User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch18

Quick question

Hi Sandy. I was wondering if you could have a cursory look at clindamycin, whenever you have time—I can see you're swamped as usual :) I stumbled upon it while assessing for WP:PHARM, and it looks pretty close to GA. I've done some minor work as needed, but since I'm not the kind to do "drive-by" nominations, I'm not sure whether or not it's really ready. Now, those deadlines are calling... Thanks in advance, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This one uses Harvard refs. Never thought I'd say this, but it's a welcome change to see them every now and then :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. Have Tony's MOS changes come through? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get on clindamycin tonight. The changes are implemented at WP:MOSNUM, but not yet at WP:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Baltimore City College

I think at this point I have addressed most of the WP:MOS issues that you raised about this article. If you could take a look that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for all of your help with this article. Golem88991 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I knew it was in safe hands ;) Thanks Sandy, yet again. Ceoil 21:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

en dash

Oops, yes, will change at MOS-central now. Tony 13:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first effort at engaging

Thanks for taking my point seriously. As part of the trying-to-talk-people-out-of it campaign (yes, I'm a naive optimist; do you think we should add a glossy campaign badge to our signatures?), I made my first comment here: [1]. Unfortunately, it came out rather priggish, so I think I'd better polish up my wording (but I was seething with anger at some of the comments: can people not recognise professional-standard work when they see it?), in case people think I've got a corncob stuck up my butt. qp10qp 15:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :-) I just left a note for Mike Christie. Don't want frustration to take over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-hoo! Look, already. Success! So there's a tactic...object to the box and refuse to go in it (as Dracula said to the undertaker).qp10qp 16:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to you; I don't seem to have success in the same areas. Now about this mess, where Tony's comments were struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A kindly word in the ear might do it.qp10qp 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postage stamps of Ireland

Just a quick thank you for participating in the Postage stamps of Ireland FAC. Your input was very useful and I have learned a lot from the process. You raised some issues, assisted with cleanup and supported the article, so thanks again especially for all you do for Wikipedia. ww2censor 15:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being thorough

I saw your recent FAC comment, Continuing my Oppose here below, top is cluttered. These are samples only; please do not check them "done" and consider my object resolved. I fully support this notion and should have piped up sooner. Let's keep producing great articles! 82.71.48.158 15:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BackupHDDVD

When you have time, could you please check the reliability of the sources used in BackupHDDVD. I've queried on the FAC the blogs and forum posts used as sources, but the nominator thinks some of them are ok. I haven't much experience judging source reliability. Epbr123 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look in there later today, Epbr; you're turning into quite a good reviewer ! Trial by fire, huh? :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your comment at the nomination page. Noclip 15:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WT:FAC

You're welcome. It was a lucky shot though, I don't speak HTML either. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Nichols

I've done extra work on Austin Nichols, having updated it with all the interviews since I wrote it and a review of his performance in Wimbledon that I found, I'm currently waiting on a copyeditor. You wished to be notified. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look tonight or tomorrow. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I consider myself blessed. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. :D Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland

Hi. I added page numbers for a couple of the sources, but not for the Euclid Avenue book, since the entire book is about the street. I wasn't immediately able to find a quote comparing Euclid Avenue to Fifth Avenue, though I don't doubt the statement's veracity. Instead, I changed the comparison and added a quote from Anthony Trollope. Hope that's closer to what you were hoping to find. - EurekaLott 03:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

email

Sent you and Rick Block an email. Gimmetrow 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, meant to get back to you sooner, but still trying to sort it out. Seems everyone is complicated during August; not sure what to do next. :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, best to ignore a certain pseudo intellectual and it will go away, which is why I never responded. Here's my little bit of opining: Wikipedia has evolved. It used to be about creating content. While that's still important, maintaining that content is becoming more critical in ways I'm not sure some of the the "old timers" realize. Bots, scripts and standards are part of that. There's still a fight over at WP:FN apparently. It's been neat contributing some small bit to the experiment which is WP, even if I still haven't done the stuff I originally wanted to do. Gimmetrow 04:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up; *lots* of people understand. And lots of people are willing to help do it manually if we have to during August, because people value what you do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking of the one FA, which came about because I was scanning images for deletion one day and came across a curious image, and so I wrote an article to use it. Most of WP doesn't work by conscious planning, but by little events that could go one way or the other. Gimmetrow 04:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of like life :-) You've got mail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. At least a species composed of individuals, if not a full ecosystem of multiple inter-dependent species. Gimmetrow 05:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Henry, Bishop of Uppsala

Thank you for promoting Henry, Bishop of Uppsala to FA. --Drieakko 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654 (talk · contribs) (the featured article director) promotes;[2] I just added the star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope

With regards to the FAC of Cunningham, i have now addressed the italica although i am unsure of whether to delete the bold abbreviations in the awards table. This is primarily because they are wikilinked earlier, should i remove the bold? Thanks Woodym555 14:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate government of Kentucky

Thanks for your comments on the FA nom of Confederate government of Kentucky. I will make an attempt to retrieve all of these sources, but I already see one each from the sources I had on interlibrary loan. Hopefully, I can find an alternate source or get the books again. Just to be clear, are you supporting the nomination, or simply withdrawing your objections? I only ask because we had some confusion over that in the previous nomination. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my objection; I think Raul will have no problem interpreting it. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

I really appreciate everything you did. Two months ago, I knew nothing about this topic. Now, I'm somewhat above knowing nothing, but much better off for it. Never going through the FAC process before, what happens next? It appears that you do all the heavy lifting with FA's. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, since it's August, things are summer vacation slow. Now you just have to wait for others to pop in; I capped as much as I could so it wouldn't distract incoming reviewers. That wasn't so bad, was it? Sure beats E. Genessee and Irving in January. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manzanar Peer Review

Thank you so much for taking a look at Manzanar and offering your suggestions for improvement. I have a couple of questions for you, which you'll see on the Manzanar Peer Review page. Thanks again. Gmatsuda 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I think I've addressed your latest comments on the Manzanar Peer Review. If you're in the mood, please check it out and let me know if I've got it now. :-) Thanks again. Gmatsuda 04:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose of Jackie Chan

I'm curious about the state of the prose of Jackie Chan. Can you please tell me what you think about it so I can improve it for the FAC? Thanks.--Kylohk 09:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not strong on prose analysis; I'm very concerned about the sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, anyway, that particular ref has been replaced by a LoveHKFilm Article. Checking the site information suggests that it is authoritative enough. (As for the gross figure, it's outright removed for now.)--Kylohk 23:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons book

Looking at my copy of the book in question, "Created by Matt Groening - Edited by Ray Richmond" is written on the front. And inside its states that it was edited by Richmond and Coffman. Although it isn't actually very clear, as nowhere does it say "Written by Matt Groening" it just says "Created by", so it could in theory mean the show itself, and not the book. But the most likely situation is that Groening is the author and Richmond and Coffman count as the co-authors. But I don't know for sure. Also, my copy is British, so I can't check if the ISBN is right, as I assume the American one would be the correct one to use? Gran² 11:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gran, not sure what to suggest. Do your best, and delete my inline query. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, and I'll look into it further tomorrow. Gran² 22:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've changed the ISBN, but it seems the rest of it is right. Groening's created by credit does refer to the show itself, as the only thing he wrote for the book was the introduction. As such, Richmond and Coffman being called "Editors", presumably means that they "edited" all of the material from the episodes into the book, as it is essentially lists and recaps. So, I believe Richmond and Coffman count as the writers of the book. If that makes sense. Gran² 19:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Cite book" template

Hello SandyGeorgia -- Thanks for the back-up on the "cite book" problem. I didn't think I was imagining things. -- WikiPedant 18:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I lost a lot of time this morning trying to find the problem in a cite book template. Frustrating. Then I saw it on another article, and realized it was global. Because I check refs daily, I know it has to be a recent change to the template itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After asking me where I had seen the problem, User:Circeus modified a template called "UF-COinS" today and that template is invoked by "Cite book". That might have been the fix. -- WikiPedant 19:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery resolved, but I sure lost a lot of time trying to fix refs today :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBOT strikethrough, et al

wikiapologies for strinking through others comments on this review. also, thanks for your comments regarding the FAC. they are appreciated and being implemented consistently if slowly. this is a featured article, and the standard is "the best of wikipedia". two words, the best. several of us are working on this in an effort to bring it to FA, but may not be vocal about it. i rarely comment as i lurk about, and am content to address the suggestions as i can. the WPChi had a good response at GAC, zero response at PR, and a boatload of response at FAC. in hindsight, this should have gone to the league of copyeditors before nomination to FAC. again, wikiapologies and thanks. LurkingInChicago 22:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, lurking—trying to avoid yet another restart as the thing becomes unreadable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanics in World War II

Sandy, you really know how much I respect your work and value your opinions. I'm not in good health and that is why I'm considering this my last major project. I was wondering if you could be so kind enough to let me know in my talk page which are the website sources that are personal, so that I can look look into them. I onl;y ask you this favor because I'm not feeling that well. Thanks. 23:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

conversions

At WTC I looked at the first two conversions, which were manual and breached MOS. Fixed. Tony 01:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some FFAs not on WP:FFA

Check Representative peer, Geologic time scale, Paul Erdős and Pub quiz. Gimmetrow 05:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, those got added once when we were processing the RBPs early on, but then ALoan gave us different info about the RBP process, so we removed them. I'll revisit (now that I understand the RBP process better) and fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All of those were uncovered during the recent audit of FA stats; there are probably other RBPs before the audit period (2004) that are also FFAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (UK) FAC

You quoted WP:DASH and WP:WTA in the FAC for this article. Please can you pinpoint exactly where these need to be applied? Thanks in advance, Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 15:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"However" is used throughout, and there is a mixture of spaced endashes and spaced emdashes. Per WP:DASH, spaced emdashes are never used, unspaced emdashes is the preference, and spaced endashes is an alternative. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBOTB FAC

I personally am unable to resolve either at the moment as I am not going to be spending much time on wiki until next week. I will probably be back on my regular schedule by Wed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell who added it? It seems to be that person would be the best to hunt for a resolution. Also, the FAC seems to be getting a lot of help from Joopercoopers. He may have a ref for us.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This one was quite a team effort. I thank you for your help, guidance and general enthusiasm for the project as a whole. You may want to post this on your user page:

This user helped promote Chicago Board of Trade Building to featured article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on with the FA promotion? Someone undid the FA promotion and I don't know what is going on. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dotty

The blood and thunder has been about the fact that the insistence on you dot es dot was surreptitiously removed (before I came onto the MOS scene); but I'm firmly resisting intermittent and irritable calls for its reinstatement. So it's optional, but must be consistent within an article. I'd have strongly resisted the change to that article title; too late now, though.

If there's one dotted version in MOS, well, I don't want to cause trouble. Could be fixed as part of other changes, hoping that no one notices. I'm not in a hurry. :-) Tony 15:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROT13

I don't have an eye for FA articles, so I was wondering if you could read this. Do you agree that ti's underreferenced, and should be sent to FAR? hbdragon88 21:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has a number of issues that would warrant review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs changed for Jackie Chan

The problematic references you mentioned in the FAC have been changed, as stated on that page. Thank you for your attention--Kylohk 03:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hispanics in World War II

Thank you, Sandy. You have no idea how much I appreciate your help. I'll confide in you, you see I have mulitple health problems and that is why I have decided that this article will be my last "major" contribution. Of course I'll be checking in, but I'll slow it down a bit. Anyway, like they say in my family, Que Dios te bendiga. Tony the Marine 07:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hyphen

Absolutely right; thanks for picking it. It follows ISO rules, which are that value/unit double adjectives are hyphenated if the value is spelled out, and unhyphenated if abbreviated. Tony 14:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary

Regarding this edit summary at Supernova, please note that you posted to my talk page at 17:36, July 29, 2007 (UTC), I responded at within minutes, at 17:41, July 29, 2007 (UTC), and I archived my talk page at the end of the month, 18:23, July 31, 2007. I responded immediately, you had two days to read my response and you can still read it in my archives, and further, I raised the comma question at WP:MOSNUM and was informed that I was correct. Please take care with how you discuss other editors; I don't "blank" comments. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know what happened. In nearly every case people post a reply to my talk page, which I know from experience can take a few days. As no reply was forthcoming I checked back after that time had elapsed, only to find the message removed from your talk page. Please pardon for my incorrect assumption; I wasn't aware you followed a variant procedure. — RJH (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for getting back to me. I suspect that some of your confusion about the comma issue may be stemming from user preferences. Even if we leave off the commas, Wiki inserts them. It's certainly not a big deal to leave them in, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't believe I saw the commas when I viewed the references. Perhaps it's a configuration issue on my part. Anyway, thank you for the reply. — RJH (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missed

I missed replying to the two things you brought up on my talk. I was sick my last week in Bangalore. No fun flying. I should be more or less back in the loop now.

I see you edited Austin Nichols yourself. Passable? Marskell 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hispanics in WW II

Hi Sandy, I'm trying to do the ref. thing as well as I can. In regard to: "What would you think about deleting the first paragraph of "Discrimination" ". Hey, you know that I've always fully trusted your judgement. Could you do me the honors (I really don't want to mess up)? Tony the Marine 22:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I figured is that maybe you could help me work the first paragraph of "Discrimination". I would rather site each of the MoH's, which I'll do. As soon soon as I can I will look into Desi. I believe that I can find what is needed in regard to the airplane numbers, if not then I'll do away with that section. Tony the Marine 22:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tables

Excellent, Sandy I really don't know how to thank you. You have been wonderful. Tony the Marine 05:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good and the important thing is that the tables do not overlape. Tony the Marine 06:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is someway to make the MOH table smaller or if there is another table style? The MoH table idea is a great one, I just started to wonder about what you asked, if it was to big. I'll try to see if there is a smaller style. Tony the Marine 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...my...gosh...

Sandy, don't tell me we agree on something!?! Isn't that one of the seven signs of the Apocalypse? LOL — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know we ever disagreed on anything of significance ... at least nothing sticks out in my mind. :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArticleHistory template

My apologies, I wasn't too sure what that "currentstatus" parameter was for. Kind regards, –sebi 07:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Colbert Report

Why did the FAC fail? Also, I thought a different user was handling the nomination. The Clawed One 18:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654 (talk · contribs) (the featured article director) promotes and archives nominations based on consensus; I just add the tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished business

I realise that the review has to end at some point, but what is the best way to deal with unfinished business at the end of a FAC? I'm referring to this edit I made to the FAC for Chicago Board of Trade Building. I was waiting for some response to that, but now that the article has been promoted, I fear that there may not be any response. I'm 100% convinced that the photos are being mis-used in the article as it currently stands, but would prefer to have this acknowledged, rather than to go in and change things again. I've also raised this on the talk page. I'll wait for a bit, as not everyone will have read my reply yet, but what do you think is the best way to handle this? Carcharoth 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you my personal take :-) When it's over, it's over. Don't make yourself crazy. Lots of things get by FAC; we can only do our best, and it's not usually productive to hang on to them when they are closed. Further, on that particular FAC, the original editors weren't the ones bringing the article up to snuff; most of the substantive edits to bring it to status were done by others. It's unfortunate when that happens, because it leaves doubt as to whether the original editors will maintain the article to standard. IMO, that's the downside when so many get involved in salvaging a FAC; it's not clear the original editors are vested in WP:WIAFA. There are 1500 FAs out there in various states of compliance with WP:WIAFA; it's not possible to keep them all up to standard. Pick your battles :-) If that article is that important to you, then try to fix it. That's my personal take on it; if you think it's worth it, then keep trying to get a response via the talk page. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very sensible reply. Thanks! Carcharoth 21:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBOTB

Thanks for the clarification, I thought I was losing my mind earlier. IvoShandor 02:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the only reason I thought it wasn't closed is because the nom hadn't been archived or noted as promoted or anything, just FYI. IvoShandor 10:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

Don't mention it; you would do the same for us. I don't know how much help I will be, but every little bit counts, as the saying goes. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completed a preliminary sweep through the article, mostly focusing on correcting military jargon and correctly linking the names, ranks, units, locations, and battles that these people had or were involved in. I also left some suggestions on the FAC page for Tony. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IFK Göteborg FAR

You mentioned prose issues in the FARC for IFK Göteborg. I've attempted to address this, but I could do with a couple of pointers as to how much more copyediting is required. Oldelpaso 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Meusel

Hey Sandy, I noticed the copyedits you did the Bob Meusel article, is the sources ok, and does anything meets the WP:MOS. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice anything else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Sydney Harbour

I think I may have addressed your DASH and MOSNUM concerns with the article. Could you please have another look, and if necessary, specify what is still wrong on the talk page of either myself or the article. Much appreciated. -- saberwyn 01:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are still problems throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

Glad to see you back, hope that you are feeling well. Tony the Marine 22:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your incredible help with Ramón Emeterio Betances and Hispanic Americans in World War II, I award you the The Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Happy editing! Boricuaeddie 01:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A well researched article written by one of the people of the "psychiatric survivors" movement.

SandyGeorgia,

Please see this article and study it. This person for not being a doctor sure understands the biological ill effects of antipsychotics well. It is explained very well so that even people with no background on this can understand it. www.tinyurl.com/7tnv3 Dr CareBear 09:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lung cancer

Sandy, you kindly reviewed lung cancer a few weeks ago. Can you take another look now, please? Thanks. Axl 18:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Axl 07:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Song Dynasty

Hi Sandy! Long time no see. I have replied on the talk page for the FAC review of Song Dynasty, and have fixed all the wiki errors in your MOS suggestions and complaints. However, one thing seems glaringly bad in the article, and I hope I am doing this right according to the instructions of the external links section of WP:LAYOUT. The sister projects, which WP:LAYOUT says should be placed at the very bottom under the last appendix section, looks very sloppy in the Song Dynasty article now, take a look here. Does this look right to you? Should I just delete the sister links since there are already two commons links above for Song Dynasty and Art of the Song Dynasty? If I get rid of the sister-links box, should I place those two Song Dynasty commons links down towards the bottom in replacement of it? Things I would love to know, thanks.--PericlesofAthens 18:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I just went ahead and deleted the sister link box, since most of the links in it were irrelevant in their searches on other wiki sister branches. As for the two wikimedia commons boxes, I kept those and put them in its place.--PericlesofAthens 19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you solved that, but why do you have all those solo years linked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By solo years you mean the linked years for people's births and deaths? I thought those were supposed to be linked, if they have relevance about the material and people discussed in the article.--PericlesofAthens 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I also attributed that quote you mentioned, to the authors and historians Ebrey, Walthall, and Palais. Thank you for mentioning that.--PericlesofAthens 20:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Up my alley... :)

Hey Sandy! I'm well aware of the situation, I was one of the first to interact with this user. It had died down; seems to be escalating now. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'm keeping an eye on it. I like to believe in the potential of all users to make constructive edits... Not very becoming of an admin, is it? (should be IMHO :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you've still got your stuff ... why is it that none of the RfAs I Supported have gone wrong :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

I don't know how in the world I could ever thank you, so I hope that you accept this small token of my appreciation. Tony the Marine 04:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexithymia

Can I ask you, if you have a minute any time, to cast an impartial eye on the citations and POV in this one? There seems to be some rather compound, complex POV pushing going on, and I, for one, would like to see it nailed hard to impartial, verifiable fact instead. --Zeraeph 14:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the References, but I know nothing of the topic and didn't really read it, since it's still such a mess. Clean references will make it easier for you and other editors to:

Locate the actual journal studies or read the abstracts (some have full text available).
See which book sources are iffy and whether that info is validated by journal-published literature. That Krystal book doesn't sound like the highest-quality source.
See which book source info is vague (missing page nos, etc.) and request direct quotes to validate any vague book info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For responding to a 911 impartially and impeccably Zeraeph 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I know little more than you do, but I also felt it was a mess and editing that article was becoming like a combination of Martial Art, Chess and Morris Dancing, so I felt it needed the reaction of someone I trust to be thorough, impartial and KNOW to have no WP:COI, just to create a little solid ground to stand on. --Zeraeph 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words; at least it should be easier for impartial editors to spot the weaknesses now. If I have time later in the week, I'll peek in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, thanks for your work on the alexithymia page. Not only did you do a great job of tidying up the rough referencing, and organized the page better, but you also stopped some wild POVing and edit bickering.

The prevalence issue still needs a little fixing, as the study cited there may not be a good representation of the more common findings. I've added a few more findings to strengthen prevalence figures, but you may like to make it more concise and tidy it a bit? Everything else looks great! Soulgany101 01:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think best; I was just grabbing some reliable sources as examples :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks Sandy. Just FYI this is the info I added:

In studies of the general population the degree of alexithymia was found to be influenced by age, but not by sex, and the rates of alexithymia have been found at 8.3% (2 of 24 persons) 4.7% (2 of 43), 8.9% (16 of 179), and 7% (4 of 56). Thus these studies have reported that the prevalence rate of alexithymia is less than 10% in healthy controls.[5] In another study, alexithymia was claimed to be approximately 13% of the population, with men (17%) almost twice as likely to be affected as women (10%).[6] Alexithymia is is defined by:[7]

Maybe you can take that peek later in the week. All the best with your future edits Soulgany101 01:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to know the source of the sample for the Finland study. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, not sure which one that is but will try and dig it up.

There is an unsourced sentence (one of the two remaining sentences you previously tagged) on screening for depression in alexithymia which I have severe doubts that any source will ever be found. I'm almost certain it is an erroneous POV being pushed and think it should be deleted. Soulgany101 00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the topic, so don't know if a particular statement can be sourced or not; that should be worked out on the article talk page. I'm just trying to keep the refs clean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. I did talk about that sentence on the talk page some days ago and pointed out that it was sourceless. I hope someone fixes the problem Soulgany101 00:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you.

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Because you keep helping me and articles I'm working on. Wikipedia would be at least 10% more rubbish if you weren't here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma

Greetings, Sandy. I was wondering if I could enlist your help in a favor. Is there any chance you possibly look through and copy-edit the Oklahoma article? A FA reviewer requested that I enlist some help, and you are one of the most skilled editors I know, and you helped enormously with the Tulsa, Oklahoma article during its FA candidacy. It would also be of great help if you would rather review the article, as there have only been 2 reviewers so far. Either one would be enormously appreciated! Thank you so much for anything you can do. Okiefromokla•talk

I'll look it over as soon as I can, but you should know copyediting isn't in my skillset :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, it's awful to work on. With all those cite templates and named refs, it's really slow going. What would you think about removing the named refs from refs which aren't repeated to lower the size of the article and make it easier to edit? Named refs are only needed on repeat refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you mean, you mean all the refs that are used only once to make sure they dont have a "ref name", correct? And if I understand correctly then I agree and I'll start helping out with that right now since I have a good memory of where the refs are since I made about 140 of them personally. Okiefromokla•talk 04:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, unless the ref is used more than once, you can remove the named ref = and just use ref tags. Maybe it's my connection tonight, but the going is slow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there are several instances of that but it shouldnt be too big of a problem, from what I remember, at least not a big enough problem to significantly reduce the speed. Must be your connection, but nevertheless i'm starting that right now. Okiefromokla•talk 04:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, its a much bigger problem than I thought. Okiefromokla•talk 04:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I got all of them, but i'll still comb through for more just in case. Thanks again for helping with the copy-editing! Okiefromokla•talk 05:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think you're too hard on yourself. You're a fine copy-editor, though don't be suprised if I did happen to tweak a couple changes you made (just a couple!). I also carried out the suggestions you made on my talk page, thought I don't think I have the energy to go through and completely re-do all 163 refs away from of cite-templates :P. I know I keep saying it but thanks for all your help, you're awesome. Okiefromokla•talk 21:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autism and the Augean stables

My own preference, if I had the time, would be to create a new page "Epidemiology of autism", which would expand on Autism #Epidemiology, and which would subsume Autism (incidence) and Conditions comorbid to autism spectrum disorders. Those two latter pages really do belong together, and I assume they're separately mostly for historical reasons. But I was going to wait until after Autism passes or fails FA before jumping into that one. In the mean time I edited Causes of autism so that it is no longer embarrassing. To my mind the remaining autism-related articles that are in the most pressing need of improvement are Autism therapies and Heritability of autism, but there are lots more where those came from and I'm afraid I can't maintain my current energy level indefinitely. Eubulides 04:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect autism will pass soon; wherever you want to work next, I'll be glad to help out. They are all in such awful shape, it's a disgrace. Yes, I agree about merging incidence, epidemiology and comorbids into one coherent article. Causes is good, therapies is a wreck, and heritability is in between. I'm all in favor of making hay while the sun is shining on the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

en dash

Hi there,

"north–south-trending", I guess. Not an elegant one, but logical.

Should I review "Autism"? Tony 05:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sandy's page is on my watch lit and I thought I'd chime in. I'd appreciate more eyes on autism as I figure it needs more stuff done to prose but couldn't see past the corrections I posted and they did...It's a fairly important topic and a few (me included) would be prepared to chip in for fixes cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article History Template

Thanks very much for pointing that out - Boy1jhn 13:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gray Wolf

Thanks for the work on Gray Wolf. I was copyediting the article while totally ignorant of the review—what a coincidence! RedRabbit 17:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autism page ranges

Much of the page-range change to Autism makes sense, but some of it (e.g., replacing "pages=445–9" with "pages=445–49") was apparently motivated by a style rule that says that page-range abbreviations must be two digits only. I don't see anything in WP:MOSNUM suggesting that particular rule. I'd rather not have to reformat Pubmed-supplied page ranges any more than I already have to. I realize that different medical journals use different styles but Pubmed is using one of the approved styles (it's called the Vancouver style; see Titivillus Editing for the Health Sciences, for example) and I don't see a pressing need to switch. Eubulides 17:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to raise it at MOSNUM or ping Tony? Why are the PMID page ranges inconsistent? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave notes for Tony (and Colin, who's involved with MEDMOS), noting that Diberri's pmid filler grabs the PubMed data for us and fills out the cite journal template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Eubulides on this one. The Uniform Requirements style is commonplace and rational. The two-digit rule seems arbitrary to me and will appear odd to any reader used to seeing the shortest abbreviation. I think this should be one of those "ensure you are consistent within the article" guidelines. Colin°^Talk 18:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's clearly stated in MOS and MOSNUM. They need to be two digits (or four, if the contributor insists). Tony 23:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I think you are confusing date with page ranges. Both those guidelines have restrictions on digit abbreviation for date but not page ranges. Two and four are not rational restrictions on page range digits. For dates, it is quite rational since we are used to giving dates as two or four digits, but never with one or three. For page ranges, I can't find any text requiring two digits. On the MOS, there is an example for en dashes with "pp. 211–19" where two digits are used, but that format is not explicitly required (any citation styles avoid the "pp." bit). Colin°^Talk 13:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FairTax

Sandy, I'll try to address your points on the FAC. I just wanted to mention that the article has only been FA for four months and I'm not enough time has passed for an FAC. It also seems to be a POV attack for a couple of overzealous editors. Thanks - always appreciated your comments and help. Morphh ^(talk) 1:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Morphh, 3 months is the usual lag, so it's a fair FAR. Addressing the little things is the way to go; FAR takes at least a month (correction, two weeks at FAR, and two more at FARC only if needed), and editors who regularly review don't succumb easily to POV wars. I don't see any alternate POV present, though (I haven't read the entire article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that you for all the great edits! My wikistress bar just went down one. :-) Morphh ^(talk) 15:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showing a concerted effort to work on the little things that got by FAC will help; I gave some sample edits of overlinking, but don't want to do too much. I'll let you finish up there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling refs

No fair! Scrolling refs are very cool! Grumble, grumble, grumble. :) Tim Vickers 03:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves - rallying

Hi,

I've reverted your revision of the reference relating to rallying on the Gray Wolf page. Although it's on a personal web site, the photograph (and commentary) was provided by Monty Sloan, from Wolf Park. He knows his stuff and (in my view) qualifies as a reliable source. If you'd prefer I can cite text from Wolves: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation by Mech et al, but it's not available online. Retron 10:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about using both? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trichotillomania page

I don't understand your "British POV" comment. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 13:20, Famousdog (talk • contribs) August 13, 2007

Referring to individuals with a given medical conditions as "sufferers" is a British construct (not typical on this side of the pond), and inherently POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly that such individuals shouldn't be labelled as "sufferers" and thank you for correcting that on the page. However, I don't think that's distinctly British (I live in Canada and hear it all the time - haven't looked at a map recently, but I think Canada is on your side of the pond) and doesn't labelling it as "British POV" demonstrate a little anti-British sentiment? (admittedly Canada is part of the Commonwealth, but still...) Famousdog 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the construct from The Lancet, a British journal. I wasn't aware it was also common in Canada. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Report of 1800

Regarding this edit, what part of the MoS requires that this be in the lead? I ask because it's seems to me that you've made the lead decidedly worse. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent names usually follow the title in the lead; they may or may not be bolded (but usually are, per WP:MOSBOLD). If equivalent names are in a footnote, they shouldn't be bolded per WP:MOSBOLD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your change, and since there doesn't appear to be any mention of footnotes in "WP:MOSBOLD", I've saved myself the trouble of altering that formatting. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOSBOLD specifically says, " Use boldface in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses: ..." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Message

Was the message that came from you, as listed in the end of the message, actually written by you? Or was it pre-automated and sent out to me like a form letter? Sorry about the noob question, I'm real new to Wikipedia, I mainly just read :P Just an innocent question. Logan's Account 05:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help for article on maletagate

Hello, Sandy. Could you help me with the English article of the maletagate? Someone who seems to be trying to "correct" the articles that might show some negative aspect of Chávez is showing up there and might try to discredit the article soon. I have seen you have done an excellent job in trying to bring neutrality and objectivity to Wikipedia's articles on Venezuela. I am not sure about formatting in Wikipedia and as I might not have much time in the following days to read the whole manual, I am afraid I won't be able to improve the article before a Chavista deletes it claiming it is not 100% perfect. Thanks [[3]] --Periergeia 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've given it a good start, and I appreciate that you sought me out. I'm sorry for the bad news, but WP:NPOV on Chávez-related articles isn't currently attainable on Wikipedia, which looks to have become part of Chávez's PR machine. That particular article could benefit from a better title, inline citations, and {{proseline}} cleanup. I'm afraid it's more than I can take on with my current time limitations. Dealing with POV throughout the Chávez articles will require a sustained effort, and I've not yet found that a commitment exists from enough editors on Wikipedia to clean up the pro-Chávez bias throughout Wiki. Until/unless more editors become committed to neutrality on the topic, I'm afraid editing those articles won't be productive. Buena suerte :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, could you at least provide with one single example in the text, I will do the other links. Like see the code for Uberti dismissed. How should I have changed that into an "internal link"? I will do accordingly. If you have no time for that either, no problem. --Periergeia 16:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll be glad to do some sample edits to get you started (I'll work on them a bit later today); I just hesitate to become entrenched in working on the bias in those articles without a sustained commitment from more editors. I'll get on it later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sandy. You did an outstanding job. I will learn from it. Thanks a lot. You rock. --Periergeia 10:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bupropion FAC

Say what? Give us a heads-up, will ya :) I've added some comments; meanwhile, my attention is still being commanded off-wiki, my favorite backlog continues to grow and I haven't done anything adminny in a while... *sigh* :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is {{MCOTWannounce}} at the Pharm project? I'll add the FAC to that template now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I did add a section at the project mainpage to showcase current FACs/GACs/PRs, under "Articles being evaluated"; the section used to be there and was quite well-maintained, but it somehow got lost when the page was redesigned. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough FAC

Please could you give support or opposition to this article as so far there are only two reviews, and I'm worried that it will fail for lack of interest! Many thanks, greatly appreciated! PeterSymonds 20:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jude FAR

Hey Sandy, I've been working on the "Hey Jude" FAR and most of the issues have been taken care of now. Do you have further suggestions on what I should do, or what needs to be factually verified (aside from the cite tag)? I'm twenty feet away from my library's shelf of Beatles books, so ready suggestions are much welcomed. Thanks. WesleyDodds 23:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still at the library? I'll have a look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, plan to be here about another twenty minutes, and I'll probably return again this week. WesleyDodds 23:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through it now, sources look good, just making some small changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Some of the uncited facts were available in one of the sources used, so here's hoping the rest are as well. WesleyDodds 05:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: your comments at Attack on Sydney Harbour's FAC

Although Attack on Sydney Harbour has been promoted to FA, I just want to ask and see if your points of opposition in the FAC have been addressed, and if not, what else needs to happen to improve the article further. -- saberwyn 01:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your assistance during the FAC. -- saberwyn 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]