. As for copy-editors, maybe it worth having a page in the future called WP:FAC/CE (CE standing for copy-editors maybe?). D.M.N. (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Raising the issue at the talk page of LOCE first might be better. No, I don't think we need a separate page, as the PRV list covers it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. I think it might be worth posting a link from WP:AN and WP:VP to it to get the wider community involved. It seems like we're possibly undergoing a lot of changes in these parts; bringing in C-Class; abolishment of A-Class; although none of these are confirmed yet. There's even a suggestion of abolishing WP:ANI.... D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've put LOCE up for MFD. Your input it welcome. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

re: why is this at LOCE and FAC at the same time?

Because I requested LOCE months ago for GAC. In the end, I got some friendly wikipedians to do the c/e, and LOCE so far behind their requests that they have not gotten around to this request yet. I am not canceling it - I am sure the article can use another round of c/e-ing after my recent expansion :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Bradman pre-FAC

• Talk:Donald Bradman#Some pre FAC comments to deal with

Hi Sandy. Please see the first bullet. What do you think re ref 3? --Dweller (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, I've been intending to get there since this a.m. ... if I don't get there tomorrow, trout me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way...

I can't remember if I've offered this before, but I'm happy for you to whistle on my talk page if there's an FAC that needs another opinion. And I don't mind reviewing "unpopular" topics either. I'm also happy to help nominators get articles "over the finishing line" if you think they're close. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Start at the bottom of the list, where several have been dangling for weeks, as everyone has been tied up at RCC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Singular vs. Plural for a singular group name

I thought you might be able to help me with this question. When talking about a group in the past tense, in this case a team, do we normally use singular or plural?

For example, I would normally write:

"The New York Yankees were the best team of the nineties."

or...

"New York was the best team of the nineties."

but not...

"New York were the best team of the nineties."

I know there might not be a hard and fast rule on this, but I was looking for some general guidance. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This came up on either a soccer (football) or cricket FAC once, and there is a guideline somewhere. My memory could be faulty, but I think it's OK to use either, as long as you're consistent within the article. Since I can't remember where that guideline is, I suggest finding a soccer (football) Project and asking there (unless someone who watches my page answers first). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that basically answered my question... being that it can be either, depending on what you are talking about. For American baseball, I think what I wrote above is correct. My question came from Gran Prix / Formula Racing articles, where team names are McLaren, Ferrari, etc. Those team names are treated as plural. It is consistent with the sources and that sport as well. I'll look up some info on the football project. Thank you. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry to butt in here) From WP:PLURALS, In British English they are normally treated as singular or plural according to context; names of towns and countries take plural verbs when they refer to sports teams but singular verbs when they refer to the actual place (or to the club as a business enterprise): "England are playing Germany tonight" refers to a football team, but England is the most populous country of the United Kingdom refers to the country. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Julian ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Julian, that makes total sense. My confusion probably arose from the fact that I am American and was copy editing a Grand Prix article based on European teams. I've learned much! Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help. :) Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Butting in here, in the football FAs I've worked on, we've used plural for the team and singular for the club. Hence, "Norwich City is a club based in Norfolk" and "when Norwich City beat Bayern Munich, they shocked the football world" are compatible. --Dweller (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch35.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm really not interested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting way to use the talkback template... For a moment I thought you'd left it yourself, Sandy, as a joke.

If you ever see the Duke leave me such a message, it will probably be the final indication that we are suffering from multiple personality disorder. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 07:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If drafted, you will not run; if nominated, you will not accept; and if elected, you will not serve? We need more like you in public office (not to mention as administrators). 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy is what happens when life gets in the way

Naaaffff. I totally had a half-written things to address section for Assata Shakur. Ah well. That's what I get for getting involved with other issues. Stupid issues. I see you're giving out barnstars for comments that irritate me in particular. Thorough smorough. Whatev =) --Moni3 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

oops ... :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

This week, Moni, it would probably be best to watchlist User talk:Maralia (she and Sandy are playing Gimmebot this week). I noticed Sandy said she was just about to promote and decided to avoid FAC until she was done. It's too bad we can't get one of those big message at the top of every WP page that says "Avoid FAC for now; Sandy at work [hide]". That would be much more interesting to me than some of the messages up there. Karanacs (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally I go through around 0:00 UTC, but I wanted to train Maralia to be a bot today :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I never noticed that before. Now if I could only figure out what that means in CST I'll be set... I have an overwhelming urge to make a good-bot/bad-bot joke but I am going to restrain myself. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha, I haven't figured it out in EST ! (In your case, I think it's basically just before the kids' bedtime :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Sandy needs a bat sign like Commissioner Gordon has. Whenever she needs more reviews she can flash it and I'll see it at night. Cept I can't stand wrestling, video game, or cricket articles. Though for some reason, I'm lurking on the Don Bradman article. Don't understand a thing about it. But I could shout, "Holy premature promotion, Batman!" and she would know that I wasn't done yet. Because she like, cares about my opinion and stuff. I don't know why I don't have Maralia's talk page listed. Off to fix that right now. --Moni3 (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I always need more reviews :-) If you're starting on one, you could add a note to the FAC to let me know. I try to remember (don't always succeed) to watch any FAC I'm about to close for at least a day, so I'll know if there's any late-breaking news. Oh, and I usually promote about mid-day on Saturdays because WP:GO has to be archived at 0:00 UTC on Sat night. I reserve the right to be erratic, irrational, and unpredictable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well. Fight the power. I'll put a note on the FAC page, if only to drive the nominator insane: "I have a half-written review of this article. I won't post it until that is complete. I don't know when that will be. Please continue to enjoy the hold music while you wait." --Moni3 (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Crossed circuits

Is there any way to avoid this kind of problem in the future? I offered a review mere moments before you closed the FAC - obviously my time could have been better spent at FAC if I had known you were going to close the FAC so soon. I'm trying to be very efficient in my reviewing right now, so I would appreciate any tips you could offer on that front. Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Awadewit; did you read my talk page section just above yours? Also, any time a FAC has been up for six days and has three supports, and source and image clearance, it's on my horizon, so if you want to review, leave a note so I'll know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do - thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC

Thank you, Sandy. About RCC, I am looking very hard at Karanacs' idea at the moment, and my first responses were positive. When I return from a short wikibreak (interrupted because of a startling email about a closing arbcom case on the wiki-en-l mailing list) I will, I think, make a few suggestions. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't keep up with very much off-Wiki info, so please feel free to fill me in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a post about this ruling which has now been passed. It is discussed on the associated talkpage, and later where I commented, perhaps a tad strongly (I was irritated at being dragged back) here.

I edit mainly bios and fringe historical theories. I fear that the atmosphere is now such that some time during this wikibreak I will have to carefully consider how much aggravation this is likely to cause and whether it is worth returning. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. My concern (related to what I see happening at your talk page) is that a "super class" of enforcers is being (self?)-created, and that class has been empowered to interpret policy in unique ways. But perhaps the two issues are unrelated. I guess there always have been and always will be admins who are here to game the system, which is why I prefer to spend my time in an area that is strictly content related. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:Funny going ons at GA

I passed these articles because I actually believed them to be GAs. I enjoy reviewing articles and like watching the editors rejoice. And if you take it any other way than you are wrong. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy, and I'm remiss in not bringing this up before. Mary Meader and Hell's Gate National Park should never have been passed as GAs. I can't speculate on your reasons, but I suggest you make your standards for GA much, much higher. --Moni3 (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at GAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all that you (and others) said at GAN... all I'll say is that not all GA reviewers are evil - Talk:Mechanical engineering/GA1 is a good example. :-) But yeah, as LB said, this is a problem (Awards Centre + People passing GAs for badges + Admin coaching etc.) which will probably find its way at RfC sooner rather than later. Shame. giggy _(:O) 06:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

MfD draft

Sandy, could you please take a look at what I have so far? --Laser brain (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, I thought you were making lasagna! I'll review tonight; my brain is scattered right now and I haven't been to my garden yet today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought everyone had a "I hate Laser brain" userbox. Perhaps The Transhumanist should include a strongly worded warning to those prompted to run amok, perhaps gaining inspiration from this source. --Moni3 (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Lasagna does need time to bake! I don't have a problem with the userbox proliferating if it means only deserving articles are passed. :) --Laser brain (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't talk to me about cooking: forbidden on my talk page. (Isn't that why I'm married?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Ok, I had a look because I was afraid you'd make me bake if I didn't :-) I suspect (could be wrong) it will do better if you avoid mentioning editor names, as that could personalize the issues unnecessarily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Or ... Wondering (unclear) ... should it be launched as an RfC instead of an MfD? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good points.. will slice out the names and consider sautéing at RfC rather than MfD. At any rate, I intend to let it marinate for a while before serving. --Laser brain (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to stay on a diet while watching this page - everywhere you look there is chocolate or (even better) yummy Italian food. Karanacs (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahem. There is nothing better than chocolate. YMMV. Risker (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing? Risker, you worry me ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• LB, I'd say an MfD would be a better idea for an RfC. Many will argue that the issue is solely because of the AWC (I disagree but that's another story), so getting it deleted should hopefully solve most of the problems. If it doesn't, start an RfC on the problem editors (remember also that user conduct RfCs can only be focussed on 1 person, as opposed to a group... makes it work much more smoothly). giggy _(:O) 00:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharkface217/Awards Center SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Let me know when Gimme's back; I won't close any until then. Marskell (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Approximate word count

You surprise me. I get 14,667 when I divide 175,000 by 12, which is a very close approximation of the actual 12,000 - it is only off by 22%, which for all practical purposes, is right on the money - it's a ballpark you are looking for, not which side of a seat in that ball park. Oakwillow (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Only off by 22 %  !! LOL ... good one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

When you are dealing with orders of magnitude, 22% is an excellent estimate. 100, 1000, 10,000 etc. Oakwillow (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We aren't dealing with orders of magnitude. We're dealing with your desire to alter WP:SIZE to include your unsupported, idiosyncratic ideas, without consensus. We have working measures of article size, including word count; we don't need to introduce 22% error. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How technical?

I'm working on Noble gas right now, and it's the most technical article I have worked on so far. How much jargon are we allowed to use before it gets too technical? Could you take a quick glance at the article and tell me what I should trim back on, explain further, etc.? Gary King (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wiki-dropping here, I'm science-literate but not expert. I've gone through it and made a few tweaks (improvements? dunno) but basically it's not so much "jargon" as the essential concepts needed to understand the subject. Orbital-filling, Van der Waals bonding &c are essential topics, as are radio-decay and the various thermodynamics, boiling &c. You could overlink it just to be sure, or try to provide an Overview section, but the article itself seems irreducible. Just my opinion of course - but it was an enjoyable article to read! Franamax (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Franamax (I've got a lot of irons in the fire today, so am a bit behind). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Quid pro quo, Clarice

I nominated Draining and development of the Everglades, and I intend in return to review Dutch Empire, Cold War, National Museum of Beirut, and Polish culture during World War II before Saturday's promotion and archiving. I'll leave a note on those pages as well, but I'm being redundant. --Moni3 (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Moni, my e-mail inbox is filling up with requests that I barnstar you for entertaining the troops at my talk page :-) <Reminder to ask some creative type to come up with a Moni barnster> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha. I don't know about that. Every time I leave something I think is witty and gay, I come back and read it and it seems trite and freakin' annoying. But if I'm entertaining people I might de-lurk every now and then... --Moni3 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears as if the nominator of Dutch Empire abandoned the article at FAC. If you want me to review it still, I will, but I prefer to leave comments for nominators who will address my concerns. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I just left the nominator a note about it. [1] If s/he withdraws then Sandy will be able to close at least one nom today. karanacs <signed wrong> 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be archiving several. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea! Karanacs (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Must be summer break; I've been herding cats on numerous FACs lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny

Been here 2 years and never been aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you :-) My idea of a Resource Exchange is e-mailing someone who has access :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What, you never knew of Jimbo's kind offer? Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That is hilarious. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

<gulp>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LIBRARY is Wikipedia's secret weapon - kept very secret for some reason. Spread the word to all and sundry, sign yourself up as a resource if you can be one. There are people just aching to use their multiple subscription access, work 'em to death! Franamax (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

FA

I have noticed the lack of quality in Augustan literature and I am a tad bothered by it. There are no academic resources that could back up most of those claims, and a lot of it is absurd, wrong, or just misconstrues the whole setting. Because of my self-imposed break, I couldn't really go forth to try and have this reexamined. Could you find someone who would be willing to put it through the review process? It needs a lot of improvement, and I don't think it will get such with it being deemed "complete" by some editors who see the star and are unwilling to accept change. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not likely to find anyone who would be willing to bring that particular article to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima is upset. I shouldn't take the valuative statements very seriously. As for "complete," there is no way to be complete in any article on a literary movement or epoch. Articles are in a tension between the needs of conciseness and the needs of completeness, and the biggest areas that are still conceptual units (things like "astronomy" or "mathematics" or "police" or "vitamins") are going to be inherently without particular lines of development, and we have to see what readers ask for and what peers report before we think that the lack of coverage of a particular facet is actually a wound, and not just compactness. OR is raging about. <shrug> Augustan literature is as complete as it can be for its scope. No one has asked on the talk page for more without those needs being addressed quickly. Geogre (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Raging about" isn't a tone I encourage for describing other editors on my talk page. If you must poke at another editor, do it somewhere else, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, behold the lilies of the field and how they blush. Behold the words which may not be used, despite their provenance. It was a genuine warning to you, and my assessment of Ottava Rima was neither an insult nor inaccurate. If you look at AN/I, you will see the connection in time between his posting here and my posting there. If you wish to allow such horrendous insults as "no academic resources," then you should allow the answer. You do the one, after all. Geogre (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

:( --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen so many try so hard. Now FAC needs some reviewers back; there are 47 articles listed, and almost nothing I can close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment poll

Sandy, thanks a lot for your copyedits so far on the dispatches piece. I just posted the result of the poll, which is to adopt the new C-Class. I have updated the dispatches piece accordingly, but can you make sure it looks OK? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Primary/Secondary or Research/Review distinction over at WP:OR

I commented over here on that issue and I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Specifically, I'd like you to address what I consider to be 3 invalid conclusions: that reviews put things in context whereas primary studies don't; that reviews are easier to read; and that reviews are less biased. I've provided a counterexample. It seems more important to me to judge things on a case-by-case basis -- some reviews will be great, others won't. Same goes for "primary" articles. Thanks. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nguyen Van Nhung

Hi Sandy. Can you look at this FAC to see if it inherently inappropriate. Circeus thinks that the article shouldn't really exist/is redundant because the only known information about this fellow is from two coups that he was involved in. If it was just one event I wouldn't have bothered to have a separate article, but as it is, we're in this predicament. Is this FAC inherently intractable? If so I will withdraw it. Or I can rename it to something else like Nguyen Van Nhung as a military hitman or something. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather let that be decided by consensus at FAC, but I do have a question ... are there no other non-English language sources ? Is that truly all that is known about him? For example, Hugo Chavez was first known/published for the bloody coup he launched in Venezuela in 1992, and although there was little known about him in the English-language press, there was plenty more in Spanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Another query

Sandy, I've started working up Nuthatch, still a long way to go yet, but a referencing query. I've started with the book stuff, and many of the refs so far refer to the standard text by Harrop & Quinn. I've adopted a notes-and-refs approach, but added an indication of the content of the noted page eg

Harrop & Quinn (1996) Sulphur-billed Nuthatch p165–168

Having done that, I'm not sure how to format it - pages before or after content? Content in italics, quotes, plain or not at all? Anyway, please have a look and let me know. In the meantime I'll try to find that bar of organic fig and orange chocolate (: jimfbleak (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Jim, have a look at Ant, and let me know if you still have questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I take that to mean leave the content out, just bare page ranges. That's fine, I'll leave the content bit in for now because it's easier to navigate while I'm adding material, and put in back to just eg Harrop & Quinn (1996) p165–168 before GA. Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really know what you were referring to about content, since all I see at Nuthatch are citations. If you want to add direct quotes, I'd just put them in quotes after the citation info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll do them as eg Harrop & Quinn (1996) p165–168 "Sulphur-billed Nuthatch" thanks again, jimfbleak (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(Not) Just another whiner!

Today morning I woke up and logged on to WP...yawning...but my yawn was cut short when I glanced through the watchlist. I asked why? I know the nomination was growing stale and had just 3 comments, 1 support and 1 oppose...obviously the oppose looked valid and weighty...but I guess you could have extended it a bit...even if the nom seemed on a death row. We all know the kind of inputs one gets at FACs is nothing compared to PRs or GARs. The amount of attention that FACs garner is hard to get...and I felt I needed more reviews.

I ain't asking you to reopen the nom or anything..nor am I registering a complaint...or doling out an advice... but its just a suggestion...let FACs grow stale no matter how retarded they may seem...I know its frustrating for you to see so many FACs lying unnoticed...

I have seen FA noms which had dismal beginnings and poor responses but eventually improved a lot and made the cut.

Regards, KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC is not supposed to be a stand-in for peer review. The reviewer pool is pretty small at the moment, and if we were to leave every article that was languishing at FAC for longer the list would grow and grow and reviewers would never be able to keep up. This dispatch gives information about how to get more input at a peer review and this one provides information on how to be a reviewer at FAC. We could always welcome the help. Karanacs (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Knowledge; two weeks is a normal-to-long time to let a FAC that has not gained Support run. By archiving/promoting daily, I'm able to let nominations run much longer than they used to, but once a nomination has run that long and has gotten significant opposition, the article will likely have a better chance at achieving featured status by using the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 to work issues out and re-approach FAC. Hope to see you back as soon as issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I just want you to know that I have done my best at Talk:Roman Catholic Church#Promised research (Comments posted by AWADEWIT). Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The effort is appreciated; see User_talk:SandyGeorgia#FYI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also now posted a plan. Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, I've never seen so many people work so hard to advance a worthy article in such difficult circumstances, but in the meantime, FAC reviews are floundering and this month's promotions will likely be the lowest in a very long time; almost all of the editors who usually help review and bring articles to status have been exclusvely tied up with RCC for almost two months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not holding out a lot of hope [2], but kudos to you, Awadewit for taking the time to suggest something. Karanacs (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm giving up. Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to watch the effect this FAC has had on all of you on all sides; I know you've all tried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, I am not strong enough to venture into this article because it frightens me on many levels. But it seems to me the priority of the editors of RCC is not really to get this featured, but the to keep the content they see that complements their vision. I don't think that's a bad thing. If they want to hang on to that vision, they're under no mandate to get it to FA. But if they want to get it to FA, then they'll have to compromise the vision. I don't know, in the tomes of FAC comments, if this has been illustrated for them. I'm very concerned that other articles are languishing while the best reviewers seem to be mired in this article, however. Is there such a thing as a cool-down nomination period? Just so reviewers can overcome their exhaustion? --Moni3 (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understood it, that was Raul's intent when he archived; instead, we now have yet another 200KB of the same discussion we've seen on three FACs occuring across various talk pages, tying up all of the editors who usually work to bring many articles to status. Our FA promotes this month will be the lowest in a long time, and, well, people will continue to complain to me about FACs I'm forced to archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In answer to your question, Moni, it has been pointed out to the editors literally dozens of time again that articles just don't pass FAC 100% the way they were when they got there (the explanations began at the first FAC when they refused to make changes to anything because that would mean the article would lose its GA status). I have a terrifying vision of this article popping up at FAC once a month for the next year with the same fights recurring until all the reviewers quit (several refused to come back for FAC 4 and several more have quit working on the article in disgust this week). Sandy, my review output is going to pretty low this month, which is contributing to the problem. I probably missed out on at least 10 reviews this month because of vacation, so I have been making penance by reviewing pop culture (even wrestling! articles) for you. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all you do; I hate failing articles, even more so for lack of reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My bad

I left a note at Template talk:FAC status for you and Willow. I'm definitely the one to blame. =) Thanks.. – Scartol • Tok 17:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I responded there (although it's a strange place for this chat, since it has nothing to do with the template :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The template's been {{db-author}}'d, and thank you for your nice note. :) I'm sorry for being stressed before; believe it or not, even knitters can have stressful lives sometimes. ;) I only wanted to say that I'm doing the best I can, and that most of the reviewers' concerns have been met already, even if we didn't present that fact in a very clear way for you. I fixed the MoS image location, Scartol took care of the image copyright issue, LaraLove did the copyedit requested by Wackymacs, I answered Jakob.scholbach's concerns and we're all trying to satisfy Randomblue's format-consistency and other issues. Speaking for myself, though, the article is not ready to pass; not because the math section is wrong, but because it is not well-written and slightly incomplete. The article is better than Émile Lemoine and Georg Cantor, I believe, but it's still not what Wikipedia should be showing off as its best work. With serene sincerity, Willow (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Marlins best trade yet

Did you see this? World Series Champs 2008!!!!!!! So take that SG!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You really have to spend more time (like, 86 years) with The Fat Lady :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're a Cubs fan then? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bah ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I missing the point. Sheep?  ;) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You gotta spend more time with your head in mlb.com :-) But the Marlins do have a nice young team now ... remember, baseball is a marathon, not a sprint; we'll see how the peewee league fares against the real ballplayers in October <grin> !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Article size

Hello Sandy... I see the Article size talk page has continued to grow. I don't understand why all of you have been so patient with Oakwillow. I'm working on the solar energy page and it is coming up for its first FAC shortly. Oakwillow edits this page as 199.125.109.xxx or Apteva. It's hard to work on a page with this fellow screwing with it and he seems to step up his trash the better the page gets. Where would be the best place to report this guy for ignoring consensus and pushing POV material? Mrshaba (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you start with WP:WQA, and if that isn't successful, move on to WP:RFC/U. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar for FAC work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		We reviewers and nominators don't stop often enough to thank you for the hard work you put in at FAC. Your meticulousness and your dedication to helping people through the process, in addition to what must be the hours of tedious "paper work", are to be commended. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Confused about why you are "most troubled"

I notice that you felt it was necessary to mention that I tried to encourage editors to help with the San Francisco article by listing it at the Award Center. You also mentioned on the MfD page that you are "most troubled" that the task was listed at the Award Center prior to initiating the FAR. I am confused as to why this is a problem, so I'm hoping you can clear it up for me. I saw an article that I felt needed some work. I hoped to find an editor willing to help, so I listed it at the Award Center. Nobody signed up, and I mentioned my concerns about the article on the talk pages of the relevant projects. Nothing happened for over a week, so I initiated the FAR process. Can you please show me what concerns you about my actions? I'm not trying to attack you by asking, but I am interested in knowing why this is a big deal. I am aware that you don't like the Award Center, and I'm aware that there are definitely problems with a small number of the editors who participate in the Award Center, but I don't see that this specific instance (San Francisco) is a problem. I would appreciate some clarification when you have a few minutes. Thanks and best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This provides an example of where the mentality furthered by the entire premise of an Award Center is off; you wanted to find editors to help, but 1) you never posted to the article talk page until you listed the FAR, even though 2) articlestats reveals at least 11 very active editors who are, in fact, now helping restore the article and who are 3) far more interested in and likely to restore the article because they have the sources. It didn't need to go through "Awards"; there are many active involved editors who could have (probably would have) come on board via an article talk page message, avoiding the need for a FAR. It's the mentality furthered by the Awards Center; the best place to find editors willing to work on that article is that article's talk page, and you never posted there, rather went to an "Awards" center a full month earlier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I agree with you about my error in not posting on the article talk page. That was a mistake. I would like to point out that my posts on the talk pages of the relevant projects went unanswered and that my suggestions in the FAR were met with resentment because of the mentality that if it was good enough in 2006, it's good enough now. I find that many editors react this way to the suggestion that improvements need to be made, as they are close to the article and take such comments as a personal slight (although that is not what I ever intended). In cases like those, I'm not convinced that finding an outside editor is a bad thing. I appreciate you taking the time to reply, and, like I said, you have a valid point and I made a mistake in not posting on the article's talk page. I'm not convinced that it would have made a difference, but it would have been the best thing to do. It shan't happen again, though, as I've found that, despite the number of Featured Articles that don't meet the criteria, there is little to no support for an editor who suggests that steps should be taken to fix the problem. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Projects (with a few exceptions, like MilHist) are rarely helpful on individual articles. The FAR might have encountered less resistance if you had first approached the talk page with a list of issues, and then at least they can't claim to be taken by surprise if they don't work on the issues and you do take the article to FAR. San Francisco needed work—you were right there—but we don't know if the regular editors would have done it without a FAR. There is support for restoring articles, but a talk page post is usually a good starting place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we'll never know. In hindsight, only one thing is clear—if giving a week's notice on the article's talk page was listed as step #1 at FAR, I would have tried that first. I'd like to see this saga have a positive outcome, so perhaps that might be a good idea to consider. I'll propose the change at WT:FAR. Thanks again, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a necessary step, and it's been discussed before at FAR, but what's strange in this case is giving a months' notice to an Awards Center, but none to the talk page ... see the difference? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Basically, the concern is that, instead of getting angry responses from people who don't feel that the article should be changed, I offered a fake award made up of pixels that had no bearing on any aspect of life, real or imagined, in the hope of finding someone interested in the topic and willing to look at the article with fresh eyes. If that's a wikicrime, I'll plead wikiguilty. You seem to be saying that, if I hadn't tried to find outside help, it would be completely acceptable to avoid giving notice on the article's talk page. I don't get it, but we clearly don't see eye to eye on the whole issue. We both seem to want the best for Wikipedia's Featured Articles, but we have different ideas of how to reach the same destination. I'll defer to you. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear SandyGeorgia

Dear SandyGeorgia
I am writing this to you;
And I hope that you will read it so you'll know...
My heart beats like a hammer,
and I stutter and I stammer,
every time I see your edits grow.

I guess I'm just another fan of yours
and I thought I'd write and tell you so......

You made me come back...
I didn't want to do it
I didn't want to do it,
but you forced my hand!

And all the time you knew it,
I guess you always knew it--
I think you're grand!!!!

Your work here stuns me!
I didn't wanna tell ya,
But I had to tell ya--
You'll understand!

That's true, yes I do, deed I do you know I do.

I don't care what happens let the whole world stop,
As far as I'm concerned, you're a Wiki Star!

You know you made me love you!!!!

Jeffpw (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

uh, oh ... I feel charges of Wiki-polygamy coming my way again !!! Jeff, I'm so glad you've decided to rejoin the ranks with the rest of us Wiki-Nuts ... welcome back !! And thanks for such a nice start to my day—always so much nicer than starting my day fighting fires :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh Sandy, don't we all love you. Your real-life husband is very lucky indeed. TONY (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, since he's on another continent this weekend, I'll have to content myself with my Wiki-polygamy and chocolate :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd be worried about his safety; you have Wiki-husbands in all five continents, and some of them are rather jealous... (evil grin)

If you will excuse me now, I have to resume my fencing practice. Waltham, The Duke of 21:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I really decided to return because of my enormous respect for what you do and the idea that Wikipedia actually makes the world a better place. You're a great friend, Sandy, and someone who I would like to emulate. As such, I'd like to start reviewing FACs for you. I understand from your talk page that there's a need for that. By the way, I sent you an email. Best, Jeffpw (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with Lyme; a question

SandyGeorgia, thank you for giving Lyme disease such a thorough treatment. I am sorry some of my edits were weasel words like "the position of most in the medical community." I still have alot to learn. It was a slapdash try at correcting some major POV problems and I agree there is lots of work to do. The main problem, my opinion, is the article has become a symbolic battleground for an editor (Freyfaxi / shine a lite) who believes Lyme disease was created or released as a bioweapon by Allen Steere and colleagues and that a condition called chronic Lyme exists with no evidence of infection. I looked through the edit history of Lyme and related articles, and this editor is very persistent about repeating these charges, deleting opposing information, and cowing well meaning editors into an unproductive kind of consensus. I think consensus is important but sometimes people forget it is also important not to give fringe "the government is trying to kill us all" POV a seat at the head of the table.

So what to do about this? Is there a good way to get NPOV eyes to the article? I know some stuff but it would be good to have some people with medical experience add the sections you mentioned. Thanks again RetroS1mone talk 14:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's going to need some real help; often, when a POV warrior takes over an article, it becomes hard to keep up with the rest of the issues that affect article quality (MoS, copyediting, citation, quality of sources, etc.) I'm sorry to delist it GA, but it just wasn't there. There are two places I suggest you post, with a succinct summary including key diffs of the issues: first, the talk page of WP:MED, and second, WP:FTN, the fringe theory noticeboard. A really tight, well written summary posted to those two places, cutting through the fluff with some key straightforward diffs showing the problematic editing, should help get some more experienced eyes on the article. Make it the best post you can, because really long posts might not get read, and you have to cut through to the most egregious issues. I can pop in every now and then to check on progress, but I'm pretty busy all the time, and I suspect this is one of those cases that may have to get worse before it gets better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Art Houtteman

Hey. For your query on jargon, would you be able to give specifics on what else needs to be cleaned up in that regard? I ask only since I'm so used to using many of the terms as second nature that I'm probably not finding where I need to fix the wording. Thanks for your help so far. Wizardman 16:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wizard, do you have time to glance over Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1926 World Series? That would give you an idea of the kinds of things people are looking at. The problem I have is that I'm a baseball fan, so I don't see the jargon to the same extent others might; it's just business as usual to me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

No problem! I just noticed something else: I'm not sure "guidelines" should be plural in the first sentence, although I could be wrong. Take a peek if you get a chance, as I go back to feeling overwhelmed at FAC. Giants2008 (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:FAC Query

I'd love to, but unfortunately, I've just moved and started a new job, and it looks like my editing output on Wikipedia will be significantly less for the next 3 months or so. :( I'll most likely get around to some reviews tomorrow though. BuddingJournalist 07:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to virus

Hi Sandy, would you have time to take a look? Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 16:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look, probably tonight after you're snoozing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, thanks for your helpful comments a quick response. I've act on all your advice, (of course :) ) Best wishes as always. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

Hello! I'm looking for some external views on a particular user.

I understand you've encountered Ottava Rima before. How would you characterize their behaviour? How could Ottava Rima improve their behaviour?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tricky waters there :-) I think OR has crossed the wrong people more than once. I think OR has done some exceptionally good work on Wiki (on one FAC, OR identified an issue no one else had noticed, and backed off of that issue sooner than I would have in the same circumstances, and I believe OR also cleaned up the Picard article). I think OR needs to be more politically savvy and aware of cliques on Wiki and learn to back off of some issues sooner, let go more often—no different than one has to do in real life at times. I think the recent block was unfair and reminiscent of the debacles at the now defunct Community Sanction Noticeboard. And because I am aware of the consequences of being targetted on Wiki, I haven't weighed in on the AN/I and don't plan to, but I'm very glad you asked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Query

Indolence! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

May I?

Hi Sandy, I saw your note over at Dr pda's page and thought I'd share my method... I don't know if it's the "right way" to do it or if there's a better one, but it works :)

Just follow

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_title&dir=prev&offset=yyyymmdd000000&limit=1&action=history

where Article_title is, well, the article title :) and yyyymmdd is the mainpage date. This will bring up the first diff after 0:00 on the particular day the article was on the Main page. Here's today's example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judy_Garland&dir=prev&offset=20080622000000&limit=1&action=history

See ya 'round, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you dear :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiCookie

Meldshal42 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Just wanted to make up for all the times we've had kind of unpleasant experiences. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

June 24 TFA

There's been a slight problem. Is it possible you could set the June 24 TFA for an article for me - I never got to nominate it because none of the 5 requests were removed or promoted. I e-mailed Raul a couple of days ago about this and he never replied. Is there anything you can do?^Mitch32^contribs 01:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved with WP:TFA/R, Raul handles the mainpage. He hasn't scheduled the 24th yet, so you could leave him a request, but if you already e-mailed him, I'm sure he's aware of your request even if he hasn't responded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE

You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Things are progressing nicely at Bradman's FAC. Please will you cast an eye over the issues I/TRM have disagreed with reviewers about and let me know if you consider any of them to be "live".

Also, I thought you might like to see this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Our_efforts_appreciated. With Bradman's 100th coming up, we can expect our article to be fodder for dozens and dozens of articles - nice for one of them to actually acknowledge it and chuck in a compliment to-boot! Is this worthy of Dispatches? Might attract some more reviews to FAC if mentioned... --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I see you got that answer from Ral ... I'm not sure if he'll run it, since the items I've seen run in the SignPost gave more prominence to Wiki ... not sure how they decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Re this. It was me. Sorry, was intended to clarify, not confuse. --Dweller (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey there. 4 supports now. What, in your opinion, remains outstanding before bronze stars get handed out? --Dweller (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to find it difficult to contribute for the next few days, per my user page. I think Buc's been moving beyond the correct spirit of FAC... and I see TRM's had to revert some dozen or so edits to the article by Buc too. Sorry I can't be around more to help out. Excessive zeal by reviewers is thankfully rare at FAC, but is the kind of thing that puts people off trying to get articles promoted and for that reason should be discouraged, in my opinion. The question always is what is excessive? --Dweller (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help and advice on Angus Lewis Macdonald and thanks for promoting it to featured article status. I appreciate everything you've done. Bwark (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC Reviewing

Hi Sandy, thanks for your kind words on my talk page. I'm glad I can help. Having gone through the process (twice) with Talyllyn Railway, I hope I can offer some constructive advice. Please don't hesitate to let me know if I'm doing anything wrong - I'm still learning the FAC reviewing ropes. Best, Gwernol 12:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent crosspost...

You want a fight??? Fight me!!.. well just sit back and wait for the pyrotechnics I guess. I'm in exactly the wrong frame of mind to answer that x-post so I'll leave it for a bit to see what develops, but thanks for that, I look forward to the fight mature discussion! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Bugger. I bit. Sorry everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

TRM, something that Raul does very well (and I'm convinced that I'll never learn to do at all) is sit back and let others have those kinds of conversations. You don't need to bite :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I know. I'm not cool enough (yet) but I'm working on it. Anyway, it seems to be turning into a vaguely encouraging discussion which is supportive of the recent changes at FLC so I'm not complaining! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

ah, TRM, you're too much like me :-) It's hard to sit back and say nothing when your troops need defending, and you know how hard they work. But it's really best if you let them defend themselves :-) Go do something nice for yourself for a couple of hours, and when you come back, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised at how well they do :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you're right. I should watch some of Wimbledon or something. It's a lovely evening, why am I getting worked up?! I'll just be a monitor from now on, only a little less bacterial. Thanks for the calming words Sandy. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell me the same sometime :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for the lovely things you wrote at my recent RfA. I would never have accepted the nomination, either, if you hadn't also recommended me to balloonman several weeks ago; it took having multiple people tell me I'd do a good job for me to believe it! You have been one of my Wiki role models since I began hanging out at FAC last year, and it means a great deal to me to have earned your respect in return. You can now add me to your stable of FAC regulars who can also do cleanup work...I'm beginning to realize that you'll never need the admin tools because one-by-one the FAC regulars are runnign the gauntlet instead ;) Karanacs (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with Original Research

Hi Sandy,
I’m a professor at Boston College doing a study on medical information on Wikipedia. I’d like to ask some editors a few questions about their experience. The questions can be found at my userpage user:geraldckane/medsurvey. You are one of the first people I have contacted, I’d also appreciate any feedback about 1) the questions themselves, 2) the methods we are using, 3) other general comments you might have.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Thank You,
geraldckane (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I get for having virtue

Might you know the answer to this question? While being patient and waiting for someone with authority to respond, I missed an opportunity to put a request on the page. It's a humdinger, too. --Moni3 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

uh, well, I guess I lost track as well, because I don't understand thedemonhog's response. I thought you were supposed to replace your higher-pointer by deleting the competition. I guess I'll have to read the entire page (sigh) unless someone else clarified. Poor Raul. Clearly Birmingham Campaign is significant, but how you get it there over a video game that was released on its Z version in Country X and Language Y on that date is beyond me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the opportunity for Birmingham campaign is gone, alas. July 11, however, is the 48th anniversary of the release date of To Kill a Mockingbird. --Moni3 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I read the page, I'm significantly alarmed, and I don't know why you can't just replace it per the old system, the one Raul acknowledges. If you have more points, you replace it, period. That others want the mainpage to be a free-for-all is utterly alarming. I feel like telling them, great, go ahead, you break it, you own it, but that would be too great of a risk to take. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Moni, busy day; I read the new page instructions:

If another article is already suggested for your ideal date, you may nominate the article under the same date giving an explanation of how the points are awarded and the total. Reviewers will debate to determine which article best fits the date. Please nominate only one article at a time.

... which is a change. So, you add yours below, rather than deleting another. I don't believe that's what Raul set up, since he specifically wanted only five requests at a a time as I read it, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of respect on the talk page there for what it takes to keep the main page functioning as smoothly as it has. Oh, well! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Read it again, looked at history, it's not a change. So there's been no change. I know you can delete a lower-point article to add yours; that's how the page works, and I don't know why thedemonhog responded differently. Since no one has clarified, just do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, July 11 isn't available because July 12 is taken by a 1-pointer maybe. With 2 opposes so far. I can replace another July 11, but not July 12. Though back in April when I nominated Birmingham campaign, it was replaced by an article for an earlier date. I'm completely confused... and really, enough people read that article anyways. --Moni3 (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was always that you delete the lowest-point article on the page, whatever date, and add yours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So, here's how it works, from Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

TbJ and Discography

Sorry, I couldn't keep up with the speed of the discussion and I had to do rl work. By the time I responded to your comments, you had added more, and I was about to re-order it correctly, but then... Oh, heck. Sorry. Thanks for fixing it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy wrote: Am I reading it wrong? It's much better now that it's attributed, but maybe you can tighten the wording to indicate it's the relative quality of the recordings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. I am not sure what this is referring to. Is it the Anna Russell reference, or something else? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If I go all the way back to my original concern ... it started as ...

• Trial by Jury has been recorded many times. Of the recordings by the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, those from 1927 and 1964 have been well-received. The 1961 Sargent and the 1995 Mackerras recordings are also admired.[120]

which reads like critical reception or success of the recordings. Your subsequent commentary refers to quality of the recordings, which is different (unless I'm reading it wrong?) from critical reception. I'm suggesting tightening the wording, which will eliminate my concerns on this article (although I still think it's important to establish Shepherd per SPS for future/other articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I think I fixed it now, OK? -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Much clearer now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

2c needed here mebbe?

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dorftrottel - I thought this was going to be messy but it seems to be going quite well towards some conciliation/postive outcome sorta thingy...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

South of Heaven

Hi Sandy, I hope all is well. I'd like to nominate the above album article to be today's featured article on July 5th, given the fact that the album will celebrate its 20th anniversary on that date. Unfortunately though, there is currently a five article limit preventing me from nominating the article. Is there any way you can help? In the exact same edit that removed Bradley Joseph, another article was nominated. It's quite difficult to nominate due to the limit, and this is exacerbated by such edits as the one I previously mentioned.

This is becoming a trend :-) I don't have anything to do with TFA/R ... I grab a slot when I can just like anyone else. Read many similar threads on this page. The good news is we have too many FAs for the mainpage. With the five-article limit, if your article has more points than another, you can bump another off the page. See WP:TFA/R, a 20-yr anniversary gets lots of points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is how the page works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC formatting error

The Polyclonal B cell response FAC's formatting is messed up to the point where it isn't showing up in the table of contents. I'd fix this if I knew how, but I don't. Just thought you should know. Giants2008 (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look now, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted revert

Why the revert? [3] How is linking the Ant article to a page that includes a section about dispersal of seeds by ants inappropriate? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you 'spose anyone will click on a common word like seed, when they know what a seed is? The info about ants dispersing seeds is in the ant article. By adding low-value blue links that no one will read, you dilute the high-value links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Discography update

I found the quote for the baseball article (though I still don't have the full text of the article - it is available from subscription sites). I also deleted several of the items that I think you find least helpful. I really think everything else that is still there is helpful in explaining to editors why the discography is reliable, although I am interested in what you think is really of no value in establishing this. In addition, I would be happy for you to use a short version in Signposts, including whatever parts you feel are appropriate. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The last time I looked, y'all had added the info about monitoring a forum, which has nothing to do with reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I removed that before sending you the above notice.  :) However, maybe it is better for you to wait and let Shoemaker review it before you address it again. Some of our difficulty today, I think, is that we were all in too much of a hurry. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, Shoe has made his changes, so we are ready for your comments. And, as I said above, if you want to use a shorter version for Signposts, that's fine. Here's the link for your convenience. Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and_Sullivan Discography. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ss, is it OK if I do some work on that page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just cut it and trim it as you like on that page: After all, the purpose is to show the site is reliable. Being published in the signpost as an example of a good way to show a site is reliable succeeds at that goal amply =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and of course your changes were excellent. I fixed some typos that got introduced along the way, added a book acknowledgement and made a few other minor changes. Let me know if/when you use it on Signpost. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

user talk:epbr123

Since it's someone you've supported in the past, I was just pointing you to the discussion at the bottom of his talk page, if you haven't seen it already. You might be interested. giggy _(:O) 03:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware, and waiting to see if the mob calms down in the morning. In the meantime, the other fellow lodged a pretty serious personal attack at Epbr's talk page, and admitted he didn't assume good faith (doesn't accept a sincere apology), so it only looks to be heating up. And NO I don't want the discussion continued on my talk page, since it's already in about six places. But all those people who are so up in arms about this seriously need to have a look at some of what has been said and done to me by admins; as much as I regret that it was sent, that e-mail doesn't even figure on the radar screen of admin abuse as I've experienced it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Does that make it acceptable? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Did I say I didn't want to continue the discussion here? Why don't you all get some sleep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is everyone so keen to avoid the issue? Will it be different tomorrow? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope so; good decisions aren't likely to result during a feeding frenzy, and good faith apologies should be accepted rather than returned with a personal attack. Feeding the flames and inciting the mob aren't good ideas. Hasta mañana. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It won't be different tomorrow. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: American Airlines Flight 77

Aude, were you planning to revisit Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/American Airlines Flight 77? Since you're an admin, I was wondering if you could look into Talk:The Pentagon#Article title; it looks to me like our article is mistitled, and belongs at Pentagon (building), but I'm hoping you know more about the actual name of the building. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have very limited time for Wikipedia while on wikibreak, and periods of time with no internet access. Thus, I can't always respond quickly. But, yes the article needs more work to address points raised in the FAC. When I get some free time, I could work on the article. As of now, I don't think they have been addressed, though I see the article has been promoted anyway. I'm concerned about that, given the article has outstanding issues that were not addressed. If that's how FAC works, then regretfully it seems as not worth my time to review and be involved. As for your second question, I think it's just "Pentagon". Though it's often referred to as "the Pentagon". --Aude (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Draining and development of the Everglades was promoted while an editor was going through, copyediting, asking clarifying questions and such. I'm not complaining that it was promoted, but I am working with the editor to make sure the article as as good as it can be. Based on VegitaU's responses in two FACs, I think s/he would welcome any comments meant to improve the article. There are always improvements to be made after FA promotions. I don't think it's a waste of time. --Moni3 (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, Aude (I was hoping an admin would make the article move at Pentagon, since it's over a redirect and I can't do it). "How FAC works" is that if a reviewer sees an issue significant enough to hold up promotion, they should enter an oppose. You entered a comment four days ago, saying more should be said about the structure of the Pentagon; since that is a side issue to the flight, and you hadn't responded for four days or for a full day after my query, it appeared you didn't consider your comment significant enough to hold up promotion. No article is perfect, and I'm sure VegitaU will continue to work on the article via talk page discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I had mentioned that I was on wikibreak. That means limited time, and limited or no internet access, which explains the delay in my response. Please be patient with people on wikibreak. Anyway, I have done some work today on the article, and may continue when my wikibreak is over. --Aude (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I saw that; because you hadn't returned to the FAC and I didn't know when you would be back, I had to make a decision based on the fact that you hadn't entered an oppose. It's rare that I ping an editor for followup, but I did in this case, and waited an extra day to see if you would weigh in. I'm sorry that wasn't long enough, but I'm glad the article has progressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Plan of action

You posted something at Borderline pd the other day..I think the game plan from my POV will be that clinical depression, now named (thankfully) major depressive disorder, is gettting some god solid collaborative work and will be at FAC in 1-2 months I think. After that (unless someone else does), I'll lead a charge on borderline personality disorder and maybe bipolar disorder after that (though anyone else is most welcome to lead a charge...) So I think we'll get there, but I am still planning to intersperse these with miscellanous birds, fungi and the food of the gods or maybe another food of the gods...or , heck I dunno...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But in the meantime, BPD should be GA delisted; it's awful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(groan) Oh I hadn't seen that. Oh well, there is just too much oing on at the moment and it is 1am and I need to sleep...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Query

Not sure why this is on my talk page; I'll move it to WT:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! We guys just can't stay off your page…KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL! You'll get better and more timely answers at the right page, and they'll see where their instructions might not be clear. I'm swamped today, but I'll get over there if I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography

I've made some cuts, moved the more confusing or weaker evidence to the talk page - may as well present only the BEST evidence. Feel free to change it however you want - the purpose is to justify the source; being published in the signpost as an example of how to justify a SPS is an excellent way to do this. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree with Shoe that what he moved out is the weakest evidence? Does that complete the exercise as far as you are concerned? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

um ... guys ... my talk page is making me a bit crazy today :-) I've watchlisted that page; if you put comments on the talk page there, I'll catch up when I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiSmiles all around

Got a huge smile out of this comment ;) hehehehe :) :) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I see my word carries lots of weight at AN/I :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else archived it... at least Tony got to make a statement this time around. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

Not feeling very well today, so I'm afraid you're getting a sub-standard effort =/ Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

2009 April Fool's Day FA

This article is awesome! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, someone needs to get Vampire pumpkins and watermelons onto the main page... – iridescent 19:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) So get on it now, and get it FAd in advance :-) I can assure you I won't have the energy next year to do what we did this year, and you'll have to deal with The Fat Man, who has his eye on that maggot cheese article. Next year, we should put out the April Fools' Dispatch early, and encourage multiple FA submissions so we have multiple choices to present to Raul. (Iridescent, are you trying to put Moni out of work in the Edit summary dep't?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just pleased to have an edit summary that isn't "Re: your comments on Huggle" or "Re: Your comments on Keeper's talk page" for once... – iridescent 19:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone up for getting April Fool's Day featured? giggy _(:O) 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is my idea for April Fool's Day featured article. I was stunned it had an article. --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I like Hurricane Katrina (1981). It'll confuse the heck out of people when they hear Hurricane Katrina hit Cuba during the 1981 season. I don't know why I have this page on my watchlist, but this thread caught my eye. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be working on Dancing mania over the summer (per Nishkid's suggestion). · AndonicO ^Engage. 22:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Who Are You?

Sorry for such a blunt,probably rude question, but...who are you? I get a post you sorta got into the crossfire of a minor flamewar between me and Malleus(he won,I lost,bad feelings buried,;)) and Iri mentioned tohttp://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png not bother you(oops). So who are you?:P--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 02:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Flame war with Malleus and he won? How unusual. There's an entry titled "Who is SandyGeorgia" here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Realist2 says I won.Weird.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Um..unusual he won? Iri said he had never lost a flame war.--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting conversation. Iri points out that I don't hold grudges (thank you for noticing, Iri), Realist2 says I'm lovely (that's because I remember the 2 occasionally), but Malleus tells you not to upset me because he has a FAC coming up. Malleus, seriously, what are you implying about how I handle FAC? Xp, three people advised you not to bother me because I'm very busy, and your response was, "And why did people assume I would bother the FAC deputy director?!" I wonder! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was implying nothing, just trying to defuse a rather irritating series of postings. I'm sure that you know me well enough to know that if I had a problem with the way that you handled FACs, then you would have been the first to know. I don't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind, you and I know that, but others may read that comment differently :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I believe you MF.:D--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. But if you're so busy and you still responded.You are lovely.<blush>--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind being bothered, but if you ask me to look an article, and don't leave the link to the article, I may bite :-) And if you mess up an {{articlehistory}}, you'll learn about the Wrath of Sandy. Seriously, no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Article history? And yes it's somewhat(completely) stupid to ask for a review with no link or mention of the article's name.And thanks!(Lovely)--Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 03:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All you need to know about Sandy is right here. 04:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(Out) Apologizes, I did advise my friend Xp not to contact you unnessarily, at least he gets to see that your are indeed "lovely" as I put it. God what is up with me today? Im never this....nice. I feel a warm glow inside and my pulse has returned. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 04:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, seriously, no problem; everyone involved in those RfA pages needs to relax a bit :-) It's nice of you to say I'm "lovely"; I'm still glowing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Automagic reflists

Would you prefer it if reflists with 3 or more columns automagically used 2 columns? It's something I suggested at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Reflist. It probably isn't practical, but I figured it's worth mentioning. Gary King (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Operation Varsity FAC

Hey there. Thanks for all your help with getting the FAC correct, I apologize for not getting it right. It's my first time doing an FAC, and I'm kinda worried. I've read that a consensus needs to be reached to pass the article, but so far I only have one Support in the commentary. I've corrected all of the other concerns listed but those who commented haven't said anything else. Does that therefore create a consensus, or does that mean the nomination will fail if no-one else new supports? Many thanks, Skinny87 (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll be able to respond faster if you include a link to the article and the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Added the links myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

From WP:FAC:

For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

• actionable objections have not been resolved; or
• consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
• insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

That article needs a lot of MoS cleanup; often, when reviewers see a lot of issues when an article is first listed, they may pass the nomination by and wait to see if someone else will deal with it first. You might consider asking User:Epbr123 to help you clean up the MoS issues; hopefully that will help entice more reviewers to engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise, as it was only a general query, I didn't think I needed to link the FAC. I have contacted that user and they have done some clean-up. Hopefully that will help solve the problems with the article. I didn't realize it had so many problems with it. Skinny87 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I realize you're a busy person, but I was wondering. A lot of the MoS issues that I can see are edits which change things like dashes and exclamation marks and brackets and so forth, and which although change things in the code of the article, don't actually affect what the article itself looks like when one first finds the page. I was wondering why it's done to the (a) article. Skinny87 (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Those changes do affect how the article looks and reads (look closer at each change); I'll have to ask Epbr123 to include the guideline links in his edit summaries. He changes things like WP:DASH, WP:PUNC, WP:MOSNUM, WP:MOSDATE, WP:MOS#Quotations, and more. These are not big issues, but when reviewers are short on time and their first glance at an article reveals an article that doesn't appear prepared (you first put it up with glaring WP:MSH issues, which is why I quickly reminded you to fix those when you first nommed it), a busy reviewer may be inclined to move on to another article rather than engage. I have no evidence that happens, but it may be a factor when reviewers are very busy, I dunno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics

There have been various signals in the past that the dysgenics article is considered POV by giving too much weight to a taboo/fringe theory, which recently has led to an edit war. Current opposition to the original article [4] has resulted in the deletion of a large section of sourced content, in my personal opinion, due to the opposing editors' inability to gather good sources that support their pov, hence they decided to get their way by deleting everything they disliked.

I was impressed when I saw your involvement with the gene bomb article and I wonder if you'd like to help out with the dysgenics article? --Zero g (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

<groan> ... sounds distinctly unpleasant and time consuming :-) I've got a busy day on tap and lots of promises owed, but if I get a chance later today, I'll peek in and see if some policy-whacking is needed. Have you considered a post at WP:FTN to get more eyes on the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've considered it, but the main problem I see is that people assume it's a fringe theory, while the reviews on the literature on the subject doesn't support that notion. So I'm more interested in getting people involved who can edit objectively and source meticulously, rather than cherry picking sources that 'kind of sort of' support a pov. --Zero g (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's cherry picking you're mostly worried about, I don't know enough about the research on the topic to make sure WP:UNDUE isn't violated. I can help clean up some general citation issues, MoS issues and flag iffy sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That'd be appreciated. --Zero g (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The rest of my family made plans for the rest of the day and evening, and I'm trying to get out the door, so I may not get there until tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Geier coatrack

Er, I'm a bit confused about your comments on Talk:Mark Geier. Did you undo the wrong revision to the article, or something? It looks like you've done the opposite of what you aimed to do—in this edit it looks like you restored the COATRACKy quote....? Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ack ... I don't have time to get back there right now, but the intent is that content more appropriate to Thiomersal controversy be added there, and not to Geier's bio, which should be rewritten to include a section with a link to the controversy, summarizing the controversy (rather than going into unnecessary detail for a bio). If I did the reverse, you are correct (I haven't re-checked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Geoffrey Boycott

Sandy! I haven't seen you for ages! (I guess I haven't written an FA for ages) my next hopeful is above (been waiting about a month for a damn picture) got any thoughts on it, when you have a spare minute? SGGH ^speak! 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh oh...

What have you gotten me into? MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick request

Sandy, I was wondering if you'd be willing to comment here regarding the concept of having organized award systems for work done on Wikipedia. Thanks a ton --Sharkface^T/_C 01:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

William Speirs Bruce - where to put him?

If he makes it through FAC I think he should go into History, alongside other polar explorers (Scott, Shackleton, Aeneas Mackintosh, Harry McNish(!). None of the other headings seem more appropriate, and Bruce would grumble for ever if he thought he was being treated differently from Scott or Shackleton (he seems to have been a bit of a sourpuss). Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Goings on

Yeah, what a mess. I think Scorpion added stuff the wrong list and I added stuff in the wrong order. Fab. You fixed it. Double fab. Awesome! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Awards Center

Following on from the deletion of the Awards Center, and particularly a couple of apparently similar ideas cropping up, are you aware of this suggestion? Peanut4 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nuclear weapon design

A filled out nomination but not transcluded Gary King (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Gary; significant contributors had not been consulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

VC tag

Hey, I removed a {{vc}} tag you'd added to the IDSA reference. They're the major organization of ID docs, and the website is a credible source of mainstream medical opinion. Were you thinking we should link the actual IDSA guidelines instead of the laymans-terms FAQ? MastCell ^Talk 22:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was a goof (too many edit conflicts, I usually recheck my work when I'm done). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Zhang Heng

I've given my opinion on this FAC, which is that I don't think it's there yet. But if the nominator is up for it, I'm prepared to help with the copyediting, so if you could keep the nomination open for a day or two longer ... basically I think it's a great article that just needs a lot of polishing. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

About 15 that are almost there, nothing I can move ... <sigh> ... so the list grows. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, I know. I promise that I'll do what I can tomorrow, and then you can promote or archive at least this one hopefully. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Must be summer; FAC slowdown. Which reminds me: must be vacation time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Malleus, if you do a copyedit on this one can you ping me on it, please? I'd love to support it, but the prose is just not quite there right now. Karanacs (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same, I'd love to support it, but right now I can't. I'll try and give it a go as much as I can tomorrow, and if I think it's anywhere near, then I'll ring your bell. Err, I'm thinking twice about having said that now, in case it means something different in the US ... please try to remember that I'm British, I mean no harm. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Y'all really should be posting that on the FAC (and remembering that prose quality isn't my strength, so if you don't post concerns in the future, don't expect me to always catch it or know to ping someone :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dirty, dirty, dirty. I can't believe you wrote something so sexually laced! Why don't you leave the article alone and I'll see what I can do to her. I outta be able to get her up to what we all want her. Strip the unnecessary stuff off and...you know on second thought, maybe I'll leave this one alone. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got a really cute English accent, so I can get away with saying anything. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't be making any more significant changes to this article now, so don't hold the nomination open waiting for me. As I've said at the FAC, if a couple of pretty small outstanding issues are sorted then I'll be supporting. I've let Karanacs know as well, as she asked. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

monthly updates

7 July means only one month. Sure, if you like. TONY (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Reincarnation

I've been poking around this thing for a while to find out what's going on. It relates back to Portal:Contents/Lists of basic topics and then back to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics. I guess that counts as some kind of project concurrence. A lot of this work started well before the MfD, so I'm not sure I'd have any case for claiming it is a reincarnation. --Laser brain (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I decided to start with this and see where it gets us. --Laser brain (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also worried about the scope of the Project, which seems somewhat vague and ill-defined to me, but is going to be launched en masse as far as I can tell. Considering their track record and ability to do some real harm, I think it needs to go to AN/I, but it's still all too secretive to sort out, so I'm not sure what to take to AN/I. I'm afraid a lot of damage is going to done with a massive launch of a secret Project by editors who don't have a good track record re quality editing vs. awards-based edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely my concern. They already attracted attention and a subsequent AN/I thread by mass-moving some pages (see here). The "contest page" is being developed in secret, which conveniently prevents anyone from taking a critical look at it. I'm swamped at work—afraid I don't have time to fully pursue it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got a long list of unfulfilled promises on my talk page and work to catch up on, and there's the issue of whether I'm going to do month-end FAC stats. I'll dig around on the MfD to see if I can locate someone to do the followup on this; if not, I'll have to take it on myself, I 'spose. A lot of headaches could be unleashed if they are better guided than in the past. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, leave it for me for now. I want to start with asking The Transhumanist to make (or reveal) a central page where all this is being planned and coordinated. We need to start with transparency. --Laser brain (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC

This is probably just me overreacting as I do, but there haven't been many comments left for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elaine Paige compared with other nominations - should I be worried or is this normal? I've addressed all comments left, and two good copyedits have been done on the article since the nomination. Some more comments from yourself would also be really helpful. Many thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is often normal. Many reviewers concentrate on the oldest nominations, so as yours ages it should gather more eyes. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Under "normal" circumstances, a nomination that receives no support would eventually be closed. I've noticed a summer slowdown, which is forcing me to keep nominations open much longer than ever; this won't always be the case, but for now, I'm making extra allowances and nominations are running very long. This may change as people's schedules change due to end of summer break; the delays nominations are experiencing, often not getting reviewed for several weeks, aren't optimal, but there aren't enough reviewers, and many nominators put up many articles but never help out at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Uriel Sebree

I am traveling out of town on business and so I'm responding to comments slower than normal. I apologize. If possible, please don't close this FAC for inactivity. It's not stalled; I'm just slower than usual. (I've travelled 11 timezones. Boston->Seoul. The jet lag is killer.) JRP (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm noticing summer plans and travel are affecting a lot of FACs; I hope people are aware that FAC may take on a faster pace once summer is over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please add a reminder to the FAC page, lest I lose track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia errors

FYI, when a Wikipedia error occurs and you lose an edit, you can refresh the page to re-submit the edit. Gary King (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll try that next time; for now, I'm furious at those DAMN errors, and "they" should figure it out. It took me four hours to go through my morning watchlist, so I'm fuming and need to go to my garden now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have experienced those errors on my stupid retarded dorko stone age Internet Explorer browser on my work computer. They cause me to hurl epithets forth with much vitriol, then to rend my garments. --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume this is referring to those Wikimedia Foundation errors I've been seeing from time to time. I hit the Back button on my browser and it usually leaves my work intact; I just have to submit it again. When I was new here, these errors were not happening. What could be causing this? Giants2008 (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude...sorry. (Does that orange bar stay at the top of your screen, like...all day long? I wonder.) --Moni3 (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I overreacted? <grin> .... <grrrrr .... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, as Giants said, clicking the back button on your browser (quick enough) causes you to not lose your changes. Usually. —Giggy 03:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not working for me, but Gary's refresh hint sometimes works. Having six tabs open to promote/archive and having that transclusion limit at the same time and having two edit conflicts ... popped all my circuit breakers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Isaac died today

I will return when I am able.Thank you for your love and friendship. Jeffpw (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I'm emotionally unable to do anything but answer condolence messages, but wanted to let you know that your words gave me strength, and somehow I will get through this. Isaac and I were together 16 years, and legally a couple for 11. He was the light of my life. Now all I have is my work to sustain me. That will have to be enough. With love, Jeffpw (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Bradman

The team working on Bradman FAC appear to be away for a little while. I have just responded to some of the outstanding issues and hope to address the remainder shortly. Of course, I have no way of knowing if they approve of the changes but I am concerned that if they are unaddressed for too long, the article may not be passed. Hope this is OK. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thriller (album) Peer review

Hey Sandy, I want to nominate the Thriller album for FA again soon. It's currently on peer review though which should be closed soon as its no longer even (as of earlier today) transcluded over at the main PR page. How long should I wait from the official PR closure to nominating the article? The article will have been Peer reviewed 3 times (when this one closes) since the last FA failer. I believe I'm ready and I'm definitely not rushing anything, thus the 3 consecutive PR's. Thank you. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 06:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess this one is solved :-) Sorry 'bout that, Realist2; didn't mean to ignore you, just never got here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Relax

Since I see your stress, here is something that might help:

• 
  Glass of fresh milk...
• 
  ...chocolate-chip cookie...
• 
  ... smiles in unexpected places...
• 
  ... getting Firefox and quickly hitting back button ;)

(what irony - I just had edit conflict and did not loose my stuff... go firefox! ) Renata (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

Please look at Samuel Johnson and see if my recent edits are in the correct direction to fix a concern expressed here. I have a few more books to add, but I wanted to get his early life out of the way. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time out to make some of the very needed corrections to that page. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider them samples of work needed; I periodically peek in there, because that article gets hit by lots of random editors and has never been well maintained. I'll check in after a few weeks. Which Dictionary is referred to in the citations? There is no ref that begins with Dictionary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be Samuel Johnson's. I can change it to read Johnson's Dictionary if preferable. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, since that's how it's listed in the alphabetical ref list; I'm done for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

To explain this, its the intro to Boswell, I just dropped the "intro" from the ref tag in order to save time, but it is in the original ref name tage. Hibbert has a 21 page introduction explaining the dissension against Boswell's Life in his introduction. I can make changes if you have any suggestions that could make it clearer. (Btw, I use Hibbert's intro, instead of quoting the original authors mentioned because he links the two as agreeing on the matter. I can ref both of them alongside if needed). I will be spending the rest of the evening compiling college and career information, and slowly add it to the page. Thanks for the quick review. The page definitely needs a lot of work, especially with it being on such an important topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I can locate more scholarly sources on the Tourette syndrome if you want them eventually; the article has been in such bad shape that I haven't bothered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt I will be able to finish all of the information on his works, let alone get a chance to go that far and actually "improve" the article. :) I'm just doing a favor to an editor who was unable to find someone willing to actually cite the page. I will have to add Johnson to the end of my list, which is getting rather lengthy now. Keats's biography is in a horrid mess too, and I think that my time is best served trying to put up patch work everywhere I can and keep the ship from sinking before making her the prettiest boat to sail the seven seas. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking :-) Since Johnson gets hit with a lot of random edits, I've never found it worthwhile to try to take it to a higher level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For S&Gs - Johnson vs Nancy Pelosi. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, did you have to plant Pelosi on my talk page? Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha. I just thought it was charming that Johnson would be near Pelosi in hits. What a powerhouse, after 200 years. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Good for Pelosi for keeping up in popularity with a 200-year-old dead man with Tourette syndrome :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha. I have a great article on Johnson's madness. Perhaps I can create a section for his psychological "diagnosis" (because critics eat up psychoanalyzing people who have been dead for hundreds of years). By the way, I use to think that people using "OR" when responding to me were referring to WP:OR and I use to get worried (and then confused by their response!). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If you discuss his diagnoses, it should be sourced only to high-quality peer-reviewed medical literature (the TS is, I just haven't dug it up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that should be necessarily true, seeing as how many of the quack doctors during the time didn't operate on peer review, but we have quite a bit of information about what they think. :) The one work I really wanted to include was Johnson's own comments on madness (his own and others). Hester Piozzi wrote the following (end of the 18th century) on Johnson:

"The famous Christopher Smart, who was both a wit and scholar, and visited as such while under confinement for MADNESS, would never have had a commission of LUNACY taken out against him, had he managed with equal ingenuity - for Smart's melancholy shewed itself only in preternatural excitement to prayer, which he held it as a duty not to controul or repress - taking au pied de la tettre our blessed Saviour's injunction to pray without ceasing.... Now, had this eminently unhappy patient been equally seized by the precept of praying in secret; as no one would then have been disturbed by his irregularities, it would have been no one's interest to watch over or cute them; and the absurdity would possibly have consumed itself in private, like that of my friend who feared an apple should intoxicate him." Piozzi, Hester, British Synonymy book 2 (note - that friend was Johnson, who she wrote in Thraliana tat "I don't believe the King has ever been much worse than poor Dr Johnson was, when he fancied that eating an Apple would make him drunk."). She also wrote about Johnson thinking that he would become completely mad. Lots of good stuff. Is it true? Who knows! :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what is the purpose of that ridiculous "imagemap" floating in the "Status achieved" section? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think 300 is ready for main page?

I am not sure of the process for nominating an FA for "Today's Featured Article", but I think most of the smoke and dust has cleared from the nationalist combat there, leaving a pretty nifty article (which is 300, btw). Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Main page requests are at WP:TFA/R; any FA that hasn't appeared is eligible, but if there were stability issues and questions about the article's featured status, the place for that is WP:FAR. I see incomplete and incorrectly formatted citations, missing publishers on sources, WP:MOS#Ellipses, WP:PUNC and MOS:CAPS#All caps issues on just a quick glance, so if you want to put it up at TFA/R, you might finish cleaning it up to standard first. That FAC is frightening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Template limits

Its all right, it doesn't change the fact that the article is featured. Thanks for the notice though, I apreciate it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Trial by Jury

Thanks for all your help and patience. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/December to Dismember (2006)

Hi Sandy. I've replied to your and Tony's comments at the FAR. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123 has carried out a MOS clean-up. D.M.N. (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics

Thanks for your contributions, feel free to address this [5] issue if you have the time. Ramdrake claims it's WP:SYN and keeps deleting the entire text, an outside opinion would be welcome. --Zero g (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't comment on issues of synthesis and original research if I don't have the sources, and many of the sources are fee required. I suggest that you all should locate a free, quality review. (See WP:FCDW/June 30, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics - Sorry

I just wanted to apologize for the inconvenience I caused. Your edit when placing the inuse template was that this would take about 20 minutes. Since I hadn't seen an update in several minutes, and we were over the 20-minute mark, I assumed you might have just forgotten the template. Turns out I was wrong. Again, profuse apologies.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't soon forget to think twice next time someone "seems" to "forget" a template :) . Also, just please be aware, regarding the subject that Zero g asked you to look into above, that Elonka has already answered that very question in talk right here, so his asking again may look like a violation of WP:PARENT. Not suggesting anything, but I thought you should know, if you didn't already.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, fine. You obviously have way more Wikipedia-savvy than me. <<zip! zip!>> (shutting up now). :) --Ramdrake (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not pretending she is. In this case, however, I believe she is right in pointing out that it is not ok (strictly Wikipedia policy-wise -- nothing to do with the science) to just add differential fertility studies as evidence of dysgenic trends when the very authors of these studies don't even mention it. I see it as a rather straightforward case of WP:SYN. But please, I don't want to try to influence your opinion, so I'll stop here.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've answered on my talk page this time. Was getting dizzy from all the ping-pong. :)--Ramdrake (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The General in His Labyrinth

I really prefer using the code. I think I have to change. About the edit, I make use of the code because it is being used in the above portion of the lead. About the ellipsis, I didn't know about the addition of the non-breaking space code. Thanks Sandy. --Efe (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Noble gas

I guess taking a month off from FAC nominations really helps. The FAC is doing well so far. And here I was, worried that the article was too technical and all :) Gary King (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

An archive usually gives a better chance at restart than a restart does, but nominators are still upset when I archive :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we are talking about two separate issues :p I'm talking about my FAC; so far, no Opposes (as, ahem, my previous FACs have had), and I had thought that the way I wrote the article on the topic of Noble gases would not be easy enough for a wide audience to understand. I guess I was wrong!

D'oh, I see what you're saying now. However, I never nominated this article, so I didn't know what to expect :) Gary King (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, I am ecstatic about this nomination (so far!) because at least I know that I've gotten better at, well, writing articles I guess. Especially about things that I know next to nothing about before I begin writing :) Gary King (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gomez

[6] Clearly I need better glasses—and a better proofreader. Thanks. :-) Risker (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a secret: ctrl-f :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Real life

Just a swift note to explain that I have not abandoned FAC. Real life has forced me to downscale my WP activities for a bit. We have large scale building works going on (which are running horribly late) and a poorly dog (painful ear operation, which is taking forever to heal). July will probably be easier :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Get that dog on allergy shots :-) I hope things settle down soon; we miss you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind thought :)

She's on them and she's just finished a course of immuno-therapy. The problem is that she's a French dog with high sensitivity to British allergens. Her ears have been getting steadily worse over the last couple of months (basically a hay-fever reaction) and needed almost permanent treatment dosing. On top of which, she has started scratching her ears raw. She had both ears resectioned last week and one refuses to heal. Despite morphine, she woke me at 2 a.m. yesterday morning and spent four hours with her head in my lap making piteous bagpipe noises. Anyhow, she is slowly mending and her bestest friend in all the world (a huge boisterous lab) is coming to stay in a couple of weeks so that should cheer her up. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

We gave our dog allergy shots at home for two years, haven't had any more ear problems for several years since ... do you have that option? It sounds awfully painful ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

FAC inactivty

I'm sorry to trouble you, but I can't help noticing the relative lack of activity on my recent FAC nomination William Speirs Bruce. The supports are there, but little by way of discussion. I'd like to think that after its GA and peer reviews, there's not much more to be said, but it might be simply that nobody cares (weep, weep). Should I be concerned about this, or count my blessings? Brianboulton (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be doing fine ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I'm paranoid - but thanks for drumming up some interest. Brianboulton (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)