User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Malraux image[edit]

Hope this helps! ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm working on a criterion 3 guide I hope will help people achieve some level of comfort with the admittedly convoluted image policies/laws. PD is actually pretty straightforward; the trick is FU, especially getting folks to exercise due skepticism regarding the significance of an image's contribution. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC List[edit]

I note that you removed the link to the FAC list from the FAC instructions. That link has been there since 31 December and I don't see the justification for removing it now.

It will be rather difficult to establish whether these lists are useful if no one knows about them. Given the difficulties you had last time you had to access FAC over a slow connection, I'm surprised you don't see the benefit. Geometry guy 15:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss at WT:FAC; I've seen no indication they're being used, and a list wouldn't have helped me promote/archive over a dialup, because accessing one FAC at a time would take as much time as waiting for the entire page to load (also, that problem was solved by getting rid of the awful "done" and "not done" templates, which were the real issue slowing down the page). I don't want to clutter the FA pages unless we're certain there's a payout in terms of utility (for example, the dead link checker has been a real help). If a lot of people want the lists, the extra verbiage on the page could be justified, but I want to avoid the page becoming so packed that it becomes hard to negotiate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: FAC nom[edit]

Yeah, thanks, didn't see that, will nominate once RON gets more support. Hello32020 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Hilary Duff from FAC[edit]

May i know why u removed Hilary Duff from FAC page???? Gprince007 (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I came to know that u failed the article but may i know the reasons behind it??? the objections raised were minor prose issues which i had addressed a few days back. Since the opposing editors didnt respond, I left a note today on the opposing editors talk page to let them know that their objections had been addressed (see[1] and [2]). Without giving some time to the nomination to garner support and without giving any opportunity to discuss this issue, how can you arbitrarily remove the nomination without specifying any reason??? I hope u reconsider ur decision Gprince007 (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gprince; the nomination had run a week, gaining three opposes (all focused on prose). It can be hard to come back from three opposes, and a fresh start a few weeks later after addressing issues is usually more successful. I also take a look at articles to see if there are further issues that hadn't yet come up at FAC before I archive them; if it's only isolated issues, and reviewers are likely to be satisfied easily, I may leave the nomination open a bit longer in spite of the preponderance of Opposes. For example, the reviewers of Duff focused on prose issues, but there are also non-reliable sources (, incomplete or incorrectly formatted citations (missing publishers) and several WP:MOS issues to be addressed (I saw on a quick glance an endash issue in the infobox and caption punctuation to be dealt with). Addressing all of these issues before re-approaching FAC will give you a good shot at gaining featured status the next time through. Many articles take more than one FAC to gain featued status, but you're half way there. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


You should add his name, because Marskell significantly contributed to this article. Ruslik (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources question[edit]

Sandy, would you have a minute to provide a third opinion on a reliable source issue? If so, please take a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/If (magazine). Awadewit has raised concerns about two sources:

  • Internet Speculative Fiction Database. This is a database which allows open data entry, but the data entry is moderated by administrators. Hence it's not quite clear if it is subject to the restriction on sites anyone can edit. An additional point is that the reference is not being used to source anything that is not also sourced from the magazine issues themselves; the value of this source is that the ISFDB provides an online index that is useful to readers who don't have access to the magazine itself (as of course most won't). So it's a convenience, and is not the sole source.
  • Magazine Datafile. This is definitely self-published, by a bibliographer, Phil Stephenson-Payne. It is used only for one fact: the name "Clifford Hong", who is the editor of an issue of the magazine. The only other source I know for this information would be to go to Addall, put in "Clifford Hong" in the author field, and search. You'll find one copy of the magazine for sale, confirming that Hong was the editor. Is either of these a reliable source? Stephenson-Payne's site is widely used as a reference work, and in fact he is now hosting a major index of anthologies put together by William Contento. (I am also citing that index, but Contento is an acknowledged expert in the field, and his indexes are regarded as critical references; Stephenson-Payne is not self-publishing those -- he's publishing Contento's work -- so I feel those are OK.) Stephenson-Payne doesn't have independent reference works referring to him as an expert, though, as Contento does.

Awadewit has reasonable concerns about both the above, and we know you've spent a lot of time thinking about reliable sources; we'd like your opinion if you have time. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Mike; thanks for asking. I wouldn't promote a different FAC that used cleary self-published personal webpages (see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oliver Typewriter Company), because that is so clearly spelled out at WP:SPS and because I thought that the original sources were accessible in that case. In cases where there could be some ambiguity, I'd prefer not to be judge and jury, and suggest that you raise the same question either at WT:FAC or WP:RSN (or both) to assure broader input and consensus. In terms of precedent, have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, posted at WP:RSN as you suggested; and I see you have already fixed a typo of mine over there. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Krust closed too early[edit]

Can you please reopen this FAC and allow for other people to give feedback? There are zero opposes, and I addressed all of the comments that were brought up in the FAC. One person even changed to "Support". I really wish you could reopen the FAC, and wait for more input on the article, comments/supports/opposes. At this point, closing it with one support and some comments and no opposes is actually closing something that was leaning more towards "Support" than anything else. Also, The Simpsons WikiProject really needs 2 more FAs for Season 9 to remain a Featured Topic due to recent changes in the Featured Topic Criteria. If we had to wait another 3 months before even being able to try for FAC for this article, it would really hinder the process. Thank you for your consideration to reopen the first FAC. Yours, Cirt (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I just double-checked at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Last Temptation of Krust/archive1 - 3 editors left a "comment" - all points from all comments were addressed and notes were left on those editors' talkpages. One editor came back and changed their comment to "Support". So in the end there were 2 "comments" (with all points addressed) and one "Support". Cirt (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Cirt; the nomination was open for more than two weeks, and listed for a very long time on the Urgents page, without gaining consensus for Support. Three months is not needed between nominations (I'm not sure where you got that idea?); a few weeks is a normal interval between nominations. Re-opening a FAC involves undoing a huge number of steps, so a new nomination is preferable. Because the nomination was listed so long on the Urgents page without gaining support, I'm not sure an immediate renomination would yield the best result; perhaps checking with reviewers to make sure they are satisfied before you re-nominate would give you the best chance for success. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, but I would really appreciate it then if it is too hard to reopen the previous FAC, if you could do what Raul654 (talk · contribs) sometimes does which is a "restart due to lack of input" or something like that. I find it unfair that the FAC was closed after only 2 weeks - when Raul654 (talk · contribs) in the past has left some of my FACs open for over a month and a half, the FACs gained more comments, and he was able to promote them. Cirt (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I, too, will leave FACs open for months if they've garnered sufficient Support and outstanding issues are being addressed. This article hadn't garnered support. If you insist, you can submit another FAC; my recommendation is that might not yield the best result, and that you take time to figure out why the first nomination didn't garner support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
But it did garner Support, and there were zero opposes. The FAC had more "Support" than any other type of leanings, especially after all comments were addressed. And as you suggested, I stated above that I had already left notes at all commenters' talkpages that I had addressed their concerns - only one came back to the FAC. I really wish the FAC had been left open for longer, 2 weeks seems really too short. Are you saying I can start another FAC now? Because from my perspective judging that the last FAC was closed with one "Support" and no opposes, there wasn't a lack of "Support", there was a lack of editors who commented, a lack of commenters who came back to address my responses to their comments, and a lack of time given. Cirt (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I really do appreciate your advice, please enlighten me, what else could I have done differently? Cirt (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm regularly updating the Urgents page, and reviewers are following it, when an article fails to gain support, there could be a reason. Because there were no outstanding opposes, I'm not saying you can't open another FAC right away; I'm recommending that opening another right away (without determining why the first failed to garner support) might not yield the desired result. The choice is yours. Good luck either way ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You and I seem to have a cordial disagreement about this. You state that it "failed to garner support" I feel that it did "garner support" - it just didn't garner enough editors in general to comment at all. Update: Per your recommendation from above, I left notes at the talkpages of the 3 editors that commented in the FAC - Hurricanehink (talk · contribs), Indopug (talk · contribs), Laser brain (talk · contribs), regarding a potential new FAC. What else can I do to assess if people will support a new FAC? Cirt (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have said garner consensus for promotion. Asking those who previously commented is a good start, and you might also query any relevant WikiProjects. (I don't recall if the article had a peer review?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The article did have a peer review, but not too many people commented. I had debated during the FAC putting a notice at the talkpages of the relevant WikiProjects to grab some more attention, but as the FAC nominator I did not want this to be viewed inappropriately. In the next FAC, if I say something neutral on the WikiProject talkpages like "X article is presently undergoing FAC, please see the FAC page, here, and comment if you like" - is that okay/neutrally worded enough? Cirt (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Many WikiProjects have templates for notifying articles that are at PR, GAC or FAC; as long as you do no more than notify, there should be no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so do you think I should do anything else at this point? Wait for feedback from the previous 3 commenters? Cirt (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Update: I've gotten some feedback from the editors that commented at the FAC, and from the initial GA Reviewer. One of the FAC commenters suggested to wait about a week and that person would do some copy-edits in the interim, so I think that's what I'll plan to do. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just Like Heaven[edit]

Indopug's concerns have already been addressed; he's just been too busy to reply, from the looks of it. I've addressed Tuf-kat's comments to the best of my ability. His final contentions concern phrasing and the passive voice; I've enacted most of his suggestions but did not do others because I felt the phrasing worked there. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your first comment at Mantanmoreland ArbCom[edit]

A couple of editors have expressed concern that your comment here has not been addressed. It has been suggested that other editors comments around the same time be reformatted, but I was wondering if it would be easier if you were to move yours to some clear space so it may be considered by those who may have missed it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

nah, no drama, I'm not worried about being overlooked :-) Moving things around can just make it appear that I take myself too seriously. I'm just one small voice (with a big e-mail inbox :-); if ArbCom wants to hear my voice, they will. I appreciate the thought, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this comment really hit home to me.[3] Thanks for saying that; it's why so many people have stuck it out. Risker (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Too bad my prose stinks, and I can't say it more eloquently, but WYSIWYG over here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


I see you're still archiving WP:GO. I'll see what can be done. Gimmetrow 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it's irritating. If you can cook something up, it would be stupendous, and I'm sure the community will give you a standing ovation and thousands of Barnstars.  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Paleolithic-style diet[edit]

Hi, I've been meaning to ask someone... A couple of weeks ago, an administrator removed the following source from the article on the grounds that it was not a reliable source (User talk:Hu12/Archive6): (The webpage a also links to several other similar pages.)

Do you consider this to be an unreliable source? I find it quite useful, as it summarizes the differences and similarities between the dietary prescriptions of various advocates of Paleolithic-style diets (see linked pages).

Thanks for your help. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No; is not a reliable source. Anyone can sign up and write for, and they have some really marginal writers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, me again ;) Do you think this sentence from the article is gramatical? Not sure... "Cooking is widely accepted to have been practised at least 250 000 years ago, in the Middle Paleolithic." Thanks.--Phenylalanine (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a good judge of grammar, but it sounds a bit weasly ... I believe Karanacs plans to run through one more time tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Sandy, as a fair editor and a person who takes a non-POV stance in subjects, could you please take a look at an acussation against my person made by an editor here: Talk:John Melendez and express your opinion. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you, "muchas Gracias" for your valued comments and suggestions. Cheers. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


Sandy, Could you take a gander at the first paragraph of the behavior analytic model of child development -- I tried to make it an easier I going in the right direction? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


Sandy, I was hoping to get some feedback on my edits -- I'm going to try to do what I've seen others edits are[4], [5], and [6]). Thanks!! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't gotten through my morning watchlist, I'll check when I can. In the meantime, have you read and understood WP:MSH, WP:MOSNUM, WP:DASH for example ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I have read behavior'll demonstrate whether I 'understand' them :) how do I make an Emdash? I've ben using -- (which I now see is not proper at all!) I'll wait patiently and edit some other articles thanks!Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok -- my behavior in respect to WP:DASH is here [[7]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talkcontribs) 21:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Josh, but I've looked at that article, and it's in such bad shape that I don't know where to start, and it's not worth the effort if someone doesn't do some basic cleanup first. Is Wiki being used, perchance, as an experiment in some college class or something? The same incoherent mess is being introduced across all of those articles. No punctuation at ends of sentences, massive amounts of typos, no regard for footnote placement, no attention to WP:MSH, incoherent sections and rambling, and the article you have directed me to not only doesn't have a WP:LEAD, but has glaring typos and errors in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not an experiment...its a zealous contributor -- I'm trying to get up to speed on how to wikify things and such...but am having a difficult time keeping up! Maybe WLU can help make sure what I'm doing is on the right track! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Another student undoing corrections as fast as I do them: User talk:Ginamarie112. Impossible to keep up with; there should be some standard for college classes unleashing people on Wiki who don't read talk pages, edit summaries, or Wiki guidelines. Too much to keep up with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Sandy, I put a commenton WLU's page, and meant it for either of you: User_talk:WLU#References. Thanks for your time Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Ford[edit]

I think it was a little over a year ago you and I worked on the refs here to keep its FA status. Check this: Gerald_Ford#Electoral_history.7FUNIQ1c1a13438a94de6-nowiki-0000016C-QINU.7F110.7FUNIQ1c1a13438a94de6-nowiki-0000016D-QINU.7F. A ref for a whole section in the section title? Seems wrong. How should this be done? Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, I've been fixing FDR's refs, he can use some work too. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Whole thing needs cleanup again;[8] who's watching that article? I'm only one person. I'll chip away on it as I have time over the next few days. <sigh> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep chipping at Ford and FDR too, Sandy. Thanks. The three of us can knock it out, eventually, ;-) RlevseTalk 17:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Allrighty; three's a charm :-) I'll work on them both after I get through my regular stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy: I was going to work on Ford again, but saw you have that major edit tag on it. COOL! I'll look it over. Now I'll go to FDR and hope you find time soon to do a major edit there too soon. Thanks. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FDR has entire sections without refs, oy vey. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When are you going to be done here? I can remove the blank fields in cite templates rather quickly. Gimmetrow 01:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


It's nearly there. I only have a couple of concerns left. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we're done. I left Fainites a question regarding a dead link, but a (still somewhat cursory by my standards) final read revealed nothing... un-FA-like. This one has certainly come a long way. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't check those. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
And late to the party :( I can't believe I missed supporting this by nine minutes. Damn. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Hey, give us a break! I've just copied them from the Attachment measures article to which I had added material before I went to the school of Anally Retentive Article Writing. I promise I'll fix them properly in half a tick. Fainites barley 18:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My to do list...[edit]

I'm sick and just back from a week's absence but I'll try to keep an eye, drop me a list of the hottest fires if you want and I'll try to get to it. I noticed the child abuse page got a dump of non-notable child protection services, so perhaps I'm already familiar with part of the problem. Sorry, I apparently managed to piss off a bunch of people the week before last, so I'm trying to discuss with them. Have any names or IP addresses?

Have you brought it up on AN/I? WLU (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if that was necessary, but the editing patterns appear identical to me. I'm not really interested in sorting that mess out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI. Crap, I hate it when teachers think it's a good idea to use wikipedia for pedagogy. User:Thelmadatter might have some insight - she's running an official wikiproject that aims to teach with wikipedia, and has been blessed by some official entity. WLU (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I thought so. There is too much garbage across too many articles for it to be a coincidence. I don't have time for it. Count me out, but someone should do something (like call in an admin or contact the professor and get them to at least read WP:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll get it up to snuff and ask you to look at it--did my edit links above work properly? I see people use them (I think you call them 'diffs'?) and wonder if I did it correctly. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I see that you are brave! I wonder if the behavior analytic theory of child development should have its own article and just have a summary on the Child Development article linked to the other? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't even tried to read what is there. Before asking me where content should be moved, why not clean up the content that is being indiscriminately added? Sentences need punctuation and spaces, paragraphs need to make sense, and citiations need to be correctly written. Is anyone reading and copyediting what is being added to all those articles? I'd rather not see any more articles created until whatever university class is experimenting on Wiki comes forward, identifies themselves, and gets proper guidance on how to construct and write Wiki articles. I don't enjoy doing daily cleanup when it doesn't appear that the involved editors are making any attempt to read edit summaries or learn Wiki gudelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that the content is from a class...I'm trying to cleanup that content, but am not sure I'm very good at it either. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, has anyone read it? The new content added across all of those articles has fundamental copyedit needs like punctuation at the ends of sentences and no spaces between sentences. I am always willing to help new editors learn, but when I'm typing the same thing over and over (for more than a month), and nothing is changing, I'm starting to feel like someone is intentionally pulling my leg. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not pulling your leg -- I've been off-line for a while and just got back a week or two ago and have been working on other articlesapplied behavior analysis, and just came to this one -- I did rework this it ok? [[9]] Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Ok -- I'm dealing with the advertisement for Cooperative Learning Institute and have put a speedy delete tag that was taken by someone who evidently didn't look at the website...I've posted something on its talk I going about this the proper way? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

An admin already declined the speedy, so you can't replace that tag with the same rationale (did you ping the admin and ask why it was declined?). If an admin feels it doesn't meet the speedy criterion, next you have to place a {{subst:prod}} tag, wait seven days, and if that doesn't work, then next you have to take it to WP:AfD. (Unless you can find a different speedy tag that might work.) Josh, I suggest you follow this up with the admin who is already involved; that person can help. I'm not an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok -- I put a new speedy delete reason (spam) supported by the cut and paste from that weird company site. I left a message on the admin's talk page -- is that pinging? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Ask him/her to help you through the steps. If speedy isn't successful, try prod. If that doesn't work and you have to go to AfD, let me know when it's at AfD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Its gone :) Yay! Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! (It was cruftispamisizement.) Which tag/rationale did you end up using? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

<undent> I used the {{delete spam}} tag...its obviously a poor cut and paste job from that weird commercial site. btw -- what's 'cruftispamisizement'? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ahh! very cool. Well, I'm off to edit the messy articles :) I'll let you know when they're ready for a look-over. I have 3 other folks working with me now...hopefully we can get it in shape. Do you like the applied behavior analysis article? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt prose[edit]

Hi SG, I'm seeking your opinion on a matter of style. A GA reviewer thought the following passages were "overblown," "flowery," and "bombastic," and suggests they have an inappropriate tone and need to be rewritten. Are they?

  • "Middle Kingdom literature featured sophisticated themes and characters written in a confident, eloquent style, and the relief and portrait sculpture of the period captured subtle, individual details that reached new heights of technical perfection."
  • "The ancient Egyptians were skilled builders with expert knowledge of basic surveying and construction techniques. Using simple but effective measuring ropes, plum bobs, and sighting instruments, architects could build large stone structures with accuracy and precision."
  • "Because of the rigid rules that governed its highly stylized and symbolic appearance, ancient Egyptian art served its political and religious purposes with precision and clarity."

Thanks, Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 03:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the sourcing: if you can attribute it to someone, then it's not opinion, and it becomes what it is (beautiful, compelling, delightful prose). If it's your own interpretation of the sources, then it's a different story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
OK thanks. I do have the sources to support. Jeff Dahl (Talkcontribs) 03:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny news headline[edit]

The Colombian armed forces execute an attack in Teteye, Putuma yo, killing FARC commander Raul Reyes and triggering a diplomatic crisis. — Deckiller 16:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to make me Wiki miserable, or real life miserable?  :'-( I Will Sit On My Fingers and I Won't Go Near That Article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


I'm not going to able to do anything. In fact, I'm checking out for three days. The dispatches have alternated between Karanacs and I. If Karanacs can come up with something in the next 24, that would be good. If not, I guess we have no dispatch. I really am checking out. Marskell (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to rethink my disappearing on weekends policy. It makes Mondays kind of icky some days, and Mondays are bad enough on their own. If I don't get back to all of the FACs that I commented on today, then I will definitely get to them tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks again for your help and comments on OTC; the FAC process was most enlightening. Although I'm not sure who this Elcbobbola fellow is, I’ll be sure to pass on the message if our paths cross. ;P ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Former featured article[edit]

It's ok now. I think the bot hasn't move it into archive so the link was "dead" OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


OK, you've saved my fingers with the Diberri tool. But a lot of science articles aren't in PubMed. Is there a similar tool for DOI? I'm editing a science article that has nothing to do with medicine, and most articles have a doi number. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no tool. Sorry :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Bummer. You were my hope to saving me from carpal tunnel.  :( OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

John Melendez[edit]

Well, no, "good" isn't exactly the first word that comes to mind. Let’s assume good faith and ignore that the uploader has had a few vandalism warnings (albeit quite some months ago) and that the image doesn’t have any camera Metadata. Beyond a poorly-worded and limited scope “encyclopedicity” section at WP:IMAGES, I don’t know that image policy is being violated. Per WP:BLP, however, “Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects”. I’m forced to think, if I were John Melendez, that I’d most certainly object to the use of that image – especially on such a high traffic/visibility site. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, notice the stubble ends so abruptly and with such a "clean" cut off at the neck. Something about the hair looks wrong, too. This one doesn't feel right. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
A blatant, copyright-violating ripoff. Our friend filched it from Google images.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, there's just not enough brain power hangin' round my talk page :-) Now what (and that's where Elcobbola comes in) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's tagged! ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
While we're on the subject of unflattering photos of Howard Stern Show staff members, I heartily suggest that you take a look at the lead image for the Baba Booey page. This image is a bit trickier; like the Melendez photo, it was ripped off from Google images; and like that photo, it makes poor Gary look like a buffoon. However, I don't know who holds the copyright in this case. The Fat Man's sizable gut tells him it is an unauthorized still from the E! show.... perhaps we could make a fair use argument??? But this is unlikely, if we don't know exactly where it came from.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair use for living people is pretty much a non-starter. Per WP:NFCC#1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" (emphasis added). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
What to do with the picture, then? It sure ain't free, but I can't pinpoint the copyright holder.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd tag it the same way as Johnny; sound like a plan? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Same uploader for Image:RobinQuivers.JPG. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The Fat Man is trying to teach me to be funny and the Cobbola is trying to teach me images; my money's on ... neither to win. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That gave me a laugh; I'd say the fat man is winning. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Stick around; even his weeks-old stuff leaves me in stitches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Basic human dignity.[edit]

Why did you just remove my entries and not the part that mentions John's poor language skills and work pronunciations of names such as "'Nicolas Cage' becomes 'Niggaless Cage'"?

John Melendez

I deleted your entries because they were recent uncited additions. Until yesterday, I had never heard of John Melendez, and there are still sources I have to read through. Thanks for pointing out that more needs to be deleted; when you see something that you know is a WP:BLP violation, you should delete it. I don't have any idea how much of his bio is true. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

re: FAR[edit]

I promise I will help out at FAR tomorrow. My pesky grad school professors have a habit of demanding I turn in work. Imagine that? :) --Laser brain (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like those profs should getta life :-) Thanks, Laser! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


Ok, I'll not so fast ;-) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 06:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, only for completing the article (that's perfect ;-) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 16:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


p.s. Je prefère le français au l'espagnol ;-) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 12:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No hablo frances, Mojska. Agradezco el mensaje, y lo que sugiero es que tomas tiempo para ajustar a las normas de WP:FAC, entrando sugeriencias como commentarias para mejorar los articulos mientras tanto. Por ejemplo, la idea de secciones separadas para controversias o criticas no es bien acceptado en el Bienvenido! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
p.s. I'm not Spanish :-D, but I can speak it (nivel básico...) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 16:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Qué bien que hablas español, Sandy ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Too lazy to add diacritics when I'm on my laptop :-) Embarassing, but I decided I don't care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, I just expected so much more; I mean, I'm working with a QWERTZ here and I can pull off the Spanish diacritics. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding? I'm still complaining about the surprise Christmas present laptop that took me to a new touchpad that makes me scream and I can't make work. Going through the extra steps of getting the accents isn't gonna happen :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitals - MOS example and other house styles[edit]

Hi Sandy. In the Zwingli FAC we have a question concerning capitalisation of "...the Church..." if it refers to particular church group. WP:MOSCAPS under the Institutions section indicate for the case of of universities it should not be capitalised ("...the university...". Do you know which way it should go? --RelHistBuff (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I would trust Awadewit and say to post a question over to WT:MOS to ask for an explanation of the difference in interpretation. But Tony1 (talk · contribs) has been tied up in real life, and WP:MOS has become a den of ... something ... unpleasant. I wouldn't suggest going through a lot of bickering over an uppercase, and if you go to MOS, that's what will happen. If you want a second opinion, short of digging in to MOS to get an adjustment or clarification there, how about leaving a question for Noetica (talk · contribs)? You *might* leave a brief note for Tony1 (talk · contribs), but he's got a "real life busy" index of 10 on his talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Reactive attachment disorder[edit]

Many thanks for all your patience - which you really needed! Bit of a steep learning curve. Unfortunately I was educated at a time in the UK when such things a grammar, style and punctuation were considered elitist - though how not knowing these things was supposed to assist the disadvantaged I never could work out. Hopefully, now I think I've got the hang of the basics, I can have a go at the others. The field is full of nutters though. When will it appear on the main page? I'd like to put the word around among a few non-wiki psychs in the hope that others may feel Wiki is worth the effort. Fainites barley 09:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Fainites. A bit of history you might not know: it has long been a concern that there is not a single other psychology article at WP:FA (unless you consider parapsychology), and there has long been a need for a well written psych article to lead the way, compounded by a lack of knowledgeable WikiProject members to work on collaborations. I hope you'll keep it in excellent shape so it will provide a good example for those who will hopefully follow and begin to bring psych articles to standard, not only of the writing standard and comprehensive coverage of the topic, but also of correct citation and conformance to Wiki's manual of style. When Colin (talk · contribs), Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs), Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs), TimVickers (talk · contribs), Tony1 (talk · contribs) and I worked together to bring Tourette syndrome to featured standard, all of the other neuropsych featured articles on Wiki were dismal: autism, Asperger syndrome and schizophrenia. Tourette syndrome helped set a standard for improving those articles, Casliber (talk · contribs) and Eubulides (talk · contribs) came on board, and now we have solid neuropsych featured articles setting the standard for future work. Reactive attachment disorder is now in position to lead the way for other psychology topics, which is partly why so many other editors were willing to give so much time and effort to helping it achieve excellence. (I'm sorry I had to close the FAC before Fvasconcellos had a chance to lodge his Support, but it was time :-) Looking back at the peer review and the version that passed GA, you can see how far the article has come and how many others generously helped along the way. This might be a good page to visit, in terms of all the people who gave so much time in peer review and at FAC :-) Congratulations again, now can you go try to clean up some of the mess at child development?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I forgot to answer your question about the main page. If there is a specific date that has significance for the article, you can request it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, subject to a five-article limitation there. Raul654 (talk · contribs), the featured article director, schedules the main page. Many articles have to wait a very long time to appear on the main page, as we have more articles than we can feature on the main page. In your case, I doubt you'll have to wait long, as diversity on the main page is a goal, and we've never had a psych article; I imagine Raul will be excited to schedule it as soon as it fits with the other mainpage scheduling constraints. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, people have been very kind and helpful and have concealed their (no doubt entirely justified) exasperation well :-/ I just hope we really have got it right. I thought of asking JeanMercer to get one of her professor buddies to have an outside, non-Wikipedian read as well. Fainites barley 16:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Since Casliber is a practicing professional, and he Supported, I'm not concerned. I'd not be in too much of a hurry to have non-Wiki professionals work on it; they don't always understand the difference between encyclopedic content and the other kinds of writing they may engage in. I'd hate to see the article gummed up again with a bunch of psych jargon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


I will provide...certain kinds of favors if you work on the Patriots page :) — Deckiller 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm sunk. I hate football. Darn, why couldn't it be baseball? OK, will do. hmmmm ... I know just the person I can put on to that task. How do I do that on one household IP without sockpuppetry issues ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Your husband? Oh, BTW, I posted my two cents on that FAC you left on my talkpage. — Deckiller 17:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, DK, how do I deal with the IP concerns? I've always been worried when certain people show up here, laptops in tow knowing they are Wiki editors and the entire house is wireless, or when they get on my computer. I've been known to pull the plug on my cable modem when my basement is full of adolescents ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the best way to approach this is to have them leave a notice on their talkpage stating that they are using the same wireless as you, and that they are completely different editors. — Deckiller 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Got it, thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain FAC[edit]

Sandy, I was hoping you saw the note I added at the top of the McCain FAC a few days ago. This article is being heavily reworked to reduce it per WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY. It's in an inconsistent, messy state right now. I was presuming that the FAC was about to be closed as "no promotion" anyway, but it certainly should be now, since it won't be the article that all those commenters reviewed. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The FAC is currently stalled with more support than opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what to say ... what are the rules about heavy changes during FAC? ... my intention was to try to bring the new Early life and military career of John McCain subarticle to FAC fairly soon, since it's a self-contained subject that ends in 1981 and clearly doesn't suffer from the alleged "instability" of the main article. On the other hand, I think Ferrylodge wants to bring the main article back to FAC, or keep it in FAC, you'd have to ask him. In any case, as I've stated on the FAC page, I never did the formatting/endash/nbsp/etc run on it that the article needed, that you're now trying to do. I mishandled this driveby nom from the beginning, I guess ... Wasted Time R (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The normal course of action for a FAC at that stage of confusion is to restart the nom. There is no consensus, but it has slightly more Support than Oppose. As stated at WP:WIAFA, changes made in pursuit of FA status are not a stability issue. I'm unclear why you haven't Opposed if you feel it's not ready. I can't just ignore good faith supports; as the significantly principle editor, your view is worth considering, but you haven't entered a declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've now added my "oppose" at the FAC page. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WTR said: "I think Ferrylodge wants to bring the main article back to FAC, or keep it in FAC, you'd have to ask him." Yes, I'd like to get this article shortened and then made a feature article. Most of the shortening is done.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A peer review, and a lot of MoS cleanup, will help prepare the article adequately for an FA candidacy; driveby noms are never optimal, and FAC doesn't function well as peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like a bit of "soak" before it gets renominated. Doing the reduction has been painful and I may well have made wrong decisions in places about what to leave in, what to leave out. I want to see what comments we get in the normal course of events, not just from a peer review or FAC. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope to see a co-nom from the two of you when it's ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Will do, thanks Sandy.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Sandy, sorry, I thought I was indenting. I didn't have the time to respond to all of her points (most of which I feel are very valid), just spoke to the few I could probably help with and I'll start on them after I get out of the gym tonight. Hope you're doing well! Looks like FAC is keeping you busy!--Mike Searson (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • No problem, Mike; at least in your case I knew if I left the comment in an edit summary, you'd see it and not be offended, and in my busy-ness, I didn't have to drop you another message. I imagined you didn't realize they weren't indented. Hope you have/had a great time at the gym! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


Why do you link my contributions in every page where I vote? --Mojska666 16:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I linked them in one FAC, as explained on your talk page; please take time to familiarize yourself with the criterion on the English wiki and to review each FAC according to WP:WIAFA.[10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

FA housekeeping[edit]

So, in summary, I should look after the following:

  • Add maindate tags
  • Add external link checker (on those that have previous FAC; rest are preloaded)
  • Check dead links at ca. 3 supports

Correct? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And if you do all that, careful, I'll find more :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
For example, without biting, you can add a note whenever a brand new (as in first ten posts) editor enters a FAC declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought the preload was self-evident. Clearly now I'll need to add redundant checkers out of spite. :) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Careful; once you get up to speed on all that, I'll turn over the pre-Gimmebotification tasks to you, and then I can stop tearing my hair out over all the errors that GA leaves in articlehistory :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

oh, gosh, here's another one (sigh) ... zorglbot hasn't run since March 3rd at WP:FA. I always have to watch that, and now it has to be done (retroactively) manually,[11] and we have to figure out what happened to the bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

What did zorglbot do (i.e. what should Elcobbola do?) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It added that weird code daily to WP:FA, to bold articles that have already been on the mainpage. It ran at 00.01 every night. Do you have time to ping the bot owner? Sometimes they're busted and don't know it. I need to go eat dinner :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure, Done. You mean Wikipedia isn’t sustenance enough? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
So, I was stuck in a hockey arena all today today, but I can't help save your hair if you beat me to the tasks. :) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I left you a little something at WT:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
WT:FAC? I'm not seeing it? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it's your 4.43 average quality score; thanks for the good work :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did see that (thanks, because I'm really more of a 4.42999). It's not fair, though; Karanacs is a machine. I don't know how she does it. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you wanna get decimal-pointy about it: 4.428571429 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Elcobbola, vanity be thy name. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I assume the "minimal edits" note would apply for the recent contribs from Slicedpineapple (talk · contribs)? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes? No? Maybe so? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
AGF, and consider what reaction will yield the best long-term outcome for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don’t think they’re necessary here; I just wasn’t sure whether you were a mechanical thinker (e.g. if x, then y -> if <10, make a note) in this regard. I’m always perplexed that pure statements of fact (e.g. “user has x edits”) can precipitate offense and assumptions of ulterior motives. Ah, the complexities of human behavior… ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Your pet peeve[edit]

Sorry about the dead links in DotA. My issue is that the dead link check is not loading... whenever I try and run it I get a 'server not responding'. Is there another tool available ('sides just checking them one by one, I think I'll have the dead links fixed in this one but with many more references it would be a pain.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead links aren't even close to my biggest pet peeve :-) The dead link is:

Wherein our heroine gives herself with extraordinary immoderation to the (article about the) vice confessed by Jean-Jacques Rosseau. Tittering ensues.[edit]

I've never tried to make an article good before. I'm going to request peer review on an article I've been working on tonight. Other than the generic suggestions on WP:PR, do you have any advice oh how to maximize the likelihood of a productive, intelligent response to my peer review request, while expending a minimal amount of my own energy? I do, of course, intend to diligently respond to the reviewer and edit the article according to his/her suggestions; I'm just not prepared to enter into a quid pro quo agreement where I have to review someone else's article (for I lack the skill to do so).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, long day here, brief response before I hit the herbal bath. Peer review is dysfunctional; the key to a successful peer review is that you have to go out and find the good reviewers. There's a new list of volunteers, but I'm not sure where it is (see if it's posted somewhere on the PR page). If I knew the topic, I'd send some good reviewers your way :-) You have to contact individuals, relevant WikiProjects and browse similar FAs at WP:FA to figure out who knows the territory, and then beg them to come review your article. It's not that article that you promised not to post on my talk page, is it? I don't know any topic experts :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Or is it the M article? That's easy; list it at the announcements template of WP:MED, and I can find people to help review that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's the one  :-). Please, please hook me up when you have a chance! I swear I'll be nice. I will post on WP:MED straightaway; I hope the contributors there will see it as medical article. BTW, I have begun experimenting with bowdlerized links to avoid sullying the talk pages of classy gentlemen and ladies such as yourself with the incurably crass topics that occupy my imagination. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I just had a look, and I can give you a list about a mile long that will keep you busy for weeks and get you started, and later you can bring in other "content experts" ... but I'm tired tonight. Nasty day. Where do you want me to put my review ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh Sandy, would you, could you? I've created a user subpage called User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back/Firing the Surgeon General (a reference to some funny unencyclopedic garbage I deleted).[12] Do you want to put it there? Or would it be better to work outside of userspace? Don't think about it now. Go take that bath.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll put it there as soon as I can; I owe Deckiller a look at the New England Patriots first, but I can give you enough to keep you busy for a while. I'll get to it as soon as I get a second wind and do some ... ugh ... football. WLU (talk · contribs) might help out, but he's got bronchitis, so don't ping him today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC) By the way, Firing the Surgeon General isn't that funny; you should hear the ones that get tossed around here sometimes. Once I was outnumbered at Thanksgiving dinner and got the full dictionary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
True, true; it just made me smile b/c I had forgotten about the whole Jocelyn Elders thing until I stumbled upon that article tonight (Wikipedia is great for reminiscing). That poor, well-meaning woman. I grew up in a very conservative little town; people wanted to burn her at the stake.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
And feel free to move/rename that subpage to whatever page strikes your fancy, funny lady.  :-)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think you want me to move it to the ones I hear. Tired tonight. Too much demoralizing news in Wikiland lately, too many nasties, too much whining. More tomorrow. By the way, the problem with me doing peer review is that I'm geared towards WP:WIAFA, while WP:GVF is a whole 'nother level. I may give you more than you need, if you're aiming for GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Stop worrying. Start relaxing. Ignore the ugliness for a while. Anything you come up with tomorrow, this weekend, next week, next year will be appreciated. I don't care if your suggestions result in the article being upgraded to okay, good, great, featured, magisterial--I just want it to be better. Let's not split hairs.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fat Man, I'm afraid my review was all over the map, and may leave you frustrated. It wasn't very well organized; I found so much that needs work that I just slopped it all out there in no good format. Hope it helps anyway ... the first start is gather the research and organize the article, the rest can follow. That's just a first pass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Frustrated????? I'm thrilled! This is great stuff. The better question is will you be frustrated with me if I can only elevate this D-level monstrosity to C-level mediocrity? I'll do some work throughout the weekend, starting with the easy stuff. Seriously, I'm grateful.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

But did you have to single out this reference in your review? Don't we portly gentlemen have it hard enough?

I could find other bad things in that article title :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Really, Fat Man, I'm begin to suspect you of feeding lines: Don't we portly gentlemen have it hard enough?. Difficult is a perfectly acceptable synonym. And I struggle to accept that you are having trouble finding experts in this particular field on Wikipedia-the place is crawling with them if we are to believe the trolls. Yomanganitalk 18:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Pending the Fat Man's answer, I may frame that alongside the TimVickers and Yomangani quotes in my box of chocolates. (So, Yomangani, give the man a coherent TOC so he can get to work ... I'm sure he has lots of time on his hands and just needs better direction ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, the volunteers page can be quickly found at WP:PRV. Woody (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
For a moment, I misread your link and thought you were directing me to the friendly volunteers over at WP:PERV. If only such a resource existed!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
You only need five or ten members to start a WikiProject; I can't imagine that would be hard ... er ... difficult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is everyone whispering about masturbation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Because wikipedia is censored don't ya know. Woody (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if I had a username like Woody *and* I was listed at PRV, I might stay away from this topic, lest The Fat Man start using you for lines :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Sneaks off and hides, no wait... Woody (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't take too much notice Woody, Sandy is hardly innocent in the line feeding department. Look at her demands concerning the g-spot and her recommendation on where to get information "regarding when to use digits". Yomanganitalk 19:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Digits are free: never demanded, always recommended. Now get thee over to FAC and deal with some dead explorers, and leave my youthful confusion between punto g and hilo dental out of this (I still haven't figured out how the English language gets a G out of a thong, but it sure messed me up when I moved here). And if you poke any more fun at me, I'll throw some Yo Manuelita jokes at your username :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
There don't appear to be any dead explorers in the queue unless they are hidden among the musicians and video games. Did I miss one? Yomanganitalk 00:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
To my displeasure, the dead explorer was had by the video game featuring a dinosaur which is based on The Simpsons episode in which Gwen Stefani sings about Ethelred the Unready and Mary Wollstonecraft failing to join the expedition after they were blown away in a hurricane during the battle of Pearl Harbor. I've tried to be subtle, but I'm only one voice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately, I've been laid before, but it's been more than a year at least. I need to get a certain someone to start producing :-P — Deckiller 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me my talk page is getting a wide audience; someone should change the section heading. Heck, just put a name on it; that should do the trick. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


What do you think about becoming an admin? You seem to know WP policy very well. Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 04:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

They tried to make her go to RFA. She said, "No, no, no" (with apologies to Amy Winehouse). Yomanganitalk 11:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
If I had a penny for every time... --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
But if I had that hair, I might have to consider it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
We need a process whereby editors may be promoted to administrator, bureaucrat, arbitrator, etc. against their will. I think I'll call it Wikipedia:Non-consensual adminship or some such.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
What is that quote about if chosen, I will not serve? Sorry. I like being over on this side, where we have to follow the rules that are supposed to govern this place. Guess what I did today? I accidentally hit the stupid rollback button with this damn touchpad that I hate. That was scary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought being over on this side meant we didn't have to follow the rules. I think the quote for admins is "Once chosen I will not serve...If I, [insert name here], want the birds to drop dead from the trees... then the birds will drop dead from the trees. I am the wrath of god. The earth I pass will see me and tremble. But whoever follows me...will win untold riches...etc. etc." Yomanganitalk 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
What he said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Good lord, that stuff was supposed to happen when I got +sysop? Is there some sort of form that I have to fill out to start the earth trembling and all that untold riches stuff? A template? - Philippe | Talk 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you silly goose; you just have to have the right friends :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Geez, I never have problems getting the earth to move for me...who needs adminship? Risker (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, for that, we have The Fat Man. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Earth.... tremble.... as I pass.... are you trying to say... Hey!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I heard the strangest rumor today that some people think there's no longer a strong community on Wiki. Weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Last Temptation of Krust[edit]

Thank you for the edit summary notice - though I was actually in the process of adding the FAC to the noms page and the article talk page, but thanks for staying on top of things. Cirt (talk) 19:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I know it's still a bit early in the ongoing FAC, just wanted to say that I left a note on the FAC page that I still want to address some more points, so just to keep you updated that there are still ongoing points from the FAC that I am actively in the process of working on. Cirt (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for me to encompass the recent off-topic thread with {{hat}} and {{hab}}, or could someone else do it? Cirt (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that would help the situation. What would help would be for some editors to be more discriminating about their supports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And/or more discriminating about their opposes, or their "comments". Each of those that have "supported" so far, in this particular FAC, gave explanatory reasoning next to their comment. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Invalid opposes cause little problem; Raul and I can overlook opposes that are not actionable or founded in WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well even if you discount Mojska (talk · contribs) and Slicedpineapple (talk · contribs), I am doing my best to address all concerns brought up by all comments in the FAC, and currently without taking those 2 users into account, there are 5 Supports, 1 Oppose, and 2 users that gave comments. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
And on top of that, Eusebeus (talk · contribs) and Zagalejo (talk · contribs) have stated that they will be taking another look at the article soon and may reevaluate their positions, FYI. Cirt (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you

(Not for promoting the article, though thank you for that too...) -- SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), I wanted to apologize if I have been pestering you too much lately, and I want to thank you for your patience and for putting up with me. Suffice it to say I have had some personal/in real life issues lately, but it has been really fun working on this featured content on the project. I am sure we will converse on this sort of thing again in the future :). Thanks again for your patience with me and for educating me, Cirt (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

FA reviews review[edit]

That sounds like incredibly tedious work, but I love the idea of potentially getting feedback on my reviews. That will hopefully help us to improve as reviewers and maybe identify trends of what we're missing. Karanacs (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


No, I wasn't. We came to the conclusion it was a good idea to wait until StarCraft II was released (or cancelled) so that the information would be fully up-to-date and stable before submitting to FAC - the addition of new information after SC2's release is likely to reduce the article's quality until it is properly codified. Plus, half the primary source weblinks are currently down, and I've yet to give it a thorough copyedit to ensure its wording is up to standard. It wasn't my intention to go for FA so soon, but I'll sort out my own personal concerns regardless of the classification of the article. -- Sabre (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind doing that? Other than the fact I don't think its really ready and I'd like to sort out a few other things with it before submitting to FAC, I am in no position address any concerns raised at FAC due to a complete lack of an internet connection at home, where I do 99% of all my Wikipedia editting. My modem fried itself in a recent power outage and I can't get online there until a new one is delivered. -- Sabre (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

February FACs[edit]

No problem at all, it was interesting looking at those stats. I have had reviews from most of them in the past so I felt quite happy to give them pieces of shiny metal. They all deserved them! It is a shame that Epbr123 has gone into semi-retirement, another quality reviewer disappears... Woody (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, could be interesting I suppose. I think there would be a wee bit of trouble/grumbling if that happened. Could be useful though. ;) FAC doesn't seem that backlogged, everything's relative I suppose: I remember the dark days of 100 noms! You are doing a good job at pr/ar! I will go and have a look at Heuschrecke 10 now. Woody (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, it is hard. I know that those who consistently review will eventually reach a breaking point, especially with some nominators being less than receptive. I think this comment by a newbie to FAC is the exact thing we need to be aiming for. A sort of Defer (my issues have been resolved, defer to experienced reviewer) That is what I had one of my recent ones, someone was very sensibly waiting for another reviewers approval. It is hard, nay on impossible to enforce that, especially to new people to the process who skim read and say support, seeing that other reviewers have. It is a fine line. Woody (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I still think a Defer would be a good thing for all, I just don't think the more experienced would use it as there would be a psychological barrier to put that you aren't sure. <tongue>We do have a problem if experienced reviewers think this is a fix ;) </back in cheek> Perhaps you should just leave a note with the appropriate reviewers saying that there might be a concern. If I was one of them, I would want to know about, though there is a huge scope for aggravation and DRAMA over it. It is tricky.
I have reviewed an article quickly once with my eyes glazed over with football glasses. When another reviewer came along, I came to senses and retracted my support. We only see what we want to see, especially in our own specialisations. There are certain projects that almost bulk support articles every time. That is why one solid oppose can fail an FAC, that is what the clause is for. I don't envy you though for having to invoke it occasionally. Woody (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi: I hope you don't mind me chipping in but I am really curious to know whether I scored positively or negatively (though the February window may have corresponded to my time out from FAC). I'll use this opportunity to mention that I've become slightly disillusioned with FAC. There are two reasons for this. The first is the constant warring at MoS and the growing realisation that it reflects the views of way too small a group of editors. (I started to lose faith in MoS during the hard space fiasco, which has probably damaged its credibility in the eyes of many editors.) The second trigger was Tel Aviv, on which I spent a great deal of time. I peer-reviewed it, and then commented twice at FAC. It was amazingly disheartening to get no positive feedback at all on this, just to be repeatedly told that my concerns had been addressed (they hadn't been). With so much other stuff happening (RfA, Milhist elections, two featured article candidacies, many peer review requests, real-life building work at home), I just thought "I don't need this" and walked away. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Roger. Once I got the spreadsheet sorted, I only calculated an average for reviewers who had more than five reviews; unless I missed one, your only review in February was Tel Aviv, where Tony1, Maralia and you all expressed ce concerns, so I didn't need to do the math. Since the article wasn't promoted, that would give you a net positive. The numbers didn't reveal anything I didn't already know (several reviewers Support often and indiscriminately and then other reviewers have to roll up their sleeves and spend a lot of time assuring the issues are fixed -- a few solid reviewers are making sure we put our best foot forward). The MoS wars aren't really part of FAC, but they certainly are disappointing since we have to know how to interpret an ever-changing target, and some of the disruption over there appears intentional. I also ignored the hard space fiasco, until I realized we had editors actually having to take the time to add nbsps on citations, which really troubled me (grand waste of time), so I stood up on that one. Tel Aviv wasn't promoted; for example, Tony1, Maralia and you all had ce concerns, so I'm wondering what disappointed you about that outcome? Did you feel that it should have been promoted? I understand your frustration over the lack of appreciation as a reviewer; for featured articles to truly represent Wiki's best work, dedicated reviewers have to put in a lot of time and they get little reward. I was hoping Epbr123 was going to help me put a system in place to recognize our good reviewers, but he retired after a very ugly and personal RfA, leaving even less volunteers for us to count on :-( I'd sure like to have more reviews if you feel you can wade back in, and I appreciate hearing your views. Let me know if you think I can do something differently. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've only just realised that the spreadsheet only covers February, when I hardly FACed at all. I was under the impression it covered a three-month rolling period which had started with Epbr123. I was much more active in the previous quarter, (about forty reviews) and was interested in the analysis :)
  • Now that I've got a methodology set up, I could try to do it regularly, but I can't promise anything. I'll be busy for a lot of March, and unless someone replaces Epbr123 or s/he comes back, it doesn't look good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it was right not to promote Tel Aviv. My feeling was that the whole business was abuse of process. Perfunctory peer-review (less than twenty-four hours) with issues raised left unaddressed; then straight to FAC. At FAC, responses were swatted "done" with a perfunctory fix rather than addressing them comprehensively. Straight back to FAC after the first refusal, and then more swatting responses. (As far as I can tell, the only token of appreciation - uncharacteristic genteelism there - given to anyone for Tel Aviv was a barnstar I gave Finetooth for their heroic first effort at copy-editing.) I don't know what the answer to this but it irritated me immensely that reviewers - and the many editors who helped improve the article - were treated so indifferently. There's a strong argument for a mandatory time-out between FACs to address issues, though there's no guarantee, of course, that editors will actually address them during that time. So I don't know how you resolve this. Perhaps the answer is a Quick Fail mechanism that previous reviewers can use.
  • Abuse of process (FAC is not PR or GA) is an ongoing concern, a serious concern, and one that consumes too much reviewer time. Swatting "done", though, may make the nominator feel good, but doesn't/shouldn't affect the outcome, so don't let that concern you. I'd like a mandatory timeout for several editors that keep bringing unprepared articles back to FAC, abusing of reviewer time and clogging the process, but the community needs to enforce that, not me. I don't agree with global rules, because there are editors who can turn an article around quickly (consider a recent FAC of Woody's); we need editor/reviewer input on the individual instances where this is happening, so I can close those FACs quickly. There are several up now; I shouldn't be the one to tangle with editors who persist in using FAC as peer review. The community should bring this up on the individual FACs. I don't agree with "quick fail" because I've seen conscientous editors work hard to overcome what would be a quick fail, but I do agree we need to be able to remove articles that come back immediately without having addressed issues, without a peer review, without seeking other methods of review. The only way to solve all of these issues is for reviewers to be more involved and lodge concerns; if enough reviewers say, "this FAC came back too soon, it shouldn't be here yet", then I can remove it, but I need community consensus, feedback and input for those decisions. I shouldn't be a one-person judge and jury, even when I can see what's happening, and right now I can see three or four editors abusing of and backlogging FAC, using it as peer review and supporting articles at FAC that don't even meet GA standards, causing extra work for other reviewers. A light should be shone on this so that the hard working reviewers aren't burned out.
  • On another note, one way to help avoid FAC becoming PR is for reviewers to not get sucked in to rewriting a deficient article for the nominator. Identify first if there are fundamental deficiencies like failure to use reliable sources before doing more extensive and time-consuming work on the article. If the nominator responds quickly and is positive, then it makes sense to invest more time in helping correct other issues. I see many reviewers investing days into fixing prose issues, without having looked at whether the text is even sourced to reliable sources. It's sad to see reviewer time wasted when no one raises the issue that an article doesn't meet policy, WP:V. I always reviewed first for that, before investing time in the prose, although I also mentioned if there were prose issues as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • My MoS concerns are that it is growing increasingly remote from reality and placing absurd burdens on volunteer editors. (Be aware that our MoS is more demanding than those of publishers I write for professionally.) From a personal point of view, I spent at least ten hours of tedious editing adding hard spaces to citations for two FACs of my own plus another couple I'd copy-edited, plus input on another half-dozen I'd peer-reviewed. For instance Emily Dickinson has 160 citations. To put this into perspective, I spent more time on hard spaces in January than I did putting together last week the new logistics dept for Milhist. As you say, a grand waste of time. (Incidentally, the logistics dept will interest you: one aim is the delivery of higher quality articles at FAC. Coincidentally, A-Class reviews at Milhist are getting more probing, with far fewer nod-throughs, so that should ease things at FAC a bit.)
  • When I was reviewing, I *always* checked the MilHist A-Class review, as it was the only pre-FAC indicator of quality. There were some being pushed through during a certain phase, and the quality dropped, so I stopped watching them. I'm glad they're coming back. The hard spaces on citations issue was *absurd*; that's why I jumped in hard to add my voice to putting a stop to that. I missed when it crept into MoS because I was otherwise entertained with ArbCom, but it's an example of why we unfortunately have to pay attention to what is going on over there. There is a lot of good in MoS that needs to be enforced for quality articles; hard spaces should only be a matter of common sense. The first time I read the article, 7 World Trade Center, there were dangling 7s all over the text, so I asked for nbsps on them, but only because I saw a problem in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. Sorry about the rant :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The rant is needed; I'm concerned that good reviewers are abused of and will burn out. I'm concerned about the abuse of process, FAC is not PR. I'm concerned about who will fill Epbr123's shoes. More feedback from the community on the FACs that are coming back too soon without correcting deficiencies, clogging FAC, wearing down reviewers is needed. We have one up now that I already closed once with serious deficiencies, it came back two days later, I've had to restart it, it still has serious deficiencies, but there it is still, six weeks later, because reviewers don't speak up and don't oppose. Lest you be discouraged that FAC is broken, please be assured that the work I put into the spreadsheet revealed what I already knew; this is not a systemic FAC problem looking for a radical or global solution. It's only a few editors, and the community should enforce that so I don't have to get into tangles; I'm supposed to be neutral. I can make unilateral decisions at FAC only to a certain extent; I prefer closing FACs with community consensus solidly behind me, so that I don't have to make exceptions too often, so if reviewers aren't speaking up about the abusive sitatuions, my hands are somewhat tied. Sorry for the rambling answer; I've gotten a late start this morning and haven't had my coffee yet. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I will try and be more active this month. Last month was extremely busy for me and I didn't really have any free time in February. On a sidenote, have you been following the turf war at WP:MOS and WP:MOSNUM. It is indicative of the serious malaise over there at the moment. Woody (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been following minute-by-minute, but yes, I'm aware of what's happening. I think the issues at MoS are only going to be resolved by someone finally putting up an RfCU and getting the disruption off of the MoS pages and elsewhere (it also feeds over into FAR and FAC). I've not seen yet any indications that the new WikiProject is equipped to get its arms around the problems or do anything more than create more beaurocracy. Several FACs have become unintelligible because of the same, and I may restart them. As far as I can tell, it's a personality problem that needs to be addressed globally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Roger, that was a seriously irritating FAC for me too. I raised major issues with prose, verifiability of rather outrageous claims, reference formatting, and reliability of sourcing from the very beginning. The nom responded with prose fixes but repeatedly failed to 'get it' where RS and the outrageous claims were concerned. I spent an enormous amount of my time on everything from research (anyone care to know the top 5 cities believed to be the oldest port in the world?) to copyediting and finding references, and continued working on it after the 2nd fail, too. If I had noticed that the nom had other prior nominations, and had the foresight to look at those and the resulting FAs, it would not have taken me a week to realize that I was being taken for a ride. I'm certainly more cautious of process abuse now; if I wanted to write a damn article, I'd be writing one, not reviewing.
Sandy: I know you're concerned about filling Epbr's shoes. I've seen you reassign a few processes that he used to handle; are there others pending? Maralia (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll be back after I get through my morning watchlist and coffee; I could spend some time on this answer :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent response to Maralia) Thanks for asking and commenting, Maralia, Elcobbola, Roger Davies and Woody. Prepare for a disk dump :-) There are some things I was reluctant to say when I was "newer" in this role, as I recognized I needed to observe for a while and try to understand why Raul did or didn't do certain things in certain ways. Now that several of you are asking, and I've been doing this for a few months, I feel more comfortable responding. Raul and I don't correspond off-Wiki on FAC business, and I think that's a wise approach. I needed to find my own way, and what I say here is based on my own impressions.

The "job" of the FAC closer is to judge consensus vis-a-vis WP:WIAFA, and occasionally make difficult calls when consensus isn't clear or isn't founded in WP:WIAFA. Yes, I sometimes have to make the difficult calls (I closed Britney Spears against "votes" this morning because I believe the preponderance of non-reliable sources not only probably violate BLP but can't be overcome during a FAC), and I'm prepared to do that, but I shouldn't be a one-person clerk, administrator, judge and jury. The FAC closer needs to maintain neutrality, not be judge and jury at the same time, hence has to depend on the community to provide sufficient input for consensual decisions. If the community isn't providing sufficient input into every aspect of the process, 1) FAC gets backlogged and 2) the closer becomes a one-person judge and jury. There were *many* routine aspects of FAC that I always did as a reviewer; tasks that (I like to think) helped make Raul's job as judge of consensus easier (maybe he disagrees :-) Who is doing those tasks for me, so that I don't have to enter into conflict with FA writers, reviewers and nominators, and so that I can remain neutral as often as possible?

Who is calling it when a nominator brings an article back to FAC after a recent close, without addressing issues? Who is noticing that four editors with multiple nominations and significant unaddressed issues are taking the bulk of FAC resources and reviewer time right now? Who is noticing and flagging the multiple back-to-back nominations so they can be withdrawn? Who is checking articlestats to highlight fan and contributor support relative to independent reviews? Who is noticing when a driveby nom puts up an article that is hugely someone else's work (according to articlestats) and checking to see if the principle editor believes the article is ready? Who is addressing the nominators that are attacking reviewers (this really angers me, but I can't be the one dropping notes about personal attacks to FA nominators)? Who is running through the FACs that look ready for promotion to make sure the trivial MoS issues are addressed at the end (Epbr123 was doing that, now I'm having to flag them myself) and that sources are reliable (I am having to do this myself, when I really shouldn't be the one flagging this)? Who is pinging a reviewer and asking them why they supported an article which clearly relies on a preponderance of non-reliable sources? Who is noticing invalid opposes entered by new reviewers, flagging those on the FAC, and working with the new reviewer to try to prevent that? ALL of these (and many more, including those I already dumped on Elcobbola) are "tasks" that I routinely did as a reviewer, and that (I like to think, perhaps deluded) allowed Raul to avoid entering into discussion or conflict with nominators and reviewers, and only be the judge of consensus. I shouldn't be in a position of doing all of this, as I should be neutral. I should rarely have to comment on a review; someone else should do the tasks I used to do, so my neutrality isn't questioned. Others need to begin doing the tasks I routinely did when I was reviewing.

There are numerous troubled FACs up right now, that haven't received solid review and a close look, and while a handful of FACs and editors are taking the bulk of reviewer resources, I have had to close FACs on very decent articles because no one has even looked at them. This isn't right. The FA community has to fill in the gaps so that I am mostly a neutral closer. Otherwise, I become a one-person judge and jury, and FAC remains backlogged as three or four editors run through articles based on non-reliable source and take up the bulk of our reviewer time, while excellent work goes by the wayside. I wasn't delegated to be a one-person judge, jury, clerk and adminstrator; I was delegated to be a judge of consensus. March stats are likely going to show a high percentage of FAC fails, because articles that should have been withdrawn a month ago, or should not have reappeared at FAC right after a fail, have accumulated and may end up failing after taking more reviewer time than is fair to the rest of the FA nominator and reviewer community. I believe this has happened partly because someone needs to routinely do the tasks I used to do. Sorry for the long answer, Maralia; I should learn to keep my mouth shut more often, as Raul does :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I am butting in here, and feel free to slap me down if I'm out of place, but what would you like someone like me, who is still feeling her way into FAC reviewing, to do. I would be glad to help, but I don't think I've established enough "cred" with folks to go around saying "You're taking up too much time" or something like that. I would be glad to be pickier on sources (your note on the WikiProject page struck home, and I'm sure the folks who get reviewed by me over at GAN after this will know their sources have been hit hard) and will try to look harder at pictures for reviews, but dang, I don't think I can step up all the way to Karanacs level of reviewing. (I have hopes of actually getting an article I worked on TO FAC someday). For me, I function best with a clear set of instructions and goals, and would be happy to help if I knew what I could do best. And I can SEE how much you do Sandy, and perhaps I should find some chocolates for you or something? You do deserve more praise for what you do, so consider yourself praised, and I'd be glad to pick up some tasks. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The more the merrier :-) Thanks for popping in, Ealdgyth. I'm not sure I want to be passing out duties, as much I just want to highlight that others should be encouraged to fill in the gaps, and let's not let Karanacs burn out on us ... she's doing a lot :-) This discussion has probably highlighted to anyone following the kinds of daily things that can be done at FAC, and I know you'll find a niche where you feel most comfortable ... reviewing reliability of sources is always key :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I pounded on a few of the newer ones for photos and sources, let me know if you think what I did was helpful to you and the nominators or not. I'd rather know if it isn't helpful so that I can get it to a form that IS helpful, than do tons and discover it's useless verbiage. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent to Ealdgyth) Will do, since I used to check sources, and it's very needed. First, when you refer to ref no. so-and-so, that could be invalid by the time the next person accesses the article, since ref order can change. Second, it's best to show exactly why you question the source. That is, when clicking on a dubious source, I search around for a Contact Us, About Us, or some other page that tells me something about the site, which shows why I mistrust the source. When you're not sure if a source is reliable, it's best to ignore the ref number (since it may change) and pop up instead the URL to the page on the site which demonstrates its dubious reliability. Does that help? I'll give you more if needed; the idea is to show exactly why a site doesn't meet the authorship, fact-checking, etc. requirments of WP:V, or that it is a self-published personal page, for example. See some of my samples on other FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions[edit]

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC edits[edit]

I noticed a comment about first edits at FAC. I am inferring that you feel it is highly probably that this is a sock or a secondary user ID. I probably would not deny such an objection. Isn't there a way to do some sock check on that though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI[edit]

I re-wrote every section of the article, so take a look and see if its prose has improved enough. Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opeth[edit]

I'm sure you have been following this FAC, but could you please state your opinion on whether or not the bio source is okay? Thank you, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know, or know somebody who knows. That is what indopug is opposing for and I think such an extensive bio is usable. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind restarting the nom? Theres alot of stuff that would scare a reviewer off. Thanks, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 18:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Multiple noms[edit]

I've notified all opposes that I believe I have addressed their concerns: [13][14][15][16][17] --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Defense of the Ancients[edit]

Thanks for the suggestion; I've gone and copyedited the article again. Hopefully this helps end the FAC that little bit quicker. Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


This is my new username. I got it after getting bored with the old one; is it necessary to disclose the old one? Its not like I've used it afterwards or anything. indopug (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DotA FAC[edit]

What are your thoughts on the reliability of GotFrag sources? The authors are, for example, “Robby” (born 1990) and Kevin Tok (born 1987) . I’m truly not ageist, but I have to question one’s ability to accumulate true expertise in such a short life. That notwithstanding, how could a determination of whether they’re experts be made when, in the case of the former, we aren’t even given a last name? In context, these folks really seem to be nothing more than avid game players. Do you share concerns, or, if your need to maintain neutrality prevents such comment, do you think there would be validity to flushing them out? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Ageism" aside, reliability of sources is laid out at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:SPS. Anyone can put up a website; age isn't even a factor. It's up to the nominator to demonstrate if they are experts published in the field, by reliable secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Good point. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
So, enter that on the FAC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Patience, my dear Sandy. ;) I have concerns about a lot of the articles up at FAC now and I'll have to disappear to hockey again tonight. So much typing, so little time. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
That's good news; methinks reviewers are starting to realize that the FAC community needs to get on top of things, so I can settle in to the role of mostly only judging consensus, as intended :-) It has probably taken a while for people to realize that I needed others to do the jobs for me that I used to do for Raul, so that he didn't have to enter into conflict with FA writers. Don't lose any teeth tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I hope it lasts. I'm concerned it may just be a degree of heightened awareness after the ESRB nonsense. (Spectators' teeth are usually pretty safe; I haven’t played in a decade. If I wouldn’t feel guilty about taking up Wiki server space, I’d upload a picture of my mask; you’d get a kick out of it after that “teeth” remark). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's only heightened awareness, although I think that's part of it. It's also some of the transition from Raul doing most of the closings to me, and the fact that I've got to back out of the things I used to do so others will begin to take them on; figuring this out has been tricky for me, and it helps that others realize more needs to be done. I guess it's the noses and the concussions that matter more than the teeth; my son got a concussion even with his helmet on once :-) I kind of miss the rink sometimes, but then I come to back to my senses :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

McCain taggings need review[edit]

Sandy, a few days ago you tagged both John McCain#Formative years and education and Early life and military career of John McCain#Naval Academy as unbalanced. A long discussion in Talk:John McCain#Imbalance and cherry picking ensued; the short version is that I fear you completely misinterpreted what the material was trying to convey. Since then, the main article section has been changed by Ferrylodge and the Early life subarticle section has been completely reworked and expanded by me. Both of these need your review to see whether your concerns have been addressed. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I boldly removed the tag from John McCain#Formative years and education after re-wording, but the tag remains at Early life and military career of John McCain.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time to get over there today (and I haven't been back since the day after the FAC closed); whatever you two decide is fine with me. I think you both can be trusted :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Kannada literature[edit]

Hi Sandy. Shall I move the entire discussion starting from the "oppose" by MOJSKA 666 including your comment into the talk page? Or shall I leave your comment there? Thanks. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dinesh, I didn't move it myself as I wanted to hear from you; do you want me to do the move? After several days of conversation with Mojska, I can't decipher his rationale, and the entire thing is invalid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Please go ahead with the move.thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Multiple noms[edit]

Well, Final Fantasy XI has all its issues (so far) fixed, and I think Deck is going to copyedit Final Fantasy V's plot, though I think it looks fine and was about to tell the reviewer that. So I thought I was in the clear, but I'll wait :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither of the previous noms are resolved, and both of them require input from Deckiller. As soon as they are resolved, you can submit another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Judge, we can do a swap: I can proofread XI and V, and you can maybe work on getting Chocobo World merged into VIII to preserve the FT. — Deckiller 05:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict[edit]

Sorry about the edit conflict at Dirty Dancing. Please feel free to wipe out my changes, and do what you think needs doing. I was surprised to see the FA nom close so quickly? The last one I did lasted a month.  :/ --Elonka 02:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The last one might not have garnered four opposes; what was it? Sorry about the edit conflict, the kind of ref and MoS cleanup I do is tedious, so I don't really want to do it again. I had a spare moment, so thought I'd give a sample, but the moment is gone. Anyway, there ref cleanup, missing information, no accessdates, wrong dab of Time magazine, MoS issues like WP:NBSP, and textual redundancy to be attended to: I had tried to provide a small sample, but lost it to the edit conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll dig in and try to reconstruct. And yes, the most recent nom had four opposes, but my impression was that they were mostly minor formatting things that were in the process of being addressed. I was in the process of notating a recent fix, when I ran into an edit conflict myself as the nom suddenly closed, even though it was only a few days old? I guess my impression was that an FA nom would stay open for at least a week, and/or as long as there was productive discussion, and then would close either when it "went quiet" or it was obvious that an article had no chance in hell. What do you recommend I do at this point? Clean up the formatting, and re-submit? Or would you be willing to reactivate the nom so I can keep working with the reviewers? --Elonka 03:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked at it, and reconstructing the samples would be hard; that's why I just reverted my changes, since the goal is to give samples of the amount of work needed throughout. Yes, I found your old nom (during the Leranedo phase), and see that it didn't garner opposes, but just took a long time to garner support. Four opposes is a lot to come back from, and besides the ce issues mentioned, there is also cleanup needed on refs and MoS issues. You might ask the WikiProject Film people to help out before re-submitting in a week or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it already went through a WikiProject Film Peer Review,[18] and I'd addressed everything they came up with. It's also already at GA, so I'm surprised at all the Opposes. Getting to FA seems to be getting harder and harder! Thanks though, I'll work on cleanup, and try again in a week. I'd like to see if we can get the article to FA, before Patrick Swayze dies.  :/ --Elonka 03:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
GA means (less than) nothing at FA (it's not a community process and the standards are highly variable, from excellent to damaging), and the peer review is old. The idea of the sample I had done was to show how much basic cleanup it still needed, so I'm sorry I lost it all. Gak, some day I will learn to put an inuse template before I start ref and MoS cleanup, because it is such tedious work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Also, you only got peer review feedback from one editor; for an effective peer review, it helps to recruit the good FA writers from that area, and ask them to participate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Which of the "Film FA-ers" do you most recommend? --Elonka 03:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know their names off the top of my head, but since you're in an (understandable) hurry, I would just post to the WikiProject Film talk page. I remember someone named Erik (?) who worked on the Fight Club film. And, I'd also be very nice to Tony :-) My mother liked Swayze a lot, so I hope you make it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the great link.  :) I'm going to go off and work and other things right now (I'm in the middle of a big ArbCom case, and the FA process was actually meant to be my "distraction" from ArbCom proceedings), but will probably submit it for PR on Sunday evening. Thanks for the tips, --Elonka 04:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources, FAC and you![edit]

(figured I'd quit hijacking the above thread) Okies, so gotcha on the footnote number. On the other, just go for the juggular then? (grins) I was trying to be nice. Guess it really doesn't pay much though. Part of the problem is that I don't use websites hardly at all in my article writing. I stick to published books, which are much easier to evaluate, so I'm still feeling my way around the WP:V rules on websites. Is it better to question or just say "not reliable"? On the Bone Sharps article, I was more unsure whether or not they might be reliable. The Charming Man one, the personal sites won't be reliable, how about the book blurb on the Kannada literature one? I'm unsure on using a book blurb on a sales site to cite something. Also, with JSTOR, would linking to the first page of the article be reliable? Same with a journal abstract? Gah, maybe it'd be better if I didn't try to help...Ealdgyth | Talk 04:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad you're willing to take this on; it seems few people really understand this territory. I wouldn't say "go for the jugular", because often the nominator can explain why a particular site or author is reliable even if they don't appear to be (that is, the author is a recognized, published expert in the field). For example, look at the FA I nominated, Tourette syndrome, and you'll see I have a blog in External links. Roger Freeman MD is a highly esteemed and published TS researcher, and I've added some verbiage there to explain why I include his blog. So, keep in mind that you don't want to embarrass yourself with a nominator who knows the topic, and may be able to explain why a source is from a recognized expert. It's the dubious websites that were looking for, particularly on BLPs and for hard data. In some cases, it's absolutely obvious that a self-published, dubious personal website is being used, but I click around, and if I can't satisfy myself that the site meets WP:V, first I question, then if I don't get a satisfactory response, I switch to Oppose. If you do this enough, you'll gain confidence at your ability to evaluate a source, but leave the door open to having a nominator inform you why the source is reliable. Watch for personal websites (geocities,, things like that),, commercial sites that are obviously selling products, etc. You can learn a lot by digging around in Wikipedia:Featured article review/F-4 Phantom II/archive1 (skip down to the bottom where I added a list of questionable sources, and then follow discussion from there). On JSTOR (and PubMed), you're raising a different question: our sources don't have to be available online, so you shouldn't object just because someone links to the abstract. They link to the abstract as a means of showing the reader how to locate the actual source, not because the abstract is supposed to verify the text. It's really the dubious websites that need to be checked out; I hope you'll do it :-) I'll help you learn, if you can deal with my crappy prose and fast, sloppy typing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Okies, I think I'm at least ready to leap unto the breech again tomorrow (tonight I'm tired and cranky and just ready to eat my meager supper and head to bed). I do feel like I have a decent grasp on images, at least. Being a photographer at least makes me have SOME clue about copyright, which is often one up on some folks here. So what do I bribe you with, anyway? Ealdgyth | Talk 04:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're ever unsure on images, you can go bug Elcobbola; I really don't speak Images. Bribe me ? The best thing you can do for my life is pick up the slack in evaluating reliability of sources at FAC; I'll be forever in your debt, and glad to be able to relax ... don't want to see a fiasco I let through end up on the mainpage and get seriously criticized ... I might get fired, and this salary I'm making at this job is paying my mortgage, ya know :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, if you're around today, I'll work up parts 2, 3 and 4 of the reliable sources tutorial :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I should be around. Not sure how much I'm actually going to accomplish, depends on my mother (I live with and take care of her, so when she's having a bad day, my time is short). Go ahead and put it up and we'll see what happens. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Ealdgyth, I just got through my morning watchlist. I hope your mother is having a good day. Reliable sources concerns I found today are at: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bernard Fanning and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soprano Home Movies. I'll add more "tutorial" later. We just can't let that sort of sourcing through FAC, and someone needs to be checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Part 2

Book sources need page numbers, chapters, or some means of locating the text within the book. News sources should include author and publication date when available so they can be located in a library if online links go dead; always click on a few to make sure full info is included (BBC rarely includes an author name, byline). New York Times archives became available recently; often the URLs can be added. All websources need title, publisher and last accesdate; author and publication date when available. Missing publishers are often a tipoff that the source isn't reliable; more than a few times I've noticed editors camouflaging non-reliable sources by not including the publisher in the ref. You can mouse over the sources for a quick glance to make sure citations used match the publishers listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Part 3

Know sources, but know editors as well (for example, it would occur to few of us to question Awadewit's sources :-). Some editors who have been around FAC for a long time always use reliable sources. Others rarely do. That doesn't mean we shouldn't check items on FAC regulars, but when time is limited, it's good to focus on where you might find issues. As an example, I worked on his first article peer review with M3tal H3ad before he ever brought a music article to FAC, and I've never seen him use a non-reliable source. I trained him well :-) Because you probably have limited time to review, it can be helpful to focus your time and energy on articles that 1) have enough support to pass FAC but haven't been checked yet, or 2) editors who may be new to FAC and not yet knowledgeable about sourcing. When an article has garnered enough Support to pass, I need to know that someone has reviewed content, prose, MoS and sources. If I don't see that, I have to do a spotcheck myself, which puts me in a conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Part 4

Remember that the reliability of the source depends on the text being cited, and whether there are WP:BLP issues. Using a credible, online fanzine (that specifies authors and appears to have some staff allocated to fact checking) to source a statement like:

According to fanzine X, musician Y said in an interview that his favorite song was Z.

is very different than sourcing to fanzine X a statement like:

Famous starlet A has bipolar disorder.

That kind of text in a BLP requires a very high-quality source. What is reliable for one statement might not be reliable for another, so before you question the reliability of a source, check the text that is being sourced. I archived Brittany Spears early because it relied very heavily on less than quality sources; since she has been written about in high quality sources, we shouldn't be sourcing her bio to sleezy sites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okies, have it saved for future reference. Would you rather I start at the oldest or the earliest? I'd kinda planned on catching up on all the ones that are up, then once I'm caught up just doing the sources/photos thing when a new entry appears. Full reviews will be things I want to do, but I can easily fit the sources/photos thing in most days. Ealdgyth | Talk 19:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Elcobbola is covering images pretty well; on the rest, wherever you think most needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Further question... on reference formatting. The England national football team managers just uses footnotes, no separate sources section. However, they are using short references after the first time they give the full bibliographical information for a printed source. Is that an okay method? Or is that something that should be corrected? (I use the separate source section, myself). Just checking in. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

oops, sorry, I missed that question. Since this is one of those layout issues that seems to go in and out of fashion depending on who's winning the MoS battles of the day, as long as it makes sense and I can figure out what the sources are, I don't sweat it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. Ealdgyth | Talk 01:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
There, everyone (but Waterboarding which looks to be going to a snowball oppose) is looked through. Shouldn't be near the time constraint from now on. Please whack me with trouts if I did something wrong. Now I'm off to look at Dirty Dancing for Elonka. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It's great that you're doing this, Ealdgyth; you'll probably get whacked along the way by someone, but you'll emerge a sourcing expert. By the way on medical articles (like Rotavirus), cite templates are returned by Diberri's cite tool, and it uses abbreviations, so don't sweat those. I hope your mother is well, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not that worried about it. Now that it's caught up, it shouldn't be that big an issue to keep on top of it. Even the huge pile only took today, honestly. It's not any worse than GA reviews (where I get snide comments about en.Wikipedia's fetish for footnotes). Heh. I figured I learned about comics sources today, and some album sources. Next up.. Pokemon! However, I gotta admit, I will get to work a bit harder on MY lovely medieval bishops articles, something has to balance out all the TV and album articles...
Oh, and thanks SO much for the help. Hopefully it'll be worth it as I can take some of the load off you. Is there somewhere I should watchlist (besides WP:FAC) to see when new nominations go up? Ealdgyth | Talk 01:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Perverted comment above[edit]

Did I offend you with my comment above? — Deckiller 05:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course not; why did you ask? Did I goof? I'm sorry ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I dunno; talking about one's sex life on a Wikipedia talkpage might seem immature. Sorry about that :) — Deckiller 05:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
All is fair game when The Fat Man's on board :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC) But if you're troubled, you can delete it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you're particularly fond of the Fat Man; is he a sock? :-P — Deckiller 05:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Not that I know of ... I met him when I was dealing with a very difficult new user, and he thought she was a sock, but I decided to mentor her. Is he a sock? If so, I bet he's a thin one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Hehe... I had to ask :) — Deckiller 05:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Why do I feel like I'm always the last to know something? Because I usually am? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I dunno. All I know is that one of my life goals is to eventually rise to Tony's standard of wordnerdiness. I still got a ways to go... — Deckiller 05:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I've actually been blocked twice for sockpuppetry. So I guess that means I am a sockpuppet. Or a meatpuppet. Or perhaps I'm merely one of these. What I'd really like to be is this guy, but right now I'm thoroughly occupied leaving wisecracks on more productive editors' talk pages. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Or merely so portly that you need several accounts to contain you? Like having to buy two seats on an aeroplane? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You can do everything on my talk page ... except ... don't ever call The Fat Man "fat". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Sandy, how are you doing? It's after a long hiatus I am back to wikipedia. It feels good :) Nominated a film article Mr. and Mrs. Iyer for FAC, probably a bit prematurely (without peer review). However, the FAC is generating great responses, and with some help in copyedit, it might be successful!

I see you are graduating soon. Congrats :) I attended a NYC meetup in November where I met several wikipedians, including Raul. It is always nice to meet fellow wikipedians. Hope one day we'll meet in real world :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church 1[edit]

Hi Sandy, I saw your comments in the edit history and throughout the page. I want you to know I researched the Wikipedia policies you guided me to and then spent several hours addressing these comments. I hope it meets your satisfaction. Let me know. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nancy; I'm not sure I'll have time to recheck today, but each time I've peeked over there to see if progress is being made, I've found copyedit needs, MoS cleanup needs, and ref cleanup needs, so I left edit summaries intended to help get things moving in those directions. There's a lot of unhelpful combativeness on the FAC, making it hard to tell if basic issues raised by reviewers are being addressed. I'll review again tomorrow; are you happy with the 66KB of readable prose and size of the History section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the history section is as concise as it can be without eliminating major points in history. If it were longer it would be too long and if it were shorter it would have to eliminate important events that are wikilinked so the reader can go elsewhere to learn more. Sorry about the combativeness on the FA page - long hours at night sitting in front of a computer doing Wikipedia does not do wonders for my personality the next day :) Thank you for your directions on the edit history page, I am following your lead and learning from you. I am sorry for all the little errors but I did not know some of the policies until you or other editors pointed them out, thanks for being patient with my inexperience on that issue. Just to let you know, I have pored over the comments on the FA page several times. I have placed my response to the comment after each one unless another editor took care of it. I have just this morning addressed the comments by some oppose people who were concerned about mentions of papal infallibility and church organization. These were buried in the beliefs section and I just broke them out and placed them in the areas where they should have been originally - I think the page much better and its easier to understand those two issues now. I will be going through again today looking for copyedit errors so it will hopefully meet to your satisfaction when you return to the page. I just need you to let me know what TOC stands for in your edit comments. Thanks again. NancyHeise (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
TOC = Table of Contents; there are suddenly lots of glitches. See WP:MSH; be careful with capitalization, use of "the" and "a". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I am finished with a major copyedit after reading the Wikipedia policies on punctuation and style. You were right, there were numerous errors that have now been corrected. I think the page is ready for you whenever you are. Thanks for your patience. NancyHeise (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all your new comments except for endashes which I am not sure what you want me to do there. Can you be more specific as to what you want? I could not see your edit because the page had changed. I am getting the book page numbers or replacing them to satisfy your comment on the books with no pages. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I am back to finish those book pages. I saw your edits and am wondering what you mean by "mixing templates"? I am willing to work to change whatever is wrong, I just dont know what you mean. Could you please let me know so I can address that too? Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I got them all; you can't mix {{citation}} with WP:CITET. It's explained at Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_templates. The article is currently at 66KB of readable prose, which would place it among the ten longest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I still didn't understand what I should do to change it even after reading WP:CITET. You say you got them all? You mean you changed whatever needed changing already and I don't have to do it? Also, regarding the length, yes it is very long. I don't know what to do about shortening it, there really isnt a lot of fluff and its pretty concise on all subjects included. I think that considering the topic, maybe it is OK for it to be long and people would expect it to be so. Please let me know if I have not met any of your comment with success, I would hate to come this far and lose the FA because I neglected to do something you needed doing. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did them myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I answered you on the talk page of RCC, just putting it here so you see it: I'm sorry Sandy, I think I need some expert help to fix those, I just dont know what is wrong with the WP:MOS#Ellipses or the spaces, I have gone through fixing the specific ones you suggested (between book title and date) . Maybe I'm not qualified to fix these if I cant see them, I would appreciate some help in this area if any other editors want to chip in here. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought Karanacs had already covered it on the FAC: per WP:MOS#Ellipses, you need spaces around the three dots. Please read the MOS page, as it spells out the exceptions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, Karanacs just made the edits needed to take care of the Ellipses comment. I thanked her on her talk page. I just saw your comment asking if the self published sources had been eliminated. Yes, and I put a comment stating that I addressed all of Karanacs comments regarding sources at the bottom of the comment on the FA talk page a little further down from your comment. I did exactly what she suggested to be done. NancyHeise (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Haven't started it yet; will start it soon. — Deckiller 21:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm wondering where we'd be without you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's true[edit]

You can teach an old dog new tricks! Maralia (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful; I completely missed that one. (There's some code about a noinclude that is needed on the external links ... I don't understand it, but you can get it from other FACs.) Thanks, Maralia; the help is appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, okay. All noinclude does is prevent the enclosed text (the link) from appearing when the individual pages are transcluded at WP:FAC; not sure why that's preferable, but I'll stick with it. Maralia (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, see the note I added to the FAC, for future ref. Thanks again :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


FYI, I posted a note to this user here because.. I'm not sure what else to do. --Laser brain (talk) 06:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Every little bit helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks very much Sandy for the 2 FAC passes. I'll do my best to resolve any issues you still had left on the FAC pages, and I'll try to do some more reviews in the future. :) Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 06:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Sandy, thanks for your transient comment. No need to reply to this, but I am extremely disappointed with Wiki Meds' lack of input, (apart from Colin and FC of course). I have sat before this PC all day expecting a busy time — but to no avail. Now I fully understand your frustration with the meds. It's my bedtime but I hope to see some feedback from them in the morning. My best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A very long source of frustration and disappointment; we know who the "good guys" are, though. I know how you feel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Franklin Duran: shameless promotion[edit]

Sandy, do you know what can be done about this article? This is completely rubbish and self-promotion. "Franklin Duran" This is one of the guys in prison due to the "maletinazo" --Periergeia (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What article? Give me a link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Found the article; oh my. Will look as soom as I get a free moment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What a piece of work. I did a bit, but that's all I have time for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks very much, Sandy. I will put later some new article on crime in the last blog...some shocking graphics about murder rates in Venezuela month by month. Unfortunately, not something for Wikipedia (there would be a constant war of editions). --Periergeia (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately 1) we can't use blogs on Wiki and 2) the full story will never be told in Chávez-related articles on Wiki. Here are two recent analyses:
I don't think most of our readers understand the devastation and loss of life. And then there's the uranium/plutonium. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama, again[edit]

Thought I'd better alert you to this. Your skillful guidance in helping the article's editors locate a light at the end of this tunnel will be most appreciated. --HailFire (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

oh boy, not again; it's been one of those days. I'll wade over that way as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a long tunnel, but your comment strings lights through the length of it. Thank you. --HailFire (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


Oh, wow, that's a big job. The first thing to do would be to upgrade the article to refer to the 2007 estimates. I suppose that's more important than fixing Chiropractic's POV, huh? I'll take a look at it but can't promise quick results. Eubulides (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


You and me both! I owe you my eternal gratitude. My fingers agree. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the moon misaligned today? Amanda Baggs, Franklin Duran, Barack Obama, Rotavirus ignored by WP:MED, and AIDS. ACK !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I won't touch the Obama article with a 10 foot pole. I watch Bill Clinton, and that's bad enough. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Yea, if I had to watch Bill Clinton, I'd be sad too. Obama has traditionally been a clean article. By the way, I figured out the link (I'm not always as dumb as I look). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

re: Lawson[edit]

Thanks for the heads up, but I have been eagerly watching that one. I'm curious to see how "legacy" FA's are handled. I'll be making my own foray into FAC soon - we'll see how it goes. --Laser brain (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Elias Ashmole[edit]

DrK seems to have zipped through another one here. Any problems you can see? Guqin and Athanasius Kircher at the bottom also need some votes.

I'm still not sure I can do Lawson :(. I was hoping the paper and the article would be close in their descriptions, but they aren't. Marskell (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I will look at all three as soon as I get through my morning watchlist, late start today. Perhaps Jooperscoopers would help on Lawson? Or ask Tony to dig up some local sources ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


No problem - I completely understand not wanting to or having the energy to deal with this sort of thing. It just happens that I'm temping somewhere that's not too terribly busy, so I have the time. I was hoping to check out the Donna Williams page, since it was mentioned at the Amanda Baggs page, although I am less familiar with that situation.

Hopefully this particular person can manage to edit without defaming people right and left, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Natalie (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


See my comments at the Tyrone Wheatley FAC. As someone who has edited lots of sports articles, I think pro-football-reference and similar sites are as reliable as anything you're going to find for statistical information. Zagalejo^^^ 21:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XI[edit]

Don't mean to bother you, but I believe I have addressed all of your concerns with Final Fantasy XI. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It has feedback pending from Deckiller and Hydrokinetics12. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

et al.[edit]

I've seen a couple of edit summaries where you're not very enthused about citations that use et al. WP:MEDMOS seems (and it's not really clear) to state that it's all right after 6 or so authors. Can you summarize your opinion? I've noticed it a lot, and my person anal retentive opinion is that it looks sloppy to use et al. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer standardizing to Diberri, which I think is first three if there's more than six. Long lists of authors make a mess at the bottom of article, as they often wrap to a third line. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
(If I may but in). Diberri is following the AMA guidelines and is Diberri's choice rather than PubMed's (which lists all authors, since it is a database not print) or Wikipedia's. MEDMOS mentions two common medical schemes but mandates neither. My impression is that Wikipedia is reluctant to mandate editors follow any in-house or third-party citation guideline. Consistency within the article is important. If you want MEDMOS to be clearer here, then I suggest we take this over to that talk page. Colin°Talk 19:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
After the last discussion there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we mandate citations? I see some really sloppy articles. And it's almost a full-time job watching over the citations (let alone vandalism) to medical articles. See AIDS, where there was some continental drift on the article's quality over the past few months. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't mandate a specific style; WP:V controls citations in general. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Quickie question[edit]

I'm getting differing stories on the IMDb, which is it? Never reliable or reliable for things like awards? I lean unreliable myself, but I figure to ask the expert. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Only reliable for the basics like cast list, etc.; not for bios or anything else. I think it was covered at the reliable sources noticeboard recently. Only the basic data like release date, cast, etc, nothing more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Lots of different conversations, here's one recent example: [19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. So run time is good, cast is good, awards probably okay, reviews/etc ... probably not. Gotcha. Ealdgyth | Talk 00:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, a lot of the info is reader supplied, sort of wiki-style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church 2[edit]

Dear Sandy, the article above has an editor who is capitalizing words like "Eucharist" and "Mass". I made those lower case because I thought Wikipedia policy made you lower case such things. What is your opinion on this issue?NancyHeise (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You can raise this question at WT:MOS or with Tony1 (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Cite and Citation[edit]

Gotcha, check for them, because they don't play well together. (Made a note on my cheatsheet). Continue to learn on the job. Hopefully it's helping you a bit, at least. It hasn't been a big problem on my end, honestly. Heh. I need to update my page, we just bought a QH broodmare, the dam of our half-arabian filly. She'll be home middle of summer, after we get her bred. Pure cutting bloodlines, Peponita, Doc O'Lena, Sugar Bars, King P-234. I'm rather pleased with the deal we got too! Ealdgyth | Talk 03:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care how much you beg, I'm not doing MOS stuff. It makes my head swim .... Ealdgyth | Talk 04:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
ROFL !!! I guess I'm stuck :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

...and a good lunch was had by all....[edit]

Got the message and met Tony's dog Ruby.

PS: I was musing on starting off some articles on legendary Arabians myself (my grandmother used to breed them...I traced ours back to this horse Mesaoud...someone beat me to the legendary Skowronek.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm green with envy !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
About which bit? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
All of it, the lunch, the dog, Tony, the horses ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/England national football team managers[edit]

All done, I believe, my friend. --Dweller (talk) 10:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Perhaps I do more harm than good, but I've offered my two cents on the Bhutto article. Two cents that had been hanging around in my pocket for quite some time! I'll try to get to waterboarding tomorrow.

I'm sorry if I'm a coward. I almost never support or oppose an FAC. I just "comment" and try to make my comments useful. Really, I've asked you to put something in bold (keep or remove) and then I can't even return the favour. I'm a big jerk. Marskell (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Message query[edit]

I got the message, but I looked through the contribs and couldn't see anything to indicate trouble. All looked pretty jolly to me (?) Is there still an issue? Drop me an email and if you could ping my talkpage I may be able to catch it before it gets downloaded at home. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg 1[edit]

Thanks! Corvus cornixtalk 23:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, that's a big help! Corvus cornixtalk 23:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a start, let me know what you think. Corvus cornixtalk 03:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just a start, right? I removed the tag, although there's a bit more citation needed, and I hope you plan to work in some tongue-in-cheeky or hoaxy stuff on the unfortunate name issues, right? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably, but probably not any more tonight. I did see a link somewhere that claimed that the Governor used to travel with his daughter and a friend of hers and introduced them as his daughters Ima and Ura, but I can't find that link anymore, and I don't think it was a reliable source, anyway, though it would be worth mentioning in the urban legend section. Corvus cornixtalk 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack FAC comments[edit]

It will be very difficult for me to work on addressing the comments you made at the FAC about this article, without specifically knowing what needs to be fixed. General comments are nice, but don't really help me focus on where to work to improve the article. For example, I now see the issue with the "p. Page..." thing, and that is something specific and concrete that I can work on, and I will do my best to fix those instances in the article. Could you please rephrase your FAC comments and provide specific examples so I can know where to focus work on the article? Cirt (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I left you sample edits; also, I follow the FACs, you don't have to message me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not want to draw out a thread at the FAC, when I could (potentially) get some direct input. Also, since you appear to have made some helpful edits to the article - could you help with the changes you feel could improve the article as per your FAC comments? That might be the best way to specifically address your concerns. Cirt (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits to the article. FYI, I sent you an email. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

PR stats[edit]

Hi Sandy, based on the number of semi-automated peer reviews I ran each month, in December 2007 there were at least 156 peer review requests, while January 2008 had at least 180 and February had at least 171. I am also trying very hard to make sure no one has a peer review request with no responses. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruhrfisch; would you mind updating the stats monthly at WP:FAS ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I just did so - also tweaked the description at the bottom to say the PR stat uses the higher number from either the PR archive or the semi-automated PR archive (Dec 2007 SAPR is higher, Jan and Feb 2008 PR is higher - not 100% sure why). Will try to remember to do this when I make the new SAPR archive each month. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've revisited[edit]

Hi Sandy, I've revisited all the FACs I had commented on (and I left notes to let you know that). I hope my abrupt departure with no explanation didn't cause FAcs to get held up - I got sent on a business trip at the last minute and just got back. Karanacs (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

My husband had the flu last week, but I've been lucky so far. As for Ima Hogg, I've got online access to one of the books listed in Further Reading, so I'll add the information from it today. My local library has the other book listed there, and I've requested a third book that is at one of the branches. I'll get as much of that in as possible this week. Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey there[edit]

Hi Sandy! Long time — hasn't it been? It's so lovely to see you still writing (and reviewing!) so fruitfully. I don't write very much any more; often, when I quietly drop by, one sad event or another seems to have the place in its clutches... the atmosphere's less than conducive at such times. (I see you've recently had to endure some unpleasantness too, but am very glad it seems to have blown over.:-)) Keep up the awesomeness, Sandy; you're one of the people WP is blessed to have. Very kind regards, as ever —Encephalon 15:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You set the standard, Encephalon, and I wouldn't still be here were it not for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


I think that NancyHeise is confused about the FAC process, but she sees me in a very negative light, so I don't think she would believe or listen to any clarification from me. I've tried to explain that just because people like an article (either from PR, GA, or a support statement at FA) that doesn't mean that the article can't be changed or that there aren't any problems to be fixed, and I think that's fallen on deaf ears. She does have a mentor, and I'll drop the mentor a note asking her to clarify the process. Karanacs (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Ima Hogg[edit]

Jim Hogg's image is fine, but I'm not sure about Ima. I know you don’t speak images, but here’s my dilemma (and I actually just ran into a similar issue with an FAC – but that was an easy fix): I'm not confident that this image has been published before 1923 (PD is allowed for works first published prior to January 1, 1923). Painting a picture and hanging it on a wall doesn't constitute being published; copyright law (title 17, chapter 1, § 101) even says "A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication". Without getting too caught up in the legal definition of "published", I know that the painting is from ca. 1910, but I don't have evidence of it being published before being posted on the website (which was certainly not before 1923). That being said, it would probably be best to use a "copyright uncertain" license (or whatever the verbiage is) and claim fair use (which, in this case, would appear to be entirely valid). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, on second thought, fair use is a whole ‘nother can of worms. If she was president of the Houston Symphony Society by 1917, it seems plausible that she’d have an image published before 1923 (i.e. fee use alternative). Does AGF also mean assume image/copyright savvy? I suppose I’ll raise this at media copyright questions. </over_sandy's_head> By the way, is there a policy/guideline explicitly indicidating that commercial websites are not typically reliable, or is that inherit to the COI of trying to generate income? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The other issue on the painting is, before 1976, you had to explicitly renew copyrights (at least with books) they didn't automatically renew. The rules on paintings probably differ from the rules on photographs/books. Probably worth checking out. This site covers books, but I don't know what would cover paintings, honestly. Ealdgyth | Talk 17:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well, actually that's not at issue here. Copyright law speaks of "works of authorship", which does indeed include "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works". PD, however, has two completely different sets of criteria depending on whether the work has been published or not. The "renewal" issue of works before 1976/7 is only applicable to previously published works published after 1923 (books, for example, are ipso facto "previously published"). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thus demonstrating why I am not a reliable source on image vetting! Thanks for correcting me. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, legislators don’t exactly make it easy on us. That you knew of that criterion puts you leaps and bounds past most folks. The image comments of yours I’ve seen thus far have been spot on, actually. Certainly don’t be dissuaded; it would be nice to have more “image” folks in the fray so I don’t become the “FAC image curmudgeon”. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no backing out now; I've got my hooks into you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I think she's talking about both of us... we'd better run ... FAST! Ealdgyth | Talk 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You can't run fast enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't possibly run in these shoes; I'd need to drive home and change before any running could begin - and it's rush hour. I'm afraid it's capitulation for me. Go without me, Ealdgyth, tell the world my story... ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Problem, I seem to have spent all my "Workout at the health club time" instead on Wikipedia... seems I can't run either... yikes! Ealdgyth | Talk 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Cobbola, why are you wearing stiletto's to work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes a guy justs wants to feel sexy. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That's what he said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Per the site's terms, the current release is only applicable to them. Although you'd need to set up an account to utilize the "message" feature, getting a "Wiki" release (i.e. free use) would probably be as easy as asking the author, zabelle, for permission (full image page is here, the author here). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: a buddy in Texas is picking up a book on Miss Ima today, and we'll use it to tighten up sourcing where we can (I'm really not sold on the intarweb biographical summaries currently used). He also has access to two other print biographies at a university library, if it comes to that, but I'll try to abuse his time as little as possible :) Maralia (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Last night I picked up Ima Hogg: The Governor's Daughter by Virginia Bernhard, and I have another bio on order from the library (should be in this weekend). I'm 1/4 of the way into the Bernhard book and will start adding to the Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Assuming covers haven't changed with editions, etc., you've no doubt noticed the book's cover has the same image of Ima as the article. Does the book happen to have image credits or something similar indicating an initial date of publishing (or indication the image was published before 1923)? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm counting on you, Elcobbola; if this article makes it, we have to have an image in two weeks :-) Karanacs usually takes weekends off, so not sure when she'll respond. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I already checked the Library of Congress - nothing (although, did you know there was a tugboat named Ima Hogg? Hmm...trivia) I'll keep looking. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful :-) I just stubbed out the uncle, and I see that George Washington (inventor) wasn't nommed until 3/27 last year, so I guess we still have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC where article changes name[edit]

Hi Sandy. Per comments at WP:Featured article candidates/Fort Saint Louis I changed the name of the article to French Texas. Should I just go ahead and move the FAC nom to WP:/Featured article candidates/French Texas? I don't want to mess up anything on the FAC side. Karanacs (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take care of it; you can follow my contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church 3[edit]

I do not understand moving my responses to the talk page when they are direct responses to an editors oppose comments. He goes on and on about broad issues to which only a response like the one I gave will suffice. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Try to keep your responses focused on addressing the actionable opposes, per WP:WIAFA criterion; if the FAC again degenerates to personal and defensive commentary, it will again be hard to sort out whether issues have been addressed. FAC is not a "vote" (see Preity Zinta which did not pass with 28 Supports and 8 Opposes); Opposers are trying to help you identify issues that should be addressed for the article to become featured, and editors like Mike Searson (who has been through FAC, mainpage and FAR) understand what can happen to an article if issues aren't addressed before it is promoted and appears on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you remember...[edit]

Do you remember the link to collated page traffic per month? Our most hit articles? Dammit, I can't remember where it is, but I know it exists. (Thus I poke your encyclopedic memory.) Marskell (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember, but likely someone who follows my talk page will pop up with it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is this relatively new one, shows hits per day per article since mid December 07, and also has the top hit pages for 3 weeks in February. Risker (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Risker !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed it has a column that gives exact number of hits that shows up in IE but not Firefox, so if you have both browsers, this is better opened in IE. I wonder if the creator knows that... Risker (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


I think that was a bit early. Look at the number of changes made in the last couple days. That was the reason I was waiting to re-review. Every time I logged in it was at the top of my recent changes. I am changing to support, so it's fine though.-Ravedave (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I might have overstepped a bit....[edit]

With the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aang. I really didn't like how they did the references for the episodes, with the link to the fansite in the title while the reference itself showing the actual episode information. Feel free to slap me down if I handled that wrong... Ealdgyth | Talk 02:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good; prnewswire is a valid press release site. Thanks for all the work, checking sources is really tedious work ... no slapping here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sig changed to a -, how odd. I saw your note, wet noodle duly applied (and I should have known better, I'm just tired. I'm actually pretty nasty about copyright, it comes from writing a few books of my own and being a photographer.) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I just didn't sleep well last night. I'm going to be out of town doing fun stuff next week, so be prepared! Going to groom at a Class-A show for some friends, and go pet the new broodmare and pet the filly, and take horse pics (and earn some money!) and go see good friends. Horse shows always rejuvenate me... it's been since Sept since I went to one, so I'm looking forward to it! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't leave until Tuesday.. but this is one of the big shows I look forward to all year... so tough! I'll try to get online enough to keep up. The sources usually don't take that long, it's the three-hour long discourses with Mike that eat your time... (But boy is it fun!) Hopefully by the time I get back, I'll bring my first FAC up. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello SandyGeorgia. Why cannot I nominate two articles for FA status? Is there a rule? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks you for some really useful suggestions. Here, we have many rules! Once again, thank you. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Question: Can I ask other users to nominate the article for FA status? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If the other person is knowledgeable about the article and is prepared to address objections and respond to queries, yes. If they're only nomming it in name, and you would have to follow both noms, no ... the idea is that you need to be able to respond to the nomination you already have up, and address the issues. I suggest holding off, since the second article is at LOCE anyway, indicating that it's not ready, and your first nom has garnered no support either. Shepharding a nom through FAC can be time consuming and a lot of work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, from a quick glance at the article, I suggest that a peer review would be a more logical next step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. You have edited Wikipedia since 2006 and you know about the policies better than I do. I have edited Wikipedia since October, 2007 and this is the first time I am trying to promote articles to the FA status. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I should focus on one article. That would be more sensible. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha Ha! That's a good essay! It is difficult to promote articles to the FA status. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

FA things[edit]

I suppose you've noticed Wikipedia:Featured article tools. The idea is that if some new tool seems useful, it can be added to the template and show up everywhere. I've tested leaving it when a FAC is archived, but I think it should just be removed.

Provinces of Thailand is on WP:FFA. It's now also on WP:FFL. Gimmetrow 06:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

On featured article tools, whatever you think best. Does that Thailand situation cause us any problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't cause any problems, but perhaps it shouldn't be categorized as repromoted? It's a special case in any event. Gimmetrow 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
ah, I see, will move it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Opeth FAC restart[edit]

Hi Sandy, I'm not sure if you saw the note from BurningClean,(I don't know how you could keep up with so many messages everyday!) but it was suggested over at the Opeth FAC that the nom be restarted. With so much text and hardly any votes, (and the issues worked out) it might help to get a few more people in if the page wasn't so cluttered. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I keep up with messages and watch each FAC. I restart a FAC when I can no longer sort out if valid actionable opposes have been addressed or if the article has been significantly changed during the FAC or if the personal commentary goes so far off track that it makes it hard for me to tell where things stand. The status of the opposes and supports on Opeth is clear to me, there haven't been significant article changes, and I don't have any concern about following it or understanding where things stand. I advise all parties to stay on topic (WP:WIAFA) on FACs. I don't restart a FAC solely because parties argue and don't stay on topic; if I did, I'd have to restart many of them, and IMO restarts should be rarely used. If all parties agree, one thing you can do is cap off portions of the text that are no longer relevant, but please don't cap off someone else's comments unless all parties agree. Another thing you can do if all agree is to move some comments to the talk page of that FAC, as long as you leave a link to the talk page so subsequent readers can see it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral recategorization[edit]

User:Libcub, for reasons I don't grasp, decided to recategorize all of our FA pages today. I have rolled everything back (I think I caught it all), which you'll see in my contrib history. Please keep your eye out. Marskell (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, didn't understand it, will watch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


I'd like to apologise for my actions relating to the withdrawal of the FAC nomimation for Grand Theft Auto IV. I felt I was acting in the best interests of the article as it was clearly a "drive-by" nomination and I didn't want to see the article get a fail against its name needlessly. The nominator had stated "Nomination withdrawn" at the top of the discussion and another user had removed the FAC template from the talk page (here), but I was concerned that the process had not been completed properly. I realise now, though, that I should have sought advice on the matter first. Again, sorry for any trouble caused. Dbam Talk/Contributions 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem at all, Dbam ... no need to apologize. Created a bit of extra work for me, and I was going to remove it in a few hours anyway, but it's not a big deal. Don't worry, and thanks for the note :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong with my Time magazine reference to "Hoosa"? The date isn't working right. I always have trouble with ref tags.  :( Corvus cornixtalk 18:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Will go look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think I'm going to try to start at least a stub on Varner–Hogg Plantation State Historical Site this evening. Corvus cornixtalk 20:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
See also the note I left for Mav (talk · contribs); he's a parks guy. (I also left some things at Talk:Ima Hogg.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at my comments at Talk:Ima_Hogg#Signature? Thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 22:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of[edit]

They list their sources at Corvus cornixtalk 21:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Without getting silly, which we usually do, I want to say something about your comment here. I'm a guilty party with you at Herpes zoster, and for that I'm sorry. I was and continue to be frustrated by one editor, whom I believe in my heart of hearts, demolished the article. But, in the end, I want to tell you that I do find you the epitome of civility. I hope that I can lean on you for advice and for help in fixing up articles, and I will try to never scare you out of any article that you've decided to help edit. I'm trying to stay away from the most contentious ones, just because I'm passionate. But you are a pollyanna, and this project needs more of you!!! And that's why you are so important to this project. Anyways, my comments here are heartfelt, and I hope that I can always turn to you to help build great articles. Now, since I'm here, I'd love to get Herpes zoster back to GA then FA. It's a really well-done article, and I think you can help. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Apologies for butting in but my efforts with Herpes zoster didn't help. I've learnt much since then. If you think I can help - I'd love too. Graham.--GrahamColmTalk 22:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You see, AGF works ... I rest my case ... maybe we can do it :-) There was one very problematic editor who did damage the article (we all know, but that's why you have to have all your ducks in a row before you go to FAC). You really need Colin and Eubulides (as Graham has learned since then, we can't much count on the Med Project, and it's Colin and Eubulides and Fvasconcellos who really get it all done, and now we have Graham as well, if he survives the Med Project shun, and I've also noticed that delldot rolls up his/her sleeves and digs in). I'm not good for much except ref and MoS cleanup and spotting things that don't make sense to a layperson, as I'm not a medical professional, and I've got a house full of family/guests for the next two weeks. If you can bring them in, and work with Graham, and notify med at the end to avoid the other problem, it's probably doable. Oh, and you might want to run through WP:FAC and see if you can review a few medical articles over there for me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
      • First of all, it wasn't you Graham. I think we all know who it was. Review FAC's???? Oh no!!!!!! That's real work. LOL. But anyways, I'm glad I never was put on your "shunned" list.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, review FACs. If you don't, I'll shun you. Consider this: how will you feel after you've worked your arse off on HZ, and you take it to FAC, and everyone ignores you? Not nice, huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Not nice at all, I'm on medication :( Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 23:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Don't get me started :-) Graham, it's really only because people really don't understand; I don't think they mean it. I understand because I know how I felt when this was happening (Sally Fields moment :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page threading[edit]

Hi Sandy, I think you've made some really good points on the JzG RfC talk page, but this edit [20] inserts your replies into a comment by another editor. This can make it hard for others to follow, because it seperates the comments from the signature. Could you refactor your replies so they come after the thread they are in response to? Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Help me out; move them all to the end of all of his? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's usually easiest, but looking over them again, you do address specific points in his post as they come up and the effect might be lost by moving them all to the end. On second thoughts - I don't know what's best to do here! I suppose if anyone does have problems working out who said what they wil say so - so maybe best to leave them as they are for now. I'll happily defer to your judgement on this one! DuncanHill (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, with SlimVirgin showing up, it's probably best now not to be moving things around; I'm afraid it will make a dog's dinner of the page. Filll seems to have dealt with it OK. Thanks for the note! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, cool. Take care, DuncanHill (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Benazir Bhutto FAC[edit]

The nominator (a very new editor) doesn't seem have actually contributed to the article. Which explains its unFACworthiness. Probably just doesn't know the ropes :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll check articlestats; if there is a significantly principle editor who didn't know it was submitted and says it wasn't ready, and if the nominator has never edited, we can withdraw it. Thanks, Roger ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
hmmm ... lots of different editors, hard to make a case that there's a significant editor ... have to let it run, I guess, unless someone can convince the nom to withdraw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can easily take it apart. It's got no real substance. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

User page says middle school student, joined Wiki a month ago ... would you like to have a chat with him? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, okay. I'll be gentle. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is anything to go by, he seems to want the FAC withdrawn. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, Roger. We have to honor good-faith nominations, but once we've explained the purpose of FAC, we don't later have to put with this kind of abuse of process. If it happens repeatedly, it's a different story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Varner–Hogg Plantation State Historical Site[edit]

Take a look? Corvus cornixtalk 02:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv FAC[edit]

I tried to clean up the (apparently) malformed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tel Aviv, but I don’t know what to make of this move. Shenanigans. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that is a mess; took me a while to figure out, and now I have to think about how to handle it. It's not shenanigans; it's that people continued commenting on the FAC after it was closed and archived. I have to think about how to fix it. Thanks for alerting me; I'll work on it after I have more coffee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look again, I think the way you solved it was perfect ... the only loose end is that archive3 isn't actually in archives or articlehistory, but I think Gimmetrow and I can live with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Would moving the contents of Archive3 to Archive2 talk and then tagging Archive3 for housekeeping speedy delete make things square? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, still not thinking clearly, haven't yet had enough coffee. Yes, that would be much better. The current situation won't foul up GimmeBot, because the bot looks for the next open N for archiveN (it would look for 4 next time), but whenever we do other kinds of maintenance work, issues come up when there are "archives" that aren't actually in FAC archives. Do you have time to take care of those steps? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Should be set! ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Cobbola, I'll check in a minute; not even a fraction of the way through my watchlist, and herding cats on RCC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Miss Hogg photo[edit]

Dare I say this... Ima Hogg is sort of hot[21]! I just finished composing a polite, vaguely slick and somewhat professional sounding email to several contacts at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston (including the people at the former Hogg home, Bayou Bend) inquiring about the origins and copyright status of the photo. It's Saturday now, but hopefully someone from the museum will reply to me by early next week, if only to tell me to sod off. If I find the information I need, I'll formally ask for licensing permission. It's very possible that the photo is in the public domain; I'll let you know what I find out. Cheers, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You're the best; would it help to get Raul involved to make it happen faster? Also, on the talk page, there's some other sites that have a whole ton of other images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. I heard back from a lady at the museum today. She forwarded me the phone number and contact info of the museum's "Rights and Reporoductions" department. Maybe a very experienced Wikipedian like you or Raul should give them a call. Shall I forward you the info?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
She also sent me a link to their general reproduction policies. The "Fair Use Permitted" section might be relevant here...--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what to do with it if you sent it to me, since I'm a wreck on images; sending it to me would just slow things down. Raul654 (talk · contribs) has gotten very active on images lately, and he can probably expedite. Would you mind summarizing to him on his talk page, and asking if he can help expedite? Alternately, if Raul can't move on it, perhaps Elcobbola (talk · contribs) will know what to do; Elcobbola follows my talk page, so he may weigh in before we have to bother Raul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay. For now, I've dropped a note on Elcobbola's talk page.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I’ve always considered a case for fair use of this and the existing image to be valid. The only hang up was NFCC#1, which requires “no free equivalent is available, or could be created”. Unless you have a shovel, “could be created” is out, so the question seems to be how strict one wants to be in analyzing availability. It appears that reasonable efforts have been made to locate free alternatives and have been unsuccessful (impairment has been lack of author/publishing info.) That being the case, I’m satisfied that the FU criteria are met and that either the … ahem … “push up” or existing image could be appropriately used with a FU license. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Images give me a headache. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Just be glad you don't have to read Title 17. Bad pie. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured articles[edit]

Hello. Can you help me with this question? Thanks, Slade (TheJoker) 15:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied there; that is something Gimmetrow would be good at. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me...[edit]

That I don't have to go through line by line at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cluj-Napoca to show the examples of bad prose? I know we're supposed to give "actionable constructive criticism" but I really think the article needs a copyedit or three by someone else. The nominator keeps coming back and back and pushing and pushing.... and I'm beginning to think that I'm being out of line since no one else is opposing the article... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As Tony does; just give enough examples to make it actionable. We need more reviewers and more people to weigh in so editors like you aren't overworked, but no, you don't have to rewrite the entire article for nominators :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Are Saturdays always this busy with nominations? If they are... I want Saturdays off.....Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; haven't been to FAC, haven't yet even gotten through my morning talk page, much less my watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Oil shale[edit]

Hi Sandy. Last summer you assisted to review the Oil shale article. After that, the article was split and several spin-off articles were created. Right now, two articles — Oil shale and Oil shale extraction — are listed as GAs and I am going to nominate these articles as FACs. However, I would like to ask if there any institution or procedure for reviewing these articles before nomination. Both articles have been gone through Peer review (oil shale actually twice — before and after split) and and copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. Is there anything else to do or it is time for the FAC nomination? Any your comment or advice is appreciated highly. Beagel (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had a moment yet to look at them, Beagel, but my general query is, did they have productive peer reviews after the split or the typical empty peer reviews? Most are showing up at FAC empty: see WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008, next week's WP:SIGNPOST dispatch. A productive peer review from knowledgeable editors is your best path to success at FAC; also, be sure to review the instructions at WP:FAC regarding multiple noms, and put them through one at a time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually peer reviews after split were not very productive (only automated bot review). I knew that most of experienced editors, familiar with FA standards, are quite busy right now, but maybe you could recommend somebody who may take a look and give some advice? I knew multiple nom rule and at first I will nominate for FAC the Oil shale as a parent article of the oil shale series. Beagel (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm kind of swamped, Beagel; can you look through the peer review volunteer list on that Dispatch I linked above? See WP:PRV. It is a concern that most peer reviews are showing up empty at FAC, and you should seek out people who can help you before you come to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Hardworking, you are[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
In particular, your civil and tireless efforts to keep the RCC FAC on-topic have caught my notice. However, looking over your contributions, it appears that this sort of behavior is not uncommon for you. Please be aware that such diligent and polite efforts are sincerely appreciated and a boon to wiki. Vassyana (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv[edit]

Thanks for that SandyGeorgia - Im sorry about the mess! Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease assistance[edit]

I'm at a loss as to what to do. There is an editor on this article, Garrondo (talk · contribs) who has made a large number of edits to the article. But frankly, English is either not his native language, or he has poor writing skills. He makes a huge series of edits (like last night), and short of reverting every single edit (which would be easier), I'm rewriting his very poorly written sections. In some cases, I can't tell if what he's writing improves the discussion (as opposed to putting in a POV) because I can't tell what he's saying. He also has a propensity for pop-culture web links as references, when there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of articles to support a statement. I'm sure you've run across this before, but what do we do? He's really messing up the article. I kept going into the article rewriting sections wondering who was messing it up. But today, this series of edits convinced me it was him. it appears he shows up once a day to do a mass of edits, he appears to be a reasonable editor so no one reverts, and then we get a mess. And his pictures he's added aren't very helpful to the article.

Any ideas? Can you help? You've made some edit with frustrating summaries similar to what I'm saying here, and I think you were correcting Garrondo's edits. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've encountered Garrondo's editing before. I've not yet gotten through my morning watchlist, I've got family visiting with houseguests, and I'll get over there if/when I can, but no promises for quick action. I suggest raising it on talk, doing your best until others have time to weigh in and review. Maintaining good relationships with other good, medical editors Is Alway A Good Thing, as they might be able to help. Last time I got into the talk page at Alzheimer's, I noticed there's a lot of POV issues going on there, as well as ongoing MoS and ref cleanup needs, so getting involved there may take more time than I have available. So many articles to be fixed, only 24 hours in a day ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I try to focus one at a time. My brain doesn't do so well with parallel thinking. I'm a serial doer! Anyways, the MOS is being cleaned up, but this editor, though very knowledgeable about medicine, is not a native English speaker (just went to his user page). I'll figure something out. I think I'm going to keep it on his talk page, so there's no ganging up on him. The MOS for the article is once again a mess, after you and I cleaned it up. I'm working now, since it's raining in Southern California. How dare it do that. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you rather have rain or forest fires :-(( painful topic SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, I had a look, it's a dog's dinner, but since you partially fixed, I don't know what you want to do. I wouldn't have taken the time you did; I would have reverted it all and asked him to discuss on talk. But since you partially fixed it, I don't know where to start. I see some attachment theory stuff in there, all kinds of MoS errors, and a lot of ce errors still. Why not just start a talk page thread suggesting a revert of all of his changes, and asking him to propose them on talk? I hestitate to start cleanup again until the text settles down, but it's a wreck once again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from Graham Rotavirus[edit]

Dear Sandy, my mentor, I still can't believe it. You were so patient with me; without your guidance it would have taken me years, not months, to bring the article to FA. Now I don't feel like a newbie anymore. As you have probably guessed, I know a bit about HIV too— so I'll work on a review/edit in the morning. Heartfelt thanks, Graham. --GrahamColmTalk 21:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)