User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch40

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


ungainly plural[edit]

Hi Sandy—Can I go to Ral and say Sandy agrees that it should be "Dispatch"? It's been irritating the s... out of me for some time. Tony (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

uh ... never thought about it before ... the name may have come from Raul, who suggested the Dispatches, so you might check with him. Anyway, I always defer to you in all things grammatical. Is it going to screw up all my archives? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; is it? Tony (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Take an example:
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-01-28/Dispatches
Are you proposing that
we change the 1) article name and 2) article byline from here forward, or that
we go back and fix all the old ones as well?
If we have to fix all the old ones, we have to move all those files. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
And it affects the footer template, so I'd have to ask Ral, but we may have to change them all, as well as the Signpost archives. I wish this had come up sooner. :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
You're time-stressed, and it doesn't matter much. It's a nice little project for a willing person to do some time. Tony (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop page[edit]

Hi Sandy, I thought you should know that there is a typo in your comment of the Minor edits section on the Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop page. - Epousesquecido (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thank, I'll go look. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't find it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I guess I saw a typo that wasn't there, my mistake - Epousesquecido (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


FYI---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 07:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Replied on the subject of that discussion. --Moni3 (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Missed the bit where I need to transclude. Read the page on instructions, and still not sure how to do it. This does not bode well, it seems. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It's what you did by mistake when last we talked about this... basically, you need to goto the RfA mainpage and add {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moni3}} to it. That will get your page to post there. In all honesty, when I ran, I had to ask my wife how to do it. If you are ready to go for it, I can transclude for you... I think you should pass (but wasn't the person who predicted 90-95%... there might be some opposes due to lack of adminly areas, but I think you'll do fine.)---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

FU images[edit]

Hi, the people at NFC are quite insistent that there's no such thing as a fair-use image; only non-free. A fair-use justification is sometimes upheld. Tony (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, still catching up this morning, will ask Elcobbola how he can factor that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


I made a comment at the talkpage regarding the articlehistory. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You said you were unwatching, then came back and unfixed a fix. I've refixed it. Cheers, Geometry guy 23:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I could not have unfixed a fix when there were no changes to articlehistory between my first edit to ah and my subsequent edit to ah :-) But I'm glad you're on it! The new articlehistory doesn't sync with what I found in articlehistory, but since edit summaries were lacking, hard to tell and ... not my problem :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, not your problem. It was fine until your last edit. Now, unfortunately, it is my problem. Geometry guy 23:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
It's delisted twice now, two weeks apart. Is that how it works? I believe I left it correct, but hard to tell when there are no edit summaries, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone listed it without leaving a review, without following any process, and without any accountability. In doing so, of course, this editor screwed up the article history as well. Helpful reaction: undo everything this editor did. Your reaction: beloved article history is messed up and this is another example of GA crap. I've fixed the two delists so that one is "not listed". Sorry I sound so pissy, but I really did not want to have to deal with this stuff right now. Don't worry, I'll cheer up tomorrow. Happy editing, Geometry guy 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hate to give you the bad news, but I just found more problems :-) In all of that mess, GimmeBot was fooled and removed it from GA. Cheer up! I do wish we had never added so much to ah, because I'm afraid this sort of stuff wore down my favorite botmaster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Resolute listed it : here, and then somewhere in all of that, GimmeBot picked up a delist. Still suggesting a gatekeeper panel ... sorry for the trouble ... if someone checked the error cat daily? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It's currently marked "delisted" on the talk page, so naturally it would get removed from WPGA. Gimmetrow 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I saw GimmeBot picked up the delist, but that was a good thing. The article is not a current GA, and it saved me some trouble that GimmeBot delisted it automatically. Everything is working fine apart from the erratic behaviour of individual editors. So, what else is new? Geometry guy 00:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely clear on the erratic behaviour ... I thought anyone can list a GA, and Resolute listed it?[1] But then he built the AH wrong, which caused GimmeBot to delist it because it showed in ah as delisted even thought it was listed,[2] before I corrected the ah error. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can list a GA, but only if they follow process and leave a proper review. In this case process didn't happen, so another editor undid the listing on the talk page and quite rightly so. GimmeBot picked up on this and removed the listing from the GA page. That worked very well and I was hoping I would not have to intervene. Unfortunately, you then relisted the article on the talk page. Geometry guy 00:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
G guy, I see you aren't in a happy mood. And it's not worth making it worse by asking you to step back through the diffs to see that's not what happened, so let's make like husband and wife, have a glass of wine, and drop it :-) I promise that next time I unwatch, I won't go back at the end of the day to see if it was fixed, and as long as the errors don't trigger the error cat, I'll leave them there anyway. Until the article comes to FAC, and then I'll fix the history. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I did check the edit history before, but okay, good plan. A clink with my glass :-) All the best to you too. Geometry guy 00:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool beans :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought ... someone built the ah wrong even though they listed it at GA (which according to G guy was also wrong) showing it as delisted even though it was (wrongly) listed, so then GimmeBot picked up the wrong ah, which was actually the right ah ... oh my gosh. Then I built an AH which agreed with what happened at WP:GA, but apparently was out of process ... A day in Gimmetrow's life :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It's also another day in the life of those of us who are pissed off with all of this sniping at GA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Is someone making invisible posts to my talk page? I re-read the entire thread and don't find that. But I did look outside and see a full moon coming up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
That must be it then, I'm a lunatic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 :-) I agree with Sandy that the underlying issue here is not GA sniping; instead we need to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems of article history error management. But I'm still enjoying that glass of wine, and would rather discuss it another time. Geometry guy 01:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Enjoy one for me, too ... full moon rising elsewhere :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


Was really about this line: 'New reference feature: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#New references feature. Which is about the new ref =group feature. If you like, I can move the comment to the proposed topic list. --mav (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'll fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your hard work at FAC. It's a tough job but somebody's got to do it.Dave (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I like Tony's thanks better :-) Congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh really =-) I assumed you had so much bling the jewelery box was full. In that case, I'll make the thank you message a little more formal =-)
Barnstar UTSH.png The Utah State Highways Barnstar
For your tireless referee work on FAC, and helping us roadgeeks get some articles to FAC. Dave (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That better? =-)

How nice of you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we help out this hero?[edit]

The British Bangladeshi article has developed into a formidable piece of encyclopedic article all because of Miah's heroic efforts. But, unfortunately English is only his second language, much like poor old me. The article needs a copyedit (especially when you consider that what has been written in 40 words can probably be reduced down to 12 words without removing any information). Would you lend a hand? At least in the form of counsel? It would be greatly helpful if the comments are made on the article talkpage. Cheers. Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a terrible copyeditor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you suggest someone then? It really needs a copyjob. With one done it may even graduate into an FA, I believe. Aditya(talkcontribs) 10:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting my head around monobook[edit]

OK, I have no idea what to do now. I made a page and copied the script and nothing I missing something really obvious? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to "reset the cache" to force it to load. Holding some special key like shift, control, or cmd while reloading will usually do it, but see also WP:BYPASS. Gimmetrow 07:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
And after you do that, look in your toolbox on the left-hand side of your screen, under the Search box, for a button that says Page size. (Thanks, Gimmetrow!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh duh (feels like a prize noob) got it now ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Restart to SummerSlam (2003) FAC[edit]

Thanks I guess? I'm guessing it was the right thing to do, but I really appreciate it. Can I ask the previous people who commented on the FAC to take a look again or would that be against WP:CANVASS?--SRX 17:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You can ask as long as you stay within WP:CANVASS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Avoid weasel words[edit]

seems to have been floating in some digital limbo for the last 6 wks. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Weird. How did you find that? It doesn't show up in the category, which perhaps only checks article talk pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
As I say on the "FAC", I went to the talk page to moan, & saw the header there. Having the name of the article as a redlink is an impressive first. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
So you just happened to find it? None of our tools pick it up, because it doesn't get categorized. I guess it's rare enough that it's not worth worrying about ... I dunno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Scary - who knows what long debates may be going on out there? Best just to pull the bedcovers over the head & not not think about it. Cheers! Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Bedcovers ... no, I punted it to Raul :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Limerick[edit]

Do you mind if I talk to you here a bit about the History of Limerick FAR? I could do with some specific advise before replying on the FAR page. Your comments about the lack of citations is correct, though it now has 39 as opposed to 1, but I was not going to remove uncited yet information until I know I absolutely cannot find a citation. I had been hoping that Ceoil was going to come in on this as he has access to the Spellissy book that I cannot get access to without sitting in the NYPL and read it there. I don't have time for that. I am sure I can fix the format and MOS issues but need some guidance with those as I really am not well versed with some of those like you are. TIA ww2censor (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

On a more general note, I'm wondering why you and Ceoil have to clean that one up when the original editor is around? There are so many articles that you two can do good work on, why isn't the original editor bringing that one to standard? We need you two on so many articles; can't you prod the original nominating editor to do that? FAR is suddenly up over 30, meaning need to focus on what is really salvageable ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
No idea why he is not getting involved. I see the 2 short notes he left but no significant contributions. I am happy to keep working on this but as mentioned above I have an inexperienced in certain areas. To be honest I would like to devote my time right now to the complete revamp of Airmail which has been enhanced with some German translation that I am working on for citation and expansion before updating the main space. I hope this will become a FA in time. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand and appreciate working to salvage FARs when the regular editors are highly involved, appreciate the help, or have moved along so there's no one to do the work, but I can't understand working to source work for someone else, when the person who wrote the text is still around and should be able to easily source it themselves ... there are so many articles worthy of that attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Literature in the Hoysala Empire[edit]

Hi Sandy, how are you. I am back from India and am back on the hunt for FAC's. The above article has gone through a thorough PR, Mos check (Epbr123) and image clearence. I need one solid round of copy edits to cap it. Can you suggest someone from your long list of acquaintances on wiki. Risker seems busy and the copy editors league is generally a long wait. I have left messages on a couple of user pages. thanks. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wackymacs (talk · contribs), BuddingJournalist (talk · contribs), Dank55 (talk · contribs), Deckiller (talk · contribs), Maralia (talk · contribs), Moni3 (talk · contribs), Jbmurray (talk · contribs) (who is traveling now), Awadewit (talk · contribs) (who is always very busy with requests) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Dineshkannambadi (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Butting in, there are also people willing to do copyedits at WP:PRV, although the quality there is not as high on average as Sandy's list. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Tamil people[edit]

Hey, you had commented elsewhere about restarting the FAC of the above article. Since I am not sure what the problem seems to be, can you let me know what your specific concerns are ? Thanks Watchdogb (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything is on the talk there now; that should cover it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I dont understand averages in the text include standard deviations without explaining them to the reader, is that really needed.[3] Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
You had asked whether there was copy vivo while editing the article. I had copy pasted from the article in the quote segment. This is where page numbers are not available. Is copy pasting from the article is the quote section a copy vivo ? Taprobanus (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is, does have permission to reproduce a Sunday Observer article? Per WP:EL and WP:COPYRIGHT, we shouldn't knowingly link to a copyright violation. Can you find any evidence that the Sunday Observer released the rights to that story? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no ideas and it is not that important a fact anyway, so I commented it out per your clarification. If I can get alternate references then i will add it back. Taprobanus (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you think I should retract the nomination. It needs only few more copy edits and then I will be able to re nominate it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent). The nomination has two substantial copyedit opposes. It depends on how quickly you think you can get the copyedit done, or whether it would be easier to do that work off-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked one of them to review again, if the prognosis is same then I will move it out. Thanks for your patience. Taprobanus (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

week-old query[edit]

* ... 0.6-mile-long (1.0 km) path ?

If it needs another hyphen, the convert template doesn't deal with that, so what should editors do? Do they always need to recast the sentence, or should they just do the convert manually?

I'd discourage the use of the template in the first place.

Sandy, the triple hyphenated expression is always going to be a problem when inserting a conversion. The simple solution is to remove the redundant word:
  • ... 0.6-mile (1.0 km) path. Tony (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, I will make the needed changes next, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I already made the changes, but I will paste Tony's comment into the FAC page and see what Dincher and anyone else who is interested thinks too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I keep seeing phrases like 0.6-mile (1 km) long path. Should I change them, then? Waltham, The Duke of 07:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Pine Creek from Otter Vista, horizontal.JPG <font=3> Thanks again for your help and comments - Leonard Harrison State Park made featured article today!
Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Colton Point and Leonard Harrison State Parks Map.png

Good topics[edit]

I've half-expected to see such a proposal for quite some time now. Well, here it is, now. Waltham, The Duke of 11:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded below, at User talk:SandyGeorgia#Hello Sandy.2C I would like your feedback please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Depersonalization disorder[edit]

Can you cast an eye? IP removing citation tags and repeatedly submitting to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I can semi- the nomination page...what a clever idea, I just have. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Why didn't I think of that ? Thanks you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite news[edit]

Sandy- You can still use the template fields. Change accessmonthday and accessyear to accessdate. Example: Change accessmonthday=August 18 accessyear=2008 to accessdate=2008-08-18. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That causes them to be linked; the other templates allow for delinked dates (see Ima Hogg and Samuel Johnson; both have consistently delinked dates, but I had to fiddle with cite news by moving the date out of the template). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
How about rewriting the citation in "clear" as in written out information following a style guide, e.g. MLA, and simply dispense with the autodate linking entirely. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
Because we want to fix this mess and stop kludging. As a first step: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Citation_Task_Force. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Gadget, I'm coming into a really busy period, and I probably can't add much over there until mid-September, which is really disappointing, since this is such a long-standing and serious concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy[edit]

We first traded "barbs" over a GA review of the Boeing 747 that had been largely based on the use of a particular set of electronic references by Joe Baugher. Eventually, all concerned editors relented and replaced the largely "fan"-based site information with more reliable secondary sources. But, as Steven Colbert would say, I then sized you up as a "Formidable Opponent" (in grudging testimony, I acknowledged your expertise in certain formatting issues, although I am loath to ceed that honour to anyone as I have been a reserach librarian for 30+ years and have a considerably enlarged forehead and ego to match). However, I have recently had a conflab with an editor who has a very distinct understanding of research terminology who reverted everything I did on the article Howard Hughes which drew me into the MoS Cite/Layout wars that are presently underway. There I noticed you again, wending your electronic sword and noted that you were actually championing some of the same causes that I hold dear- the #@$%%^^ cite templates, the ##$%&%^ autodate formating and the complete lack of consistency in referencing that is a natural adjunct from the "too many cooks" phenomena of Wikipedia. I just wanted to make ammends for any past misdeeds or mispeaks, although I too, couldn't remember whether any real discord had taken place. FWiW, count me in as one of your "legions". The strangest part of the GA Review was that it was initiated by one of the most nefarious vandals who somehow weaseled into an admin position but who was summarily banned for a serious of nutzo actions, shortly after. Bzuk (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC).


His bot is still running right now, correct? A bunch of closures today, as you're never-sleeping eyes have already noticed. Marskell (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching; I thought Gimme was gone, but I saw him in action, so I'll wait a bit. Gosh, I hate manually doing FARCs, so if I must do them, I'm going to park the old (pre-bot) templates there and wait :-) I'll keep you posted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

John Millington Synge[edit]

John Millington Synge is on your FA without citations list. I went through and added 5k worth of information. The citations were expanded from 4 separate entries with 4 total citations to 20 separate entries with 34 total citations. I hope that is enough to temporarily remove this article from the list. It is not "fixed", but I hope my adding of this finger to the dike will plug it for a little longer. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool beans, I'll have a look tonight and consult Marskell on citations talk (I don't unilaterally remove from the list, we wait to hear input from others). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I can add more, but Synge has been someone I haven't worked on in a while, so I'd need to dig up more. Just leave me a message, or I'll try to look out for a response, on what else would be needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sandy, I would like your feedback please[edit]

Due to your role in the featured article process, and our work together over at WP:FT, you are an editor I respect greatly. I see you have already been notified of Cirt's proposal over at Wikipedia talk:Good topics. Firstly I would like your feedback on the actual proposal over there.

Secondly, I would like to express that I am not completely happy with how this proposal came to be. It was borne out of an initial proposal I made here, where I first came up with the idea of good topics, but as an integral part of the existing featured topic process, as opposed to as a separate process. While I realise that despite being the initial proposer I have no right over the idea of good topics, I still feel that the rug of this was somewhat pulled out from under me by Cirt, and am somewhat unhappy with how he has particularly chosen to implement it. I also acknowledge that the conversation at WT:FT? appeared to be drawing to a close, however I do not think it had not come to a close (probably not in the short run, and certainly not in the long run).

The vote over at Wikipedia talk:Good topics appears to be quite heavily in favour of such a project, but (and I don't want to put words in others' mouths but I honestly think this is the case) I think many support votes haven't actually thought about the intricacies of such an issue, how large parts of such a fully separate project from WP:FT would be redundantly separate from WP:FT, and how the particular details of the proposal Cirt has drawn up (specifically, the lack of audited articles) are illogical (and make WP:GOOGLE? inconsistent with itself). Instead, they are merely supporting the idea of good topics, not any particular detail of this implementation.

So, my requests are these. Firstly, as I already said, I'd like your feedback on Cirt's proposal. Secondly, I would like to ask, are there any rules about courtesy with proposals? For example, you can't nominate an article you didn't write for featured article, and I feel this is kind of what happened here, in that I quietly made a proposal, only to have Cirt take it, before it had run its course, modify it slightly in a way I strongly don't like, and expose it to a much larger audience, therefore making any decision there voiding any conclusions that would have been reached for my original proposal.

I realise I may in places have been somewhat aggressive at WP:GOOGLE, but this is largely borne out of frustration at a situation where it appears that Cirt has overwhelming support for his particular implementation of this idea, when actually many people seem to me to be supporting the broader idea of two tiers of topics, as opposed to any particular implementation (and in fact are not looking at the specifics of his implementation, or the alternatives, at all) - rst20xx (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, things seem to be improving, but I'd still like your feedback on both of the above - rst20xx (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it's all worked itself out somewhat - rst20xx (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
An unfortunate development, in that IMO it will undermine GA's strengths and magnify its weaknesses. GA strength is in its good reviewers; its weakness is that anyone can pass a GA, so any GA is only as good as its reviewer. This proposal is likely to increase GA nominations, stretch the good reviewers thin, and result in more quid-pro-quo passes of "my buddy's" inferior articles in the quest for awards. Most GA proposals garner a lot of support early on, as the GA regulars pile on quickly, but are eventually defeated as other editors become aware. I expect this one to pass, as most editors won't see it having an impact on mainspace and won't see any harm in the proposal ... that is, until the abuses of process start to take over and undermine the good side of GA, and then it's likely to end up MfD'd, as yet another process abused of by award-seeking editors. Since GA is only as good as the GA reviewer, it's unclear to me what a collection of GAs means. Unfortunate that this proposal may tax the good GA reviewers, encourage faulty GA passes, affect the FT process, and likely create more articlehistory maintenance issues. In the last GA proposal, a number of suggestions were put forward for improving the GA process. None of those have been implemented to my knowledge. This unfortunately is likely to compound unresolved issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
One of those suggestions was taken onboard, the permanent archiving of reviews, which was implemented some time ago. I'm inclined to agree with your general thinking on this GT proposal though. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
So, should I add it to the page, or is that going to create one of those GA/FA firestorms? (PS, do you know how to fix the new GA review archival system? When you click on the section heading to add a new section, you're taken to the review page, as happened to me at Talk:José Sarria, where my comments ended up at Talk:José Sarria/GA1 ... once I realized, I edited the entire page to move the comment and add a new section, but some editors might not realize how to fix it. I don't want to get tangled into that, but the way the pages are transcluded on talk just isn't optimal. If I'm an experienced editor and it fooled me, what happens to the novice? ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I even understand the problem you're describing, much less how to fix it. Geometry Guy did all the template work, so he'd probably be the best person to ask. As for the GT proposal, I can't see any reason why your comment would stoke another GA/FA firestorm; it seems like a perfectly reasonable pov to me. Heck, I think I even share it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It's the sort of question I normally ask Gimmetrow, but he's on vacation. I may just wait and ask him (he's usually able to understand and put up with my 101 dumb questions :-) OK, I'll add it over there ... didn't want to start a fire, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

...Thank you for your feedback - rst20xx (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Social psychology (psychology)[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia. I spotted your assessment of Social psychology (psychology) as a "C" and wanted to comment. From what I gather, this style of references (APA style, a variant of Harvard style) is acceptable on Wikipedia. There is talk about switching over to in-text citations, but that will be a lengthy process, given that there are so many references. In any event, one can hardly say that the article is lacking in citations!! If there are particular citations needed, maybe you could suggest them. Also, could you clarify what you mean by "listy prose" and how it is a problem for this article in the talk page. Thanks much! --Jcbutler (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, inline Harvard-style citations are fine and acceptable, but the article is still mostly uncited. And, a lot of the article consists of lists. (Also, have a look at WP:MOSBOLD; there are several breaches.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

1964 Gabon coup d'état‎[edit]

Nishkid and I have replied to your concerns at this page. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

WBFAN 2008[edit]

Sandy - I've created Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations/2008. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

How effective are Projects in FAR saves[edit]

In your experience how often have wikiproject members successfully saved an article at FAR when the main contributors who pushed it to FA have left wikipedia or have burnt out on the subject? Looking at the SF review where it felt like most of the people came from individual talk page notifications and that one of the two main article writers stayed involved, compared to the bay bridge or single convention on narcotics where without the main contributor or a topic expert the article really didn't seem to have much of a chance. I've updated the WP:SFBA project page hoping people will watchlist it and actually assist each other in article development and maintenance, but to a certain extent it feels like some projects are nothing more than clubhouses and have some of the same problems as people who just want a grape job/gold star sticker and just want to be a member of a club. Is this just my frustration at not being able to save the bay bridge article or is this a legitimate concern? -Optigan13 (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It varies between projects and articles. Would be good to get 'save' figures over a year. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, reading Sandy's talk page makes me think of things in terms of baseball (Save (baseball)). -Optigan13 (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I can't name any WikiProject that has been particularly active at FAR; saves are usually individuals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image usage in FA's[edit]

Hi. I am a bit puzzled. Recently, I tried to get Frank Zappa through the FAC, but one of the hurdles was the issue of usage of non-free fair use images. Much to my bewilderment I see the (excellent) article on Flea (musician) as today's featured article. It contains no less than three non-free images. I was just wondering (as I am preparing to launch the Zappa article for FA very soon again), whether the policy on use of non-free images has been "tightened" recently? Or, is it just that some editors have suddenly stepped in with more rigorous interpretations of policies? Cheers! --HJensen, talk 10:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Past coverage of image issues at WP:FAC was spotty, mostly because editors willing to review images often gave up because of the abuse and personal attacks they endured for enforcing policy. To that end, educating others via Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches should help strengthen image review; a future Dispatch will deal with non-free images. It is my understanding that justification of non-free images involves more than just a count per article. In terms of bringing Zappa back to FAC, you could get a pre-check on the image issues with Elcobbola (talk · contribs), Awadewit (talk · contribs), Fasach Nua (talk · contribs) or Masem (talk · contribs) (there are several others who are focusing on learning image policy and review, so that list may grow by the time you re-approach FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, there's no magic number or threshold. Five images may be appropriate for one article, while none may be appropriate for an article on a similar topic. If questions are raised regarding minimal use and significant contribution to understanding, you just need to demonstrate/articulate how each image is indeed making a unique contribution and how such a contribution is significant to the reader's understanding of the topic. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I was just puzzled that many articles pass FAC without any questioning of non-free images (like the Flea article), where other FACs get their images scrutinized to the last pixel.--HJensen, talk 10:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Hey there. I'm hopeless with time zones - are you up late or just waking up? Any particular FAC you'd like me to be annoying at? I have a yearning to be helpful. --Dweller (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm up earlier than usual today (the dogs); there are a gazillion FACs at the bottom of the page begging for review. If you're bored, start with the oldest, although several are stalled waiting for nominators to correct issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I've done one. I suspect the nominator won't be delighted. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine Featured Topic Task Force proposal[edit]

Hey SandyGeorgia, I've just set up a proposal for a new task force in the WikiProject Medicine called FTTF, or the Featured Topic Task Force. We aim to create a featured topic for medicine, most likely to do with an infectious disease of some form (the proposals so far include polio and bacterial infections in general) and become the first medical featured topic. The proposal can be found here and further discussion can be found at the bottom of the WikiProject Medicine talk page. I've very much appreciate your comments and possibly support of such a proposal, if you'd be willing to take part! —CyclonenimT@lk? 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

lyme disease[edit]

Please do not violate wikipedias rules WP:NOT and WP:TE. If you have a conflict of interest on an issue wikipedia is not the place to soapbox, please do so elsewhere. Pryorka82 (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll get right on that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to be blocked from editing. What is it about these sources and statements that you don't see violates wikipedias rules?? It's simple. Don't advocate for one opinion or one organization yet you're doing that..right?? What would you be happy with putting in place of these comments that is neutral? Pryorka82 (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"What is it about these sources and statements that you don't see violates wikipedias rules?" Reliable sources, without anything added, that show a mainstream opinion and are cited properly. If only all sources on Wikipedia were as good as these. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
For contributing to the Iowa class battleship FAR and helping the article maintain its bronze star I herby award you the WikiChevrons. Thanks for your help, I apreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


Just a small note - I still find it a little odd to have Pearce, move on to others, and then conclude with Pearce without much transition. Perhaps prep it to make the transition not as abrupt? Say something like his conclusion is the one that stands, or most people agree with it, or whatever. Some kind of context. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, unsure how to best fix it, but that quote, left-image, quote arrangement was really bad. And I'm really troubled ending on Sacks, since he has no credibility in TS. Can you think of a transition, or do you want me to work on it? I can use something from the old TSA link we lost, maybe ... it also troubles me to lose that, because it gave credibility to Sacks' conclusions. Of course, that's an insider thing; most readers have no idea that Sacks' endorsement doens't mean much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
There were studies I didn't see listed (page numbers confirming the diagnosis of TS) - McHenry 1976 ( Samuel Johnson's tics and gesticulations"), A. K. Shapiro 1978 (with E. S. Shapiro, R. D. Brunn and R. D. Sweet, Gilles de la Tourette Snydrome New York 1978 p. 361), Arnold Friedhoff and Thomas N Chase (Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome New York 1982 pp. 25-30). You could throw them in at passing to add a little bulk to the paragraph to space it out for formatting reasons. You can also add this after Sack's statement, or you could include Sacks as one in a number of lists without their individual conclusions. Then, to introduce the Pearce statement, you could say something like "This diagnosis sheds insight into the Johnson's creative processes, as Pearce states:" Ottava Rima (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
All of those older articles are riddled with errors, information now known to be incorrect ... I just added something as a sort of transition, maybe you can smooth it out? Sacks and Pearce come to the same conclusion, and Sacks is online, so maybe you can make those two mesh into a transition? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, even if they are riddled with errors, can I still use them to make a history of diagnosis for Johnson pretty please? I still want to. Brain had some of the worse claims about these people ever and few people seem to remember what happened when they tried apply Freud to great authors. :) Now, to the wording, its good. However (dun dun dunnnnn), how about "predicts" instead of reinforces? Sacks came first, and Pearce obviously replaces Sacks as the most accurate authority. Its a science thing, so we can kick Sacks to the side. Or, you could say "Sacks concludes (insert his quote here)". "Pearce goes the next step, looks deeper into Johnson's biography, and concludes: (insert blockquote here)". Otherwise, I don't really know. I deal with opinions, not facts, and if there was a "licensing" requirement for my field, well, many "scholars" would de-scholared(?). Ottava Rima (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Images check out, final participant gave the go ahead for FAC. Waiting on you. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost my last message, weird. Don't like "predicts" because your Wiltshire source says McHenry was first (I don't know who McHenry is) and Murray was before both Sacks and Pearce, and I'd not like to have Sacks' "predicting" anything because of his diminished credibility wrt TS. OK, found this on your Johnson page:

p. 29 Wiltshire says the first one to use TS to diagnose Johnson was McHenry in 1967, and a comprehensive study was in Shapiro et al Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome (1978) declares "Samuel Johnson... is the most notable example of a successful adaptation to life despite the liability of Tourette syndrome." (they, however, say that TS is difficult to diagnose, so their diagnosis of Johnson says a lot). Then, Murray's article, and Wiltshire says "this conclusion has been widely publicised."

I don't have Shapiro's book, but you can find on his page (written by me), that Arthur K. Shapiro is known as the father of modern tic research, so his opinion actually means something. Can you work in that quote of him from Wiltshire, including a link to Shapiro and naming him and citing him as the father of modern tic research? That will give more credence to the Sacks quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence C McHenry Jr? I found it (Wiltshire splits everything up) McHenry, Lawrence C. Jr. "Samuel Johnson's tics and gesticulations", Journal of the History of Medicine 22 (April 1967) 152–168. He wrote four works on Johnson's health on his own and one with Ronald MacKeith. I'm going to try something now. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
PMID 5341871 volume 22, issue 2, Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences. McHenry LC Jr. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ack. I don't know what happened here; it looks like you went back to an old version and reverted my corrections of a ref error and forced image sizes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

YOu there? I need to fix all of that before I can move forward ... let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Restored it; looks like you went back to an older version in an edit conflict, losing my dash, citation and MoS cleanup. Got sidetracked with that, will look at new text tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a note - it causes the one house picture to shrink to 140px and Edial Hall to become tiny. Not sure why. It should be 180 default, but for some reason it doesn't show up that way. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Check your user prefs then, because 180 is default; you should see no difference, unless you have your prefs set very low. I'm going to cite McHenry, OK? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll check it out tomorrow. Nite. Feel free to make any changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm done; it's all yours. Also, Maralia is going to go through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict hint - when you edit conflict, the current version of the page appears at the top. Your version of the page appears at the very bottom. Copy and paste that up into the top, and then add in the other person's changes (if you edited more than them, or in a more complex way). Ottava Rima (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hurry while you still can and take a screen shot for your children. A seven part nom on Samuel Johnson on the main page. :) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. But just as I've never learned to manage an edit conflict, I've never learned to take a screenshot (and Tony tried to teach me once). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm old school. I hit print screen, open Microsoft Paint, then hold ctrl while pressing V, to paste. :) I did it. I just think its great to have a seven part nom and on Johnson. I'll try to get him to eventually rival Shakespeare for content. :) Now, I do think there are enough secondary works pages and other notable aspects of Johnson's life so that if anyone ever says "why isn't ___ included in the biography", we can always point out that there is a link. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI. 18 September 2009. How many points would a 300 anniversary be? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You really should follow the Red Sox for 86 years or so :-)) A good BoSox fan learns not to speak up 'til the game's over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pat Nixon[edit]

Hey Sandy, per the suggestion at the Pat Nixon FAC, could you give the article an overlinking copyedit? User:Tony1 says there are a bit too many links and I think some fresh eyes could be useful. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Happy, perhaps you can ask User:Epbr123 if he can help out; he's very good at MoS editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course, and I understand completely that you are a very busy lady! my best, Happyme22 (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

El Lissitzky[edit]

If I recall there is a limit on FARs for a project. When can I nominate El Lissitzky, given that Henry Moore is currently at WP:FAR?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You nominated Moore five days ago, and yet still haven't completed the notifications correctly; that doesn't inspire confidence that you're ready to shepherd another FAR through the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Everyone was duly notified. I just did not use the template. Is that a big problem? It still does not answer the protocol question either. When is it appropriate to nominate another WP:WPVA article at WP:FAR?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a problem; the template wording is designed to minimize misunderstanding about the process, and when you don't use it, someone else has to go back and do it, or put in the disclaimers to editors about how the process works. The WP:FAR instructions are there for a reason: it would be helpful if you would go back and complete the notifications as requested, so someone else doesn't have to pick up that task. Just as at FAC, there are no hard-and-fast rules at FAR. At FAC, some editors have demonstrated capability and resources to manage more than one FAC at once; as long as their FACs aren't "sucking in our professional reviewing resources that could be allocated more fairly across the FAC list" (Tony1), they can run more than one FAC at a time. This means their nominations don't treat FAC like peer review, don't have large copyedit, sourcing, MoS and image issues, and problems are quickly addressed so the FACs can be closed in optimal time. At FAR, the instructions about multiple nominations serve several additional purposes, since one goal at FAR is to restore as many articles to standard as possible. First, you shouldn't overwhelm reviewer resources: by not completing the notifications and following the FAR closely to keep it on track, you create work for others. Second, we try to avoid overwhelming any given WikiProject, lest they are already working on restoring a FAR. Third, we try to avoid overwhelming a given editor; for example, Ceoil does a lot of restoring articles at FAR, so putting up multiple FARs in his areas of expertise would lower the chances he would restore those articles. Fourth, active FAR participants who have shown they can manage and contribute to more than one FAR at a time may put up more than one nomination. Again, in summary, since you haven't yet completed the notifications on the FAR you already have running, it's not clear that you are helping the page rather than taxing other reviewers; that doesn't inspire confidence that you should put up another nomination just yet. In general, if a FAR moves to FARC with no input from involved editors, evidencing little chance anyone is working on it, it's safe to put up another nomination in the same or a different area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I will redo the notifications tonight. However, as far as confidence, the Henry Moore FAR is coming along pretty well. A lot of people have gotten involved and a lot of improvements have been made. I do happen to be overseeing 3 GARs, a FLRC and a FAR simultaneously and I am satisfied on three or four of the five not to mention the recently closed keep at Grand Central Station (Chicago).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. You can follow along with what I am overseeing for WP:CHICAGO at WP:CHIR, which is an experiment until the project goes live on September 1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


I should have time this afternoon to sit down and compose a reply. Thanks, Brimba (talk) 12:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I thought I would have time this afternoon to write something, but it never happened. I left an explanation on the V talk page. In truth I am not sure that it is a very good explanation of my concerns. With PMA’s changes we have gone from reliable sources to categories of reliable sources.
Once you have category (a) is good, category (b) is better, and category (c) is best of all, then the field is clearly stacked against anything from (a). (c) may be fully adequate to source an article, but not always, it may not be up-o-date, or it may only present one side of an argument. Editors need the freedom to use any reliable source, without someone arguing against it on the grounds that a particular source is reliable, but not reliable enough for the subject matter. We want information; we want more reliable sources, not less. The new wording tilts the playing field against non-academic sources in ways that did not exist before.
With the new wording it becomes way too easy to shutdown any discussion on the grounds that my academic sources trumps your non-academic source if we disagree on some point. I believe that’s how the German version of WP operates, we on the other hand are suppose to openly embrace all significant views, and you can not do that if you tilt policy against some sources, or too far in favor of others.
Again, I am probably not expressing my concerns all that well. I do not want to see people remove material from WP on the grounds that yes the source is reliable, but not reliable enough for the subject matter. Or more crudely, “We want WP to be supper-duper, so we are deleting material that is not backed by supper-duper sources”. Intentional or otherwise, PMA’s changes are a step in that direction. Brimba (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This Guy's Starting to Piss me Off...[edit]

User: has been warned repeatedly about Avatar but continues to put it on WP:TFAR. Where can I report him if he continues? -- Veggy (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That page is well watched; just wait for an admin to notice. Or, you could go through the trouble of presenting it to WP:AIV, but someone will probably get to it while you're doing all that work :-) Don't sweat it, the page isn't full now anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ha. So where's an admin when you need one, but "s/he doesn't need the tools" is an argument at RfA. At WP:TFA/R, IP is now at 4RR, has added a date already requested, an article already run on the mainpage, and an article that's not even featured. Guess I'll go fill out the WP:AIV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
IP blocked for 3 hours. Joelito (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ha, Joelito, you never cease to amaze :-) And I just submitted the AIV :-) Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I am always lurking behind the shadows. ;-) Joelito (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful templates on FAC pages[edit]

Sandy, Hi, someone is adding unhelpful templates at FACs, [4] Graham Graham Colm Talk 14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ottava is adding the {{interrupted}} templates to make it easier for me to read the FACs. Sometimes threads get so long that it becomes hard to see who wrote what, or there is no signature attached to the support/oppose declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
But the templates are being added where there is no interruption. It is clear, for example, that many users append lists to their comments. I'm not sure why we need the "interrupted" templates right before those lists. See, for example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William de St-Calais. Awadewit (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottava may be applying the template more often than I might, but beggars can't be choosers, and I'm glad to have the help, so I'm not going to knock it. One of the most frustrating things for me to have to do is to dig back through diffs to figure out who wrote what, who struck what, who forgot to sign, what comment is attached to what editor, and so on. When someone is willing to help out in this area, I don't want to look that gift horse in the mouth or cricitize it for being overzealous :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Understood. Awadewit (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Likewise. Graham Colm Talk 20:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I added it to any section that did not have a response interwoven (as I could tell from looking at diffs). If I have, please feel free to contact me and I can correct. In the above example, I can't see where I added one that wasn't interrupted. If I am missing something, please point it out. Sometimes a gnome has screws up a pair of shoes before he becomes a decent cobbler. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

8/11 Dispatch FAQ[edit]

Done per your suggestion. Let me know if there are other questions you have or recall that I should add. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Moni's RfA formatting[edit]

Ah thanks, I completely forgot! Anyway, all sorted now as you said. Thanks again. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake[edit]

Thank you for your thorough review of this article. I will work on satisfying your concerns. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 01:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you watchlisting this page? By the way, why the hell aren't you an admin? I'm sure the tools will help you on your relentless work with FACS. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What you reckon?[edit]

Hi Sandy, I was thinking of nominating this for FA at some point. It has a lot going for it, about 40% of it can already be found in the Jackson article which is featured and it passed it's GA review without going on hold. My concern is that it's a small (yet notable) topic and the Wikipedia masses are far too opinionated for this controversial topic to get through FA. Is it worth giving it a go or am I in a losing battle on this one. Advise appreciated. — Realist2 12:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Sandy, I just wanted to let you know that I am going on vacation for a week. I will be checking the image reviews I did and trying to keep up with any new ones, but my Wikipedia time will be necessarily limited. I will be checking the FACs no more than once per day. I hope this is sufficient. Awadewit (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, wasn't sure you still wanted it in the Aug 25th slot. It's been moved now. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I added it. You want me to greek up a rough intro to the dispatch too, or will we leave that to Tony's erudition? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I wish I could say I had better things to do... but I don't. I'll get on it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


I need help. I want to nominate an article so it could be a feature article, but I'm having problems: I can't get how to nominate it, and how to do it without being told I'm doing something wrong. Please try to give me the advice A.S.A.P. (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Wiki medal.jpg The Featured Article Medal
This featured article medal is awarded to Sandy for all her work on helping 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake at FAC. You'll make sure that it is the best it can be. Thanks, --LordSunday 21:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Hi SandyGeorgia; sorry to bother you, I'd ask this at WT:FAC, but I figured I'd get a more direct response here. Per FAC instructions, Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.. My FAC nomination has gained support, though another which I had inherently co-nominated by contributing to the article, has not yet been supported. Is it safe for me to nominate a second article? Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not worried about you nomming another, since Barry is stalled just waiting for reviewer declarations. The situation at the other one, though (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New York State Route 373) is a bit irregular, and considering the backlog at FAC and the lack of reviews, I hope nominators will be considerate and begin to review as many as they nominate. It's understandable that reviewerers tire of addressing repeat issues from some nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the reply. For what it's worth, I try to review FACs on the backlog list when I get a chance, so hopefully I'm not adding to the backlog too much. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

are you vandalizing[edit]

are you vandalizing it seems so I dont uderstand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaharous (talkcontribs) 04:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Amateur radio in India[edit]

Any reason for restarting the nom? At closure it had 3 supports and 1 oppose (which I had contested), I thought it should go through. I'm not sure if it will garner any additional supports this time around. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess I was mistaken about the supports :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You provided no link, so I hope that's good news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A lengthy, messy, poorly formatted FAC that has been hanging around the bottom of the page for three weeks may frighten off subsequent reviewers, who may not want to wade through the FAC to see where things stand. It wasn't clear that it had sufficient support to pass, or that leaving it at the bottom of the list any longer was likely to generate any new input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Re. to post on my talk page[edit]

I have replied on my talk page. Master&Expert (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

GO Cuse[edit]

So maybe my Fish aren't doing so well, but someone from The Hill is going to be the Democrats VP candidate. Being a progressive democrat/socialist, I was voting that way anyways, but now that the 'Cuse is represented, it's a slam-dunk for me. Joe Biden bleeds Orange. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the other team will choose someone from The Farm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
There's another team? Must be the Kansas City Royals. I'm confused. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sarria FAC[edit]

I would appreciate an explanation as to why the article was not promoted. There appeared to be support for it. Otto4711 (talk) 06:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this someone's idea of a joke? Sarria Tony (talk) 08:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
It's funnier thanks to your response, Tony. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 13:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Those who have been involved in the discussion are no doubt aware that the article in question is José Sarria. Those who have not been involved are perhaps better off remaining uninvolved. Otto4711 (talk) 15:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
After promoting/archiving, I sometimes get questions on my talk page. I will get to queries faster when a link is provided (see the big red letters at the top of my talk page): in this case, to the article and to the FAC. Since I am busy, and most of the queries are standard, it's helpful to me when other editors watch my talk page and help reply to the routine queries. They may not know what the article is or what the FAC is; providing a link helps them and me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks with two supports (one of them conditional), one oppose, and comments regarding outstanding issues is a normal FAC closing. To be resolved so it can come back to FAC, hopefully successfully:

  • The image question was never answered/resolved.
  • Three editors raised prose concerns; you'll have a better shot at FAC next time if you try to get them on board to work on the prose before you re-approach FAC.
  • There were concerns about the tightness of the lead and the amount of detail there.
  • There was concern that "some statements do not completely have backup from sources"; this is worthy of close review. The article is largely sourced to one bio, and that bio often quotes the subject himself. With so much dependence on the subject's own recall or statements, the article should make careful use of attribution, making it clear to the reader when statements are based on Sarria's own recollections or impressions.

I hope this helps, and hope to see the article back at FAC soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Can you offer some additional feedback on where you would like to see attribution to Sarria? I certainly have no objection, as I stated on the talk page, to adding such attribution but would appreciate some guidance on where you believe it is necessary. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You can do that better than I can :-) You know the sources best, and know best which text is supported by other sources and which is from him only or is surprising enough to warrant attribution. I don't want to micro-manage your article; it's just something to take into consideration so that the person who questioned the sourcing will feel comfortable when it comes back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bolding in the FAC instructions[edit]

OK, I can see why you did it; but when I first come to such instructions, first thing I do is to remove all of the bolding that has grown year by year. It ends up being obstructive past a certain (low) density. Perhaps it's a temporary measure? Can it be limited to that? Tony (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll see. I understand Raul's blinkie jokes now; I'm not sure any amount of bolding, bright colors, or blinkie lights will help assure that anything gets read, but I should at least try. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

US roads: they need to deepen their treatment[edit]

Well, some of the articles, especially. Even the biggies, like the second one in the FAC list, lack important dimensions and are too often predominantly an easy account matching the map and what one sees from the passenger window. Good way to while away the hours of travel: "Hey, let's create an FA outa this!". It's a missed opportunity to use the topic to reveal more of the human element, and even the economic and environmental dimensions. See my comment here. Tony (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thinking outside the infobox[edit]

Well not really. Citizendium have taken a different tack relating to the way their articles are organised. Essentially the article proper is conceived as a sun around which supplemental satellites revolve. By way of example, I've had a go here. I'm personally of the opinion that there's a great deal of 'extra value' (horrible phrase) we could give to readers with such an approach and the interminable arguments, jockeying for position in article space might subside. Any thoughts? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua[edit]

Hey. Saw you editing this, I think you were looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua 2, which is the current one on the WP:RFC/U page. Wizardman 16:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> ... thanks, Wizardman. Makes our archiving system at FAC look pretty good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, yeah. Me and Ncmvocalist are the only two that handle, well, basically all archiving there, so I think 90% of the older RFC's don't have any archive box on them. Wizardman 16:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, you have my sympathy. Without GimmeBot to tag and archive FAC and FAR closings, we'd be up a creek and have quite a mess of archives on our hands (as we did before Gimme spent years cleaning them up). Years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we can all blame the instructions page - it says to delist it from the main page when archiving, but says nothing about what to do on the actual RFC to show that it is archived. We recently improvised and added our own styles of "RFC closed" or "Archived RFC" to the RFC when delisting (to hopefully help avoid this sorta confusion), but 3+ years worth of older RFCs still need to be updated in the same way. 3+ years is not an exaggeration either I'm afraid. :S Anyway, it was no trouble at all. :) Will get back to updating those older cases soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Adminship proposal[edit]

Hi, Sandy. I was surprised to see this diff. From your vast experience and sensible discussions, I assumed that you must be an admin. You shouldn't need to ask other people to investigate these admin-related tasks. I have no doubt that Wikipedia would only benefit if you become an admin. I would like to nominate you as an admin candidate, if you are interested. Axl (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should add your requests to be an admin at WP:PEREN ;) Wizardman 16:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I should start an FAQ :-) But that would require me to enumerate the reasons I don't want to be an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Axl; no I'm not an admin, and have never wanted to be (reasons too numerous to list), but taxing vandal/troll/sock days like the last few days are certainly frustrating. They seem to have all come out at once, everywhere that I participate. I rather imagine it will let up when the US summer break ends. I had one vandal situation after another yesterday, and I even had a vandal fighter revert my FAC restarts (!!!) thinking I was a vandal, so it felt like I spent the entire day forum shopping for admin help, filling out reports, and repairing and restoring. Thanks for the offer; it's very kind of you. As it is, I feel that if I took on admin chores in addition to the other things I already do, and enjoy doing, the load would become heavier and would stop being fun. I hope a day like yesterday isn't the norm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
If all of you would get behind my Non-consensual adminship proposal, these discussions would be moot. WP:NCA. You heard it here first.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 17:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Elcobbola may find this amusing now. But wait until he wakes up one morning to see one of these on his userpage:

--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sign up Ealdgyth, The Fat Man, Elcobbola, GrahamColm, Maralia, Laser Brain, Colin, Eubulides ... shall I continue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This is how we "elect" our Speaker in the British Parliament. :-) Graham Colm Talk 18:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
(after e.c.)Hey, I learn something new every day. From Speaker of the British House of Commons#Election: "Upon the passage of the motion, the Speaker-elect is expected to show reluctance at being chosen; he or she is customarily "dragged" by colleagues to the Chair. This custom is a relic of the era when the Speaker, as representative of the Commons, could have been required to bear bad news to the Sovereign." Feigned resistance. Reminds me of my favorite lines from "Sobbin' Women", an unbelievably offensive musical number from the film Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, which I will paraphrase here:
She acted angry and annoyed
But secretly she was overjoyed
--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
So yeah, that's the funniest thing I've seen all week. Simply glorious, that box is.

ЭLСОВВОLД talk 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I worked long and hard on it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
24-hour rule. Long post composed and deleted :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I presume you're referring to this and not this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Perhaps you would consider adding a userbox to your userpage? Best wishes. Axl (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Not Admin.svgThis editor is not an administrator and does not wish to be one.
I had one of those once; it generated a gazillion "why not" questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
How about trumping any further suggestion by automatic incivility with a userbox that says, "Anyone who suggests this user run for admin is a *&)(*()&!!@## idiot!" --Moni3 (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't look at me, babe; that's called preaching to the choir :-) Really, I wish Wiki would just find a way to allow me to correct malformed FAC noms and do moves over redirects. Do I really have to go through character assassination to do those two little things? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Short answer: yes. Which is a shame. You should self-nom, simply because there have been dozens of editors that want to nom you. I can think of a few opposers, but they are vastly outnumbered. Keeper ǀ 76 18:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

←I would actually oppose your RfA for one reason (well two, but only one official one). I think your service to this organization is too valuable to be wrapped up in the mundane tasks of admins. I would be afraid that you'd quit looking at FAC's and FAR's. And that's my opinion. Oh, I don't vote for whiny Bosox fans either. And finally, Keeper76 is well-known for paying other editors to complete articles for him, so maybe he's open to being your personal admin...for a price. :) Anyways, your value to this project would be decreased if you were one of those admin types. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify Orangemarlins presumptive presumption, I've never paid anyone to improve articles. I've cajoled them, yes. Begged even. To the point that some editors even paid money to get to subscription based reliable sources. For the benefit of Wikipedia really, as I suck at article writing. That's money out of their own pocket, not out of mine. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Where's the whiny Bosox fan? I'm fully prepared to wait another 86 years. Especially if that makes the price of tickets come down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, Keeper76 has paid me $11.27 for articles. I believe they were personal biographies of him, which were fairly boring. They were speedy deleted. As for "whiny" I'm generalizing about Bosox fans, of course. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, since I have the attention of both of you, can you both please tell me WTH is going on over on Mastcell's talk page? Y'all really shouldn't mess with my brain after 48 hours of dealing with socks trolls vandals ips and pov-pushing BS. I just wandered over to Mastcell's talk page, intending to let him know that I've reached my vandal quotient level for the week, and in the interest of sanity, am going to temporarily unwatch Depersonalization disorder, autism, Asperger syndrome, autism spectrum disorder and sociological and cultural aspects of autism, thinking it was quite mature of me to recognize I've reached my limit and ask someone else to watch those articles. Then I encountered a bunch of crap on Mastcell's page that about put me over the top. How much of that is a joke? Is any of it real? Can someone give me a nutshell, or alternately, if any of it's real, spare me so I won't pop a circuit breaker? I hope there's a darn good ball game on tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hardly any of it. Apparently there was a real jerk on ANI, you know of those types that we give 473 chances to. He threatened to have MC blocked for one of MC's very cogent and well-written points. It went downhill from there. Oh, and MC's block log is amusing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, may I know who threatened to have him blocked? And if I go look at his block log, am I going to pop that circuit or laugh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Re-read it, all caught up, now I get it all. Gosh, I really was in an off mood when I looked the first time. I like to be fashionably late to the party, but not that late. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Personally at this point in the wiki's development I for one am glad if people are reminded that one can contribute as much as anyone and have as much standing, by being an editor alone. (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to post this, except to say that MastCell's page is a farce, he's never been blocked (outside of him blocking himself, the fool that he is), and I've never paid anyone any real money to add any articles. Never. OM is joking, I hope. I cajoled a newer editor into making a DYK out of a seriously lacking article, but I only used my "influence" to do so, no cash. Promise. Keeper ǀ 76 22:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think she got that it was a joke. Someone actually emailed me asking for my thoughts about his block. And it was from a really experienced editor. I won't tell you what they said regarding your refusal to unblock him. Nicely done. As for not paying for articles, I've heard that Minnesotans are quite tight with money. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
If nothing else, I really wanna know what this "experienced editor" said about my refusal to unblock :-). I'll live without it though, seeing as I still refuse to enable email communications. As for "tight with money" issues, yeah, the stereotype is definitely true. I've driven an extra 5 or 6 miles because I "heard" somewhere that gas was cheaper, probably by a cent or three, somewhere else. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You know when a joke seems funny at first, then it gets silly, and then it takes on a life entirely its own? That's sort of what happened. I should probably archive that thread - Sandy's not the first person to do a double-take at it. MastCell Talk 22:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I eventually caught up and caught on. When I went to MastCell's talk page initially, I was on troll/vandal/sock overload and had no sense of humor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
As much as I love thaqt thread, Mast, you should archive it, or delete it. If it fooled SG, it will fool others. NONE of us need the grief, or the extra kB to explain the joke....Keeper ǀ 76 22:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you should consider this userbox as the definitive statement on your stance toward adminship. Ordinarily I know better than to quote Sherman to a Georgian, but you did say you had your sense of humor back... :) MastCell Talk 23:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I like Yogiisms much better: "It's tough making predictions, especially about the future". Maybe someday ArbCom will put some respect into adminship. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Fundamentally RFA is supposed to be a users test of trust from the community. So to suggest running through the baying rabble at the 'broken' RFA process is unnecessary in my opinion. Sandy does her job and clearly already enjoys the trust and needs a limited toolset, so IAR. It would generate an uproar of course and mutterings about precedent, but she's clearly a special case (haha!). --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Considering one of the worst possible RfA candidates is now live, it is clear that the system is broken. Keeper has suggested that some of the admin tools be broken off and given to regular editors would be great. For example, the ability to delete, or undelete articles would be useful. I think article protection could be the next step up. I don't think we need admins any more. We need individuals with a progressive list of tools, starting at rollback, moving all the way up the ladder to checkuser. You earn each step with trust, etc. For example, SG could use the undelete and article protection tools. Admins have become an anachronism to this project. IMHO. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bring in the big guns...[edit]

Okay, I removed the portal link from the infoboxes again, but have been reverted. Can you work your magic MOS on Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury and Template:Infobox Archbishop of York or bring someone more knowledgable in to do so? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll post over at WP:Layout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I did my part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You have my permission[edit]

to publicly, and prolifically, slap me around. Just saying. For any reason, really, but mostly at RFAs. I just read your post at Moni's RFA talkpage, and I have been guilty, several times, at getting too emotionally involved in RFAs, Moni's included. I've tried desperately to avoid posting as much in Moni's, to a modicum of success, but not complete success. If you ever see me badgering or over-drama-mama-ficating an RFA, please put a cease and desist on my talkpage? If it comes from you, I'll know it to be sincere and deserved. The entire text should be "Keeper, shut the fuck up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Good user that is getting oppose votes that you dont agree with". You won't need to say anything else, but you are allowed to bold the "fuck". Good god, whenever I decide to leave Wikipedia, I'm gonna need a 12-step program.....Keeper ǀ 76 18:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, RfAs make me emotional, too, but showing that emotion never bodes well for the nominee :-) Moni will be fine if we don't get in her way; she knows what she's about, and that shows in the WP:100. I've composed and then decided not to post about a dozen responses over there; the old "sit on your fingers for 24 hours to see what changes" rule often comes in handy. But I came pretty close to popping some F-bombs on friendly talk pages last night myself. At best, let's hope the same scrutiny that has been applied to Moni will be applied to some of the noms that get through RfA easily precisely because they did what Moni refused to do, and then turn into disastrous admins. I hope the way Moni approached her candidacy will provoke some thought and challenge that awful system. I can support someone because I fundamentally trust them: I'd like to be able to oppose on the same basis. Bad Gut Feel, no matter how correctly they jumped through the hoops. When Archtransit's RfA came up, I had a 100% gut feel about him (I'd dealt with him at FAC, and the talk page interaction was "off" from the beginning) that was eventually proven right, but how could I oppose on that basis, with no evidence? It was only later we found we'd given the tools to a sockmaster. Do we want RfAs like that, or like Moni's? Archtransit affected articles, processes, and editors, but I had no basis to oppose since I had nothing but my gut to go on when his RfA came up. He created havoc and a ton of work for other editors to check and correct the damage. Moni may make some mistakes, as any of us might, but after this RfA, I'm confident she's going to make sure to bone up on policy and check with other admins before she uses the tools, and she's not going to break Wiki. All WP:100 of us are saying that our "gut" is on when it comes to Moni, in spite of her uncoached answers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, good to know that I'm not the only one wanting to put my fist through my screen to shake the sense out of other editors. I'm more than impressed by Moni's composure, despite the good faith but misguided opposition to what should be a simple request. Hopefully, you'll not ever have to tell me to STFU. Keeper ǀ 76 18:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
If I can submit a statement here, just to say that I very much appreciate the support given during the RfA. I knew I would have weaknesses, and that's ok. There are some hurtful comments, but I allow them to hurt me (a la Eleanor Roosevelt). What I feel needs addressing, I hope I am addressing constructively. What I have absolutely no productive response to, I'm letting alone. If there are sentiments you feel you must absolutely express, feel free to email me or put it on my talk page. It is a process, as are all on Wiki, that should be challenged. As should I be. As should we all. God forbid it become boring and we complacent. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of God: it's become apparent to me that an awful lot of asshats would have rejected the baby Jesus himself at birth - he wasn't born already walking and talking, after all. Maralia (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
They did that, too :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec response to Keeper) Most of the opposition raised valid concerns about Moni's responses to the questions, and did so respectfully. Very few went off-track (and even though they were few, those few surely hurt, and that's what makes RfA suck, that you have to read that crap, and not let it color your perception or wear you down or dampen your enthusiasm). But, just as we should never stifle anyone's right to Oppose at FAC, we shouldn't badger opposers at RfA (lest we end up with another Archtransit, because someone who knew in their gut he was wrong was afraid to speak up). Moni's RfA is a simple test between fundamental trust from those who know her well in someone who refused coaching and opted instead to run on trust and answered some of the questions wrong, versus admin-coached nominees who jump through the hoops to get the right answers so they can pass RfA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I supported, but I'm very concerned about her response to Question 10 about consensus. I'm not a big fan of the word (I worked for a company whose culture was consensus management--we made some amazingly bad decisions). Anyways, because I know MastCell, Keeper and you will guide her along, I'm confident she'll do well for the project. I personally want more admins who have lots of experience in building the project rather than mopping up. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The only thing that I object to from your post is the implication that Moni needs anyone to "guide her along". The day Moni needs "advice" from me is the day she decides to clear out the CSD backlog, which #1 is so insanely easy to do, and #2 is not something Moni would enjoy probably because of how easy it is to do. The day Moni decides to clear out the CSD backlog is the day that Wikipedia takes another step towards death, because it means a day that she isn't doing what she's great at, namely writing articles. She needs the tools to do what she loves to do, more proficiently, more effectively, and without having to waste time "looking around for an admin", which if I recall from my pre-admin days was frustrating and a bit humiliating. Frankly, it's a damn shame that she (and ahem, sandygeorgia), don't have them the admin tools. If there was a way that I could simply give my tools to an article writer (can you even imagine the uproar at ANI if I did?) and voluntarily desysop my account, I would do it. I do a lot of admin work, I'm pretty sure I do it well, but there is absolutely no valid reason why I can see deleted versions of pages when Moni, SandyGeorgia, Malleus Fatuorum, and (dare I say it?) yes, Orangemarlin, cannot. My guilt over passing RFA so easily in a bleak January week is what compels me to help the article writers in whatever way I can feebly help. Keeper ǀ 76 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow - RfA has become so traumatic that you have survivor guilt. It's a sad statement on the process. Honestly, you hit the nail - the single most useful aspect of adminship, to me, is access to deleted revisions. It makes it much easier to sort out what's going on. Of course, I'll abusively block health-freedom advocates when my contract with Pfizer absolutely demands it, but that's more like work.

Honestly, I tend to avoid RfA because it makes me pessimistic about The Community. I've seen a lot of good candidates crash and burn for ridiculous reasons, while iffy ones sail through because they've managed to keep a low profile or made the right connections on IRC. It's kind of like the Supreme Court nomination process, which is a Bad Thing.

It's not that important to me that people show X number of AN/I edits, and X amount of AfD participation, and X number of AIV reports, and so forth. I just want to see maturity and an indication that the person can learn on the job. Medical schools don't look for candidates who can already sort out a fever-and-rash or take out an appendix. Law schools don't look for candidates who are ready to litigate a case. They look for people who have the capacity to learn to do those things effectively.

Admins don't get in trouble because they forget the details of the protection policy or the technical differences between a block and a ban. They get in trouble because they won't admit or learn from their mistakes. This seems so obvious to me as to be self-evident, but the focus at RfA is always on numbers, technicalities, etc or else on finding a "gotcha!" diff. But anyhow. MastCell Talk 20:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Autism talk[edit]

Isnt it generally considered a bad idea to edit a part of the talk page, even a header, that was written by someone else? You changed Dangerous Article to Independence and Autism, which was part of sometrhing that was dealt with several weeks ago. It seems kind of unnecessary even if Im wrong about it being against the rules. Other than that, of course, I think youre a great Wikipedian and I wish I could do 1/10 of the amount of work that you do. Youll notice, I imagine, that I generally hold back from reverting anything in any of the Autism articles unless someone I trust has already reverted the same thing. This is because I dont want to get caught doing the wrong thing. Soap Talk/Contributions 22:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Soap; I've temporarily unwatched those pages because I've reached my limit on patience in dealing with vandals, trolls, socks and pov-pushers in the last 48 hours. Anyway, see WP:TALK regarding neutral headings. It's iffy to edit another editor's actual content, ever, unless it's a personal attack or BLP violation, but changing a clearly non-neutral heading to something neutral isn't uncommon. Subsequent readers shouldn't come to the talk page and find a prejudicial, biased, non-neutral heading like that. If the other user reverts, though, best to let it go and not edit war over a section heading. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Random FA in sidebar[edit]

Hello, Sandy. I have made a proposal about adding to the sidebar a link to a random FA here:MediaWiki_talk:Sidebar#add_to_navigation, if you would like to comment. (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sandy[edit]

Very sorry to bother you, and actually I wouldn't be doing it if I really didn't need your help. But seeing as how you're really experienced with content... see, I recently created an article called "Popularity of StarCraft in South Korea," which was shortly thereafter deleted due to lack of meaningful content and the fact that it could be covered in the main StarCraft article. The problem is that I cannot seem to find anything that can serve as a new article here on Wikipedia - any suggestions on where to look? Master&Expert (talk) 01:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You might get help in that area from David Fuchs (talk · contribs), Gary King (talk · contribs), Giggy (talk · contribs) or Deckiller (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Looking at Deckillers page, he seems to be into Final Fantasy, so I'm guessing he knows alot about video games. Anyways, thank you for your help. :) Master&Expert (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Revisit[edit]

The image concerns at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sri Lankan Tamil people have been all sorted out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Moni RfA[edit]

I've been curious all day about a change in the tally that occurred while I was sleeping, and just now tracked down this edit, from an editor I've never encountered before. It appears this editor may have thought to do this because your comments started with "Comment" rather than "Oppose"? Can you revisit and correct as needed? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notice.
I left a commented out "comment" which may "hopefully" preclude further action.
Thanks again. - jc37 06:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


How in the world is it that you're not an admin? - jc37 06:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

She is too gracious, kind, caring, thoughtful, and contributes to articles. That automatically disqualifies her. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson[edit]

When I went to Wikimania this summer I attended a talk on the quality of Wikipedia's scientific articles by a biochemist. His analysis spent some time on scientific FAs and discussed their high quality. He had professors read and critique the articles: they were impressed with the quality of the FAs. As I am sure you are aware, it has been demonstrated more than once that Wikipedia's science articles are of a high quality, particularly the FAs. I have encouraged him to perform the same experiment with humanities articles, because I think it is important that we know how we are doing in that area as well. Unfortunately, I know that many of our literature FAs would not get such glowing reports from literature professors and I urge you to help me make these FAs into something that would. If we want Wikipedia to have truly excellent articles in the humanities, we have to set a high bar. For this reason, I am asking that you consider withdrawing Samuel Johnson so that sections on his works and his legacy can be added. Any professor of literature will tell you that you cannot write a biography of an author without discussing his works and the impact of those works in some depth. We would not write an article about a scientist that did not include a discussion of their discoveries and we would not write a biography of an artist that did not discuss their paintings, sculptures, etc. A biography of an author that does not discuss the texts of that author is incomplete. Thanks for considering this. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Name a major work that didn't get mentioned. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
That is not the point and you know it. The point is that general readers who don't already know Johnson's writings will not learn what kind of writer he is from the two or three sentence descriptions that most of the works received and they will not learn about the huge impact of his writings. Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
What kind of writer he was? Are you absurd? There is information on all of his works. The rest is you making a point. I suggest you stop immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, no tangles on my talk, please. I'll respond more later after I've had time to watch the video Awadewit posted (which will be later today). I'm excited to view that: I came to Wiki because the medical content here was dangerously irresponsibly and outrageously bad two years ago. There was literally not a single article I could view on Wiki as an example of where I wanted to take Tourette syndrome, and I was going it alone until Tim Vickers, Colin, Eubulides and many others came along and have gradually strengthened the standard in bio/med articles to something that we can truly be proud of. I'm thrilled that new editors now have the model that wasn't present when I first found Wiki: that autism, Asperger syndrome and schizophrenia were all significantly improved once the example of Tourette syndrome was available, and other medical articles came to a higher standard after Tim Vickers cleaned up tuberculosis at FAR.
In terms of withdrawing the FAC, it is not my nomination or my writing. My contribution is years of watching that article (it is literally one of the first articles I edited on Wiki, because I came to Wiki to deal with the dismal TS article), cleaning it up, MoS and citation fixes, and help on the TS content. It's Ottava's nom, and withdrawing or continuing is entirely his choice.
Speaking generally about the recent trend towards lengthy building of FAs at FAC, this is what I believe a FAC should look like: I'm proud to have gained 18 supports in the first 24 hours the nom was up, 20 total supports, no opposes, no lengthy discussion or fixing needed at FAC, some minor issues addressed. I don't understand why nominators don't withdraw more often and I don't understand why some nominators and reviewers submit to a process of lengthy line-by-line building and review of every sentence in articles at FAC, rather than using the talk page or withdrawing if more work is needed. I don't know why a nominator wants a FAC linked in articlehistory that shows an article that was dragged to status over lengthy objections and issues. Perhaps my standards are different, but I value the clean FAC that TS had, because I left no stone unturned in preparing the article before I was dragged kicking and screaming to FAC by other editors who threatened to nom TS if I didn't. But building FAs at the FAC Service Station "where you can get an article fixed for free" (© Malleus Fatuorum) seems to be the trend now, with FAC looking more and more like peer review every day, and many editors realizing that they'll get the best attention to their article at FAC. I am not saying any of this is the case with Johnson, only that I can't ask that Ottava submit to a different standard than what has become the norm at FAC, and I have to leave that choice to him. It is his nom. If it were my nom, and I didn't have a dozen supports within a few days, I'd withdraw, but that's not the way FAC is working lately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I cant, with a clear conscience, withdraw a nom that has this: "Support—Well done indeed. Tony (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)" Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
And I can't ask you to be held to a standard different than the latest trend in building FAs from the ground up at FAC. Clearly, this work is worthy considering other articles that have passed on four supports after three weeks at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Moving on to a new topic: Sandy, I agree with all that you said above. I have been increasingly concerned with the peer review nature of FAC. I think that it is making it difficult for reviewers to review a large number of articles at FAC. I know that I personally have gotten bogged down recently in doing research for FACs. Do you think it would be possible to have a productive discussion about this at the FAC talk page or do you think that we have to let the winds of change blow us back in the other direction when the time is right? (By the way, if you would like to hear any of the comments I heard about FAC at Wikimania, email me and I will pass them on. I thought you might be interested in the perception of FAC that I encountered.) Awadewit (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if part of the problem (and note I said part here) is that when someone opposes on, say, "prose concerns", folks don't consider that objection valid unless its accompanied by a long list of examples. Even when the prose and referencing is clearly out of whack, folks still complain that they aren't valid opposes unless a laundry list is attached. It's only one step from that to FAC becoming like PR. I'm more willing to give first time nominators at FAC some more slack, but people like myself should know what's expected and strive to get our prose/references/images/MOS issues at least close before nominating. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec reply to Awadewit) A couple of thoughts, since this has concerned me for a while now, and I've wondered why others hadn't commented or noticed. I'm not sure a FAC talk discussion would be productive right now, because so many editors are on travel or vacation breaks. Question: is this happening now because *I* used to be the editor who ran through all of FAC at least once a week and put up a yea or nay on as many as I could, only engaging in depth when the nomination clearly was close and the nominator was responsive? No one seems to be doing that anymore, and nominations are running longer and longer, with increasingly more resources devoted to the lesser prepared. As a reviewer, I didn't engage in line-by-line improvement of articles at FAC; if the article was close enough that it had a chance, and the nominator was involved and responsive, I engaged on talk, rolling up my sleeves to edit whenever I could. I could do that by limiting my participation to those that had the best chance. Otherwise, I put up a long samples only list of fixes needed in every area (1a to 4), switched to oppose if they weren't addressed in a reasonable amount of time, and moved on. Maybe give the winds of change a chance and see which way they blow? It's not like I want to encourage reviewers to use the oppose button more often, and if other editors prefer the "new FAC", that's fine. I reviewed differently, but I need to step back on personal style and preference :-)) Perception of FAC at Wikimania, no need to e-mail about that. I believe in transparency, so if something needs to be said, please feel free to say it here. Also, as my background is in scientific methods and statistics, I'd view any commentary coming out of Wikimania as a classic example of ascertainment bias and a self-selecting sample; still worth hearing, but has to be viewed in that context. I've spent countless hours in FAC archives, and I'm pretty satisfied that 1) nothing else on Wiki works as well as FAC does, even with its foibles, and 2) FAC is much improved over years ago. Haven't had a chance to view your video yet, in fact, haven't gotten through my watchlist yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Watchlist?! I'm just scrolling through the FAC page at this point, trying frantically to catch up with my image reviews! Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Good news for you :-) Look who's back ! Black Kite (talk · contribs). Give that editor a hearty welcome!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I think somewhere along the line the world went upside down. Most of the FAs should be standard GAs, many of the great articles aren't FAs, and it seems more like a popularity contest filled with double standards than anything reasonable. Its things like this that cause people to be disgruntled about the whole thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I got to listen to the talk tonight, no ball game, nothing on TV. Of interest: 1) the only issue found with Tim Vickers articles were that he was constrained by length, this perspective changes my hatred of extra-long articles; 2) mention of citations, citations, citations for those who complain against them (I note that the bio/med articles have led the way in this territory on Wiki); 3) noted that DNA repair was bad, I note that it's an older FA, highlights the need for regular review of our older FAs, something I want to tackle once our pre-2005 uncited FAs are all processed. Criticizes MoS review at FAC, but offers no viable alternative and fails to mention that there's no other option currently available to us for bringing articles to a professional standard; if we were to require external copyediting and review for manual of style, who would do that work? If it's not dealt with at FAC, where is it dealt with? We don't have a staff of professional coyeditors. I suspect that WP:MEDMOS (Colin's effort) and other such guidelines have has a big impact on quality in the bio/med area. I'm unaware if such an effort translates to the humanities. I also noted that he mentioned how current the developed articles were in relation to EB; he mentioned within ten years. Tourette syndrome is as up to the minute as it can be (while avoiding RECENTISM). Samuel Johnson has a chance to reflect current knowledge rather than imitating EB, which relegates Johnson's TS to one word. The strength of Wiki is that we can draw on editor knowledge and not become fossilized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

More on Johnson[edit]

Here is a collection of information in which Johnson has interacted with people/writers, and may be considered as "influence". The beginning shows that Johnson (and not his works) may have helped a few female writers based on his fame. It also shows how he was ignored except in critical fields and was despised during the early 19th century. Anything that could be gleaned in addition to what is already included has been, for the most part, put on the talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy - Basis for a new page. I plan on moving the sections as they were to a new page, putting some stuff about his relationships, and then the "depression" section can be limited to a few lines from Bate talking about him being depressed. Then, you can remove the picture from the TS section and shorten it, limiting it just to some lumped claims about scholars and TS, and mostly cite Pearce. I plan on calling the new page Samuel Johnson's character or some derivation of that. This should give enough space to work with, because people wont be satisfied until there are at least 3 more Johnson pages, and this page just being a center of everything else known to Johnson, even though the Shakespeare page isn't even close to such. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, that provides an example of why it's hard to do this kind work while an article is at FAC :-) Given time to sort this, there is no better editor on all of Wiki to help sort the TS section than Colin. I implemented some of his suggestions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I added in plot summaries, some more analysis, some links with Johnson and some more people, a legacy about societies about him, more on the biographies, and a section on his influence on criticism. I chopped. I added redundancies. I added in things that were not that notable. I went over the 10,000 word limit. There is nothing else really. Its hit the limit. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It's OK to slightly pass 10,000 words; many FAs do, and Johnson warrants it. Have you dealt with Colin's list? For example, a physical description is warranted. And I see a long, off-topic, rather unpleasant discussion between Durova and you on the FAC that has little to do with WIAFA; I feel badly for Raul having to read through that, I've moved comments from Durova to talk on two FACs before, but I don't feel I can do that on a FAC in which I'm involved. I suggest that the two of you should come to an agreement to move that bickering to talk, and stay on topic from here forward. There is nothing as unpleasant as having to read through off-topic bickering on a FAC; at worst, it discourages future reviewers and discourages support, and at best, it results in a restart so the substance of the FAC can be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Awadewit has exposed my failure to notice the paucity of information on Samuel Johnson's style. It shouldn't be hard to add even a smallish section or a few paragraphs within an existing section, with refs. Tony (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Which style? Which work? I added 9k worth of background into works and elaboration as to what they are. What else needs to be mentioned? Ottava Rima (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This is probably a mistake, but I will neverthless use a well-known phrase from a situation comedy about the German invasion of France (yes, seriously) that you may well not recognise: "I weel say zees only once". Confronting those offering criticism—I mean that in the "official" meaning of the word, not as in being uncomplimentary—is not helpful. Some good points are being made, but we're not responding to them in a positive way. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Points aren't helpful without specific examples. Its a long page, so it needs to have exact examples so that the weight can be measured and things can be carefully trimmed to allow in other details. I would like to respect the MoS and stay below 10,000 words. Of course anyone can always say that more can be added, because more always can. However, there are page caps so that not everything gets added into the main page. I worked on all of those extra pages so that the information would be easily accessible. It wasn't without a reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
MANY FAs exceed 10,000 words; Johnson warrants it. And listen to the video above; one of the only criticisms of Tim Vickers' work is that Wiki constrains him on length. I agree with Malleus about saying it only once; those who don't respond to reviewers at FAC don't get FAs. (I'm going to refactor this entire thread into two, to separate the Wikimania talk from Johnson, so please don't post here until I finish.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Ottava, Tony doesn't tend to keep terribly current on an article/FAC page's content once he's posted there - he probably had not yet seen your recent additions when he made the above comment. He's not all that likely to see this conversation soon, either; you might want to drop a note on his talk page to let him know you've added significant info to the article. Maralia (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think at this point I would rather cut the "Early life and education" and "College" in half, and move the full sections to their own page about Johnson's early years. Boswell made him thought of as an old man. People only care about careers. I also am leaning towards making a page for the "Character sketch" to pull over the information I had to remove, plus add a greater section about his views on religion, politics, women, etc, and I could go more in depth about his appearance. The TS section would be there and expanded, plus I can give more of an account of how people originally tried diagnosing him under all sorts of other things before finally getting the d--- diagnosis right. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
OR, I mentioned earlier on the talk page that I had travel pending at the end of the month, and that this timing was bad for me. I've also mentioned several times that the way forward on this article is to satisfy Colin, who IMNSHO is one of Wiki's most exceptional editors, and has not come to this article review as a pile-on oppose. He has provided several good roadmaps for improving the article that deserve attention. I cannot say that I can work on this over the next three weeks; my travel itself is not that consuming, but the pre-travel preparations and post-travel afterburn are going to require a lot of my time, and my FAC duties come first. As of now, you have an 80 KB FAC, full of bickering. It is still your choice whether to withdraw. I can tell you what I would do if I were the person closing this FAC. First, considering the important level of support that the article has, that one oppose is uninformed, and that the other opposes focus around basically one solvable issue, I would let it run until the bickering and blatant personal attacks ran their course, hoping that once emotions are spent, article improvements will commence. Some of the opposes are startling, and time may help resolve some of the misconceptions. I was completely unaware that Johnson's TS was not common knowledge, and I did not foresee opposition on that front. Some have mentioned the Zappa FAC as a comparison of an article that reviewers tried to force to a certain mold; the comparison is not entirely apt, since that had nothing to do with my closing rationale on that FAC, but that may be happening on this article, and time for others to realize the full force of TS on Johnson's life may help. Colin can be helpful there. Second, if and when you satisfied Colin's list, I would restart the FAC for a fresh look. I don't know what Raul will do or even if he processes FACs the same way I do. If he asks me, that would be my recommendation. If he processes them the way I do, do you really want this FAC hanging around, growing to 100KB over the next month, when I won't be able to fully focus on it? Can you get Malleus and Colin to help finish it off? I happen to know the value Colin places on no ifs ands or buts apologies, I think you were initially rougher with him than necessary, and Colin can help polish this article and he knows enough about TS that it won't be misrepresented in my absence. It's still your choice; it it were mine, I'd withdraw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with Colin and he made many good points. However, I do loathe the Encyclopedia Britannica. :) Authoritative jerks who were unfit in actual criticism putting forth slander and false praise as if it means something because it comes from them. Not even Harold Bloom would have gone that far, and my colleagues can attest to my feelings regarding that man. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I will say this for the last time. I know very well the value Colin places on no ifs ands or buts apologies, and "I have no problem with Colin" does not fit that category. Colin can get this article featured. Colin did not come to this review as a pile-on oppose; Colin did not come to this review because he has past differences with you or has called for you to be banned from FAC in the past. You were rougher with Colin than necessary after his initial comments. I respect people who know how to apologize and make amends and move on; I remember those who can't or won't. I will not ask again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
If thats how you feel, thats how you feel. However, he outlined his complaint with the Encyclopedia Britannica and used it as his justification. That does not correspond to the image that you are attempting to portray. You can't get more clear than this: "I've now read the Britannica article, thanks to Awadewit. I now oppose this FAC". Thats not a legitimate oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My apolagies[edit]

My apolagies I hope I did not offend you a few days ago when I was undoing what I thought was vandalism, the only thing I know about wikipedia is I have been here for three years and I can write articles the rest of the beaurocracy to me is quite alien to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaharous (talkcontribs) 20:39, August 24, 2008

Spanish Tanks Template[edit]

Hi Sandy, you recently moved the template "SpanishTanks" down to the bottom of the AMX-30E article. I've read Wikipedia:Accessibility and I'm not sure how having it under the infobox breaches the MoS (and, most tank articles have the vertical tank template under the infobox if it's small). By putting the template on the bottom, in my opinion, you are actually making the page less accessible, because now it's no longer easy to navigate between Spanish tanks (the template is not easy to see and is not very accessible). If the code to get rid of bunching is against Wikipedia:Accessibility then why not get rid of it? From the page you linked to in the article's history -

Navigational boxes are a collection of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. Navigational boxes should be just after the lead section so a Wikipedian using a screen reader can jump to the table of contents without reading the whole navigational text. The reason for this is the same as the reason for avoiding the floating TOC, which is discussed below.

I don't want to just "revert" the edit, because you might be correct. But, I'd like to know more on why it breaks the Accessibility MoS. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not the bunching code, it's the placement of the template. Per WP:ACCESSIBILITY, the template belongs under the text in the lead, not under the infobox. But placing it correctly under the text in your articles results in a huge white space, because the infobox is so long in relation to the lead. I don't know how you can solve it other than re-doing the template to a horizontal, normal template to be used at the bottom of the article. Also, you're defining accessible incorrectly; it's related to how the text displays on screen readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh alright, that makes sense. Thanks. JonCatalán (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Yea, it makes sense. I changed the template to a "wide" template and moved it to the bottom. JonCatalán (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


I recently created a subpage called User:Master&Expert/How to make a tactful point. I was wondering if it violates any policy in the process of making it. Master&Expert (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of messy though. But I've been on the internet for years, so I've seen alot of arguments. Is it something that Wikipedia allows? Master&Expert (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:User page explains what you can do on a user page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
What I created doesn't appear to be disallowed by the subpages policy, so I guess it's acceptable. Thank you for pointing that out. Master&Expert (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Bird's FAC[edit]

Consider me thoroughly chastised and contrite. It was in no way my intention to downplay anyone's efforts. And I didn't thank you? I really am genuinely sorry. Thank you. Your efforts were an immense help.

And you were right, I was mixing up copyediting with MOS problems. I'll stop moping and go fix something instead. Feel free to call me out again if I blow it again. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Croatia national team FA issues[edit]

Hello, I noticed you were amongst the prime director and decision-makers when it comes to Featured Articles. Can I ask now that you ignore the user Fasach Nua on this candidate page? When you look at the comments, you will see the fair point that I raised in the sense that he has gone around and deliberately ruined FA's etc by bringing up issues that have already been resolved and proven wrong. My replying comment says it all. He doesn't understand or even listen to the replying arguments given to him, he just keeps opposing due to image violations which clearly don't exist. You cannot reach a consensus with him, so I am therefore requesting and warning that you are best to just ignore his comments when you look at this nomination. You can see the results of his deliberate mind-games arguments here. He has clearly been proven wrong but still brings up the issue as if he has massive support, which he doesn't. Just wanted to let you know personally so you can rightfully overlook his opposing of the nomination and focus more significantly on the actual legitimate issues when deciding upon this article. Thanks! Domiy (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I would also like to request you have a look and judge this article because it seems that the responses are merely just criticism and lack of support. I really think it has the right to be a FA since I have fixed up all raised issues by other users, so there clearly seems to be no more major requirements. I'm worried about the nomination being wrongly archived due to a lack of users posting, so I am requesting you take a look at it here.

You can find the nomination here THANKS A LOT! Domiy (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hint hint[edit]

September 21 is Alzheimer's Disease Day worldwide. Just a thought. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to go to WP:TFA/R and calculate your points. I can think of one for date connection, one for underrepresented (health), I think you've already had a mainpage, and time since Polio will be a problem. I don't think you have enough points. Congratulations, by the way ! I never thought that article would make it, considering some of the past interfer ... um ... collaboration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Ummmm. The hint was that I can't nominate (or get someone else to do it) until it's officially FA. That hasn't happened. My FA on the main page was Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event. :) And I won't nominate. :) And what article wouldn't make it? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I guess you don't have Wp:FAC watchlisted;[5] see WP:FAC/ar. I was saying that I don't think AZ has enough points to be nominated at TFA/R; I think it only has 2 points, maybe less since Polio is recent. You have to calculate the points there to see if it has enough to replace another article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey that's great. No, I don't have it watchlisted (but I do now). So who puts the cute stars on the article? :D Thanks!!!! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Hello! I didn't quite understand what you meant when you said samples only. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just that I hadn't checked them all, you should check for others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, I knew I was being dense. Thank-you! I've checked them all over now and added the remaining language tag. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks good; congratulations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you very much :). Seraphim♥Whipp 16:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Trenton[edit]

I am very angry that you closed the Battle of Trenton. There was no reason whatsoever to do so. I was in the process of fixing what others had suggested when you closed it.-Red4tribe (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The sourcing issue you mentioned involved 1 sentence, on a possible quote. It was another editor asking me if it was said in other books, which I had not yet got around to checking. All other suggestions were taken care of which is why there is no reason whatsoever to close it. I see you also commented on a problem with the amount of casualties. They are clarifyed in the footnote. I would advise you to reopen the nomination or at least please look into what you deem "problems" before closing it. I do not mean to sound rude but this is something you must understand.-Red4tribe (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Red4tribe, I'm sure you were fixing all the issues. However, after the nomination had been open for over a month it had only garnered one support vote. Even if all of the issues had been struck, the nomination did not have enough support to be promoted. Perhaps you can take it to peer review and see if there are additional comments before renominating again in several weeks? Karanacs (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
That usually takes forever and the last time they only asked me to expand the lead. I don't know, I guess I'll go for the A-Class but I'm still pretty ticked off.-Red4tribe (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
MilHist A-class peer review is a well-oiled machine, superior to regular peer review. It could be very helpful in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You've got a pretty good list of things that still need to be addressed from this FAC, so no reason to be ticked off that I can see. Disappointed yes, but not ticked off. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
(ec x 2)Actually, that was its second FAC in a month's time. Peer review has similarly been getting inundated by repeat requests, and recently added the restriction that an article cannot be nominated until 2 weeks' time has passed since a previous review (including at FAC). I encourage you to take the article to WP:MILHIST project review - it's the most appropriate preparatory venue for this sort of article. Maralia (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Helicobacter pylori[edit]

Please don't do anything with the article for a bit. I was working on Alzheimer's disease, which you just promoted, so I haven't focused on this FAR. Several editors have made a major clean-up. I want to check the citations, improve where I can, and then address a couple of concerns. Maybe this is how FAR works. I see a bunch of new editors (and of course Casliber, stepping out from birds and mushrooms to help out) jumping in. Can you delay delisting the article for a couple of weeks until I finish. If it still doesn't meet FA standards then, at least we gave it a try. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't delist, Marskell and Joelr31 do. As long as an article is receiving attention and showing improvement, they leave it open. It's not even close to the bottom of the page yet, but as it gets there, just make sure to leave a note on the FAR that progress is being made and more time is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, these are our oldest medical FAs that haven't been reviewed:

Date promoted Article
2003-01-21 Menstrual cycle
2004-05-16 Paracetamol
2005-07-08 Chagas disease
2005-07-18 Tooth enamel
2005-09-03 Asthma
2005-09-03 Cerebellum
2005-10-16 Multiple sclerosis
2005-11-12 Barbara McClintock
2005-11-19 Pneumonia
2005-12-18 Prostate cancer

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ping me when the structure & references issues are under control, and I'll take a stab at the prose. Maralia (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Garrondo is moving on to MS, which I think needs a tune-up. Asthma is constantly under attack by POV and vandals. I notice that sometimes BOTS only revert the last vandal, and doesn't go back far enough. I spend a lot of time with Asthma and it's daughter articles, doing nothing more than reverting vandalism. But I whine. I'll work on pylori this week. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Asthma should be defeatured, but some of these articles can be improved. Please follow at WT:MED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

About the article genetics[edit]

Though the consensus states that it should belong to "health and medicine" in WP:FA, I don't think so, as genetics is one of the subfields of biology. Hope Wikipedians can re-discuss this issue. --RekishiEJ (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

By that rationale, shouldn't all of "health and medicine" be considered a subfield? Also, genetics as a field focuses more on human health than non-human research. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, the nature of biology and medicine are different. Biology is a field which researches organisms, while medicine is a field which researches all the diseases and the prevention method. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Besides, biology is a natural science, while medicine is an applied science. --RekishiEJ (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
But it is also "health" with "medicine", which makes it seem that any human related issue should be lumped in there, and non-human issues (or majority non-human) with biology. Its a tricky thing, of course. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that Genetics is a sub-discipline of biology. Not all genetics deals with humans or human pathogens, for example yeast and fruit fly genetics are a very important part of this field, but these organisms have little medical significance. The area of genetics that deals with humans genetic disease is called medical genetics, but that is only a small part of a much larger area of study. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[edit]

Good day! User:Ealdgyth told me that you know something about Do you have som information about the reliability of Chad Browar's articles on (his own page on It would help me very much to find that out. --  LYKANTROP  20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to remind Ealdgyth to bookmark this archive. After reading that archive, it is up to you to convince reviewers that an accountant is actually a "longtime music journalist". I don't know anything about the sites that claims he has written for, nor do I trust to vet experts credentials according to what Wiki calls an expert; have a look at the example I give in the link above. This guy may be an expert, but you should establish that according to Wiki standards (see WP:SPS). seems to get a writer on board, and then give them free reign, and they don't always write within their true area of expertise (again, see example above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, mom, do I gotta? (grins). Okies, it's put away in my volumnious notes. See! [[6]] Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Allright. Thanks for that! I have one more question about Rockdetector. On its own page about Rockdetector it has positive responses from Digby Pearson- Managing Director of Earache Records; and Blabbermouth, a reliable source, which is hosted by Roadrunner Records. And such sources give Rockdetector positive feedback as well: here and the introduction of this. Is this proof enough of reliability of that source?--  LYKANTROP  21:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Put those questions up at WP:RSN or on the FAC: I fail to grasp why the community of FAC reviewers have come to believe that Ealdgyth should be fully responsible for vetting every single source on every single FAC, and why others aren't addressing these issues, leaving all the work to her. My "job" is to judge consensus relative to WIAFA, not to judge every source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Allright. Sorry, but thanks.--  LYKANTROP  16:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Images - left or right?[edit]

Are images supposed to be placed on the right side of article pages only, or is it alright to vary image positions from left to right? Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • WP:MOS#Images, there are several different guidelines. Try to vary right-left, but never put a left-aligned image under a section heading and try to have eyes looking into the text, not off the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Can I place a left-aligned image in such a way this it displaces a heading to the right? --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
See WP:ACCESSIBILITY. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
If I understand correctly, the image should not displace the headings as some users may have narrow screens that will break up the heading? --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • SandyG, I'm disappointed. What the MoS says is: "Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. The moving sands of the MoS. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I do disappoint sometimes, don't I? :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the new images that I added to the Paleolithic diet article (images of salmon and fast food)? Also, are the images well positioned? Thank you. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings" is incorrect. The restriction was for sub-sections, namely headings from third level and below (=== starts a third-level heading; you just count the equal signs). For second-level headings it does not apply, presumably because the line connects the heading with the text. The relevant discussion is on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Question, where there was consensus for a change but was apparently never applied. I've done it now.
Phenylalanine, I can see no problem with image placement in the article you mention. Keep in mind, however, that I'm not exactly experienced with regards to images, so someone else might comment on potential improvements. Waltham, The Duke of 07:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Where is think thing you want me to look at? I've looked on FA talk and your sandbox but can't see your mockup anywhere. Confused. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In the health and med section I'd disagree with Immune system and Metabolism, since these articles are on subjects that are much broader then humans - for example part of the metabolism article deals with photosynthesis and another part of it deals with bacterial metabolism. I'd recommend putting those back into Biology. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd also move Sequence alignment to computing, since this deals with a particular set of software and algorithms that are applied to biology, rather than a purely biological subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Small text[edit]

Sandy, I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Accessibility#small text and want to comment, since you "don't have twenty-year-old eyes" :) Matthewedwards (talk contribs  email) 03:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw that; I was hoping Gimmetrow would weigh in, as he knows some of the background on font sizes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


Sandy—are you expecting the update to appear first issue of next month? DanK is kindly preparing the update, and I will review and assist at the end of this week. Just wondering .... Tony (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

See WT:FCDW, as I recall it was slotted for the 8th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

MD 36 FAC[edit]

Please allow me to take blame for the dashes on that article's junction list. The majority of them are created by the templates, but in a few places we have to go around the template. I'm the one that redid the table to use the {{jct}} template instead of the previous incarnation that used slashes and other formatting. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No one needs to take any blame; it took me half a second to fix them :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


"Another section heading to draw attention to a negative incorrect meme. No FAC or FAR has ever been failed on MoS concerns alone: should not be failed is spin about a non-existent issue."

I read these comments as dismissive and insulting. That several editors have raised concerns about instruction creep in MOS and the problems that it generates for FA should be an indication that it is not a "negative incorrect meme." It may be a function of misinformation, but if you actually read the post you will notice that I was asking if there was consensus on the statements and looking for input.

It's clear that you and PMA have some sort of ugly history that I want no part of. I would like to improve some of the issues in MOS instruction creep like WP:BIKESHED guidelines such as WP:FLAG, but it appears to be a swimming pool filled with sharks.

Regardless, I will not contribute farther to the discussion, since it appears to be a personal vendetta between you and another editor and it no longer interests me. SDY (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Instruction creep isn't exactly what I would label it, but yes, there is a big problem at MoS. Conflating that with issues at FAC is another issue. That is what your new section did, implying that FACs were failed on trivial issues. I'm sorry you thought the comment dismissive and insulting, as that was not my intent; I apologize for that. The intent is to make sure new readers coming to a new section are not left with the incorrect impression that this is happening at FAC and FAR. Fixing MoS should be a serious priority, but as long as a couple of editors lobby against all efforts to consolidate, streamline and fix the many MoS pages, it's not likely to happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
No harm, no foul. I'm mostly just opposed to MoS creating verbose guidelines that duplicate easily achievable consensus or issues where there are multiple equally clear alternatives. Anything that says "you must do it this way" when there's no actual reason to do it that way other than consistency drives me crazy. I suppose it's rather embrassing that the US regulations that control blood safety are in far worse shape than MoS, but I at least have the delusion that I might be able to fix MoS. SDY (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The bigger problem is the redundancy and contradiction across pages, so that one can't even tell what the MoS is saying to do or not do :-) Also, I saw your comments on Tony's page about "spin"; I did not intend to say this "spin" was your spin. It is a "spin" that is out there, because of the reasons I laid out earlier (it may be easier for editors to believe their article wasn't promoted because of trivial MoS issues, than to acknowledge serious prose, sourcing, or other policy issues). And this meme was spread in a recent presentation at Wikimania, by a speaker who seems to have little understanding of the limitations of Wiki's editing environment, so this incorrect info needs to be addressed. By the way, at least two other editors are valiantly battling to clean up MoS pages: WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) and Butwhatdoiknow (talk · contribs) (no relation as far as I know). You might want to talk with them; if I had the time, I'd be in the trenches with you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The MoS gets a pretty bad press, but it's crucial to the FA ideal of professional prose. I'm full of admiration for the work of those editors who slog away at it, a tedious and thankless task. In contrast to Somedumbyankee, I'm driven crazy by a lack of consistency, and I expect that our readers (remember them?) often are too. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
There are some "big picture" consistencies like organization of articles that have some real value, as I think I commented once a long time ago when talking about a couple of articles about airplanes that were often compared to each other. When one article uses curly quotes and another uses straight quotes, I really just don't notice or care. SDY (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you read a newspaper? Would you care if that newspaper used different styles on each page? Why do you think that no newspaper uses different styles on each page? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
That was probably a rhetorical question, but the answer is "no." This is especially true since I have a tendency to dance between the Sydney Morning Herald, CNN, and the BBC, and I can't really tell the difference in "style," though there are differences in POV (which is kinda the point of reading three different newspapers). I'm even relatively blind to US/UK spelling, because I've been comfortable with the idea that there are multiple "correct ways" ever since Chaucer. Given the huge variety of acceptable styles that exist in the English language, I don't think our readers will be shocked by inconsistent use of the oxford comma. SDY (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This will be my final reply, as it's quite clear to me that I have so far failed to make the point I intended to make. I will make one last effort nevertheless. I am not talking about inconsistencies between different publications, but inconsistencies within a single publication, specifically Wikipedia. I really don't know how to make it any more clear than that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think of Wikipedia as a single publication, which is probably why we disagree. Given the vast diversity of quality in articles, I don't see any other way to approach it. SDY (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Conversely, if readers value that sort of consistency, why don't all newspapers adhere to the same style? Christopher Parham (talk) 04:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps for the same reason that they don't all cover the same stories? Appeal to the same readers? Attract the same advertising? Was that a serious question? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Equally as serious as yours. If you believe readers would care if two sections of the New York Times used different styles, why do they not care that two newspapers produced by the New York Times Company use different styles? Hint: the reason a newspaper uses a consistent style has little or nothing to do with readers valuing consistency in itself. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah well, believe whatever you like. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to self[edit]

Talking to myself. The FAC page has hovered around 50 for over a month, I closed one nomination today, there was not a single other review I could close, I haven't been able to get the page to under 30 nominations in months, reviews are lacking, growing in length, and reviewers are apparently unwilling to enter declarations, but FWIW, according to my spreadsheet, I have promoted 500 FAs as of today.[7] Two of those have appeared at FAR; both were speedy keeps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I only have so many hours in the day. And an art fair to prepare for next weekend. You promoted the one FAC I would have reviewed. (I absolutely refuse to review pop culture articles fully, it's a personal preference thing.) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
500 articles promoted? Way to go, Sandy! That is dedication :) I also suspect that this "talking to myself" thing is to get our attention. I'm trying to beat work into submission so I have more time at FAC. I treated myself to a day off tomorrow so you will likely see more reviews coming in soon. Karanacs (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
And on #500, I did what I have feared I'd do from day one; I put it in the archive file instead of the promote file !!! Ealdgyth and you already do more than your share; don't mind me on one off day :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image problem[edit]

(No, not yours, mine) You probably have seen the problem at FAC developing over the use of an image on Voyage of the James Caird. This is part of a more general problem; however, for the moment I'm only concerned with this article. I have taken temporary action to resolve the problem and have proffered alternative actions. In a couple of words, is there anything else I should be doing? (Congratulations on the 500 FAs, 2% of which were my nominations). Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


Wait, since when do I have two noms? I'll let Serendipodous take over, whatever, but I'm confused, I only have 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake at FAC. I think. ;) --LordSunday 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus that's a co-nom. --LordSunday 20:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


I'm moving onto this article. It's a mess. Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong with the images? I'm trying to arrange them so the edit button sits at the section, but it's a mess. If you can just show me what I'm doing wrong, then i can go from there. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You're stacking a bunch of images and forcing image sizes. See WP:MOS#Images for a link to a tutorial on other options. I don't have a lot of interest in working on pictures for a dinosaur when we have so many dangerously bad medical articles and woefully ineffective policies. Only 24 hours in a day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not all that interested, but I was reading it, and it was a mess. I'm too anal-retentive to let it slide. That's how I got my first FA--thought it was a mess, then ended up rewriting the damn thing. I'm just going to fix it, and then move on to that FAC/FAR list of yours. I just needed a temporary distraction. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Three questions[edit]

Hi there. I'm really sorry to bother you, but as one of the most experienced and approachable of the FA crowd, I was hoping you'd have a moment or two to answer some questions I have about the FAC process. 1) In general, instead of Comment, would you prefer an editor to just post an Oppose, even if it's just a technicality until any suggestions (no matter how minor) are resolved? I know I fell foul of this when reviewing "Soprano Home Movies"; I submitted the former, and while still looking at other aspects of the article and considering whether to oppose the nomination (which I probably would have, on the comprehensiveness requirement), it was promoted. 2) What's the correct way to go about striking resolved issues in a FAC? I notice that Nehrams2020 is happy to let me strike my suggestions at the Little Miss Sunshine FAC as I see fit, whereas the ed17 at the Sword of Shannara FAC is striking my oppose concerns as he sees fit. I assume this is against the spirit of the review? 3) This is a bit of a selfish one, and I think I already know the answer. But my first FAC is likely to be State of Play (film), though I realise it won't be suitable for such until after the film's release next year. However, would it be likely to fail the comprehensiveness requirement were I to submit it after its cinema release, but before its release on DVD (which might contain useful production information in any director's commentary)? Thanks in advance for any comments you may have on these issues. Oh, and incidentally, your amendment to {{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}} to have it read a desperate "all of them!" was inspired. At least, it certainly gave me a kick up the backside to go review a couple of articles. All the best, Steve TC 23:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

(Wikistalking here) Hey Steve. No one should actually strike your comments; they can note they believe they have addressed them. Oppose if its actionable (they can do something to fix it) and if you feel it doesn't meet WP:FA?; opposes can be struck any time, after all. Finally, I would wait for the DVD release, though personally I wouldn't oppose an article at FAC if it was nominated before the DVD (assuming all other FA criteria were met.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Steve; thanks for dropping in :-)
1) To me, a "Comment" means you see no reason the article should not be promoted, just have something helpful to suggest. In the absence of declarations one way or the other (the latest trend at FAC), I have to read minds or make decisions unilaterally, which gives editors ample opportunities to come by my talk page and scream at me for not being a good mindreader. That doesn't mean you must enter an "Oppose", though. When I was reviewing, I would scan an article, enter a long list of Fixes needed just to kickstart the work and see if the nominator was capable and responsive, and return in a few days to check on progress or switch to "Oppose" if issues weren't being addressed or little progress was shown. A "Fixes needed" can be less discouraging to a new nominator; I used to reserve initial opposes to articles that I really doubted would make it at FAC or didn't think belonged at FAC, rather at Peer review. But if an article failed 1b, 1c or 1d (WP:WIAFA), I would always an enter an oppose; those are not minor. Other reviewers enter things like "Leaning towards oppose", and then come back to change to oppose if not addressed.
2) Nominators should not strike reviewer's comments; I'll have to go unstrike there <sigh>. I used to watch for this on every FAC for Raul. Now I watch for it for myself :-) Reviewers should strike their own comments. Nominators should not strike comments of others.
3) It doesn't make sense to me that we should have to wait for a DVD release to satisfy comprehensive, but you could ask that question at WP:FILM. (edit conflict, and I see David Fuchs disagrees, he knows that area better than I do, but you could still inquire at the Film Project, thanks for helping out David, I do appreciate it when FAC regulars help field the queries here, come by sometime after I archive and get yelled at :-))
4) My desperate move hasn't yielded results; I suppose I should keep spoon feeding the urgents template, on the off-chance ... or maybe I should become a dictator. :-)) Thanks for coming by to inquire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, David and Sandy. That helps a lot, even on the issues I probably already knew the answers to but didn't have the confidence to assume without third-party input. And just in case it doesn't get said enough, you really are doing great work here, and it is noticed. All the best, Steve TC 00:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Steve; yes, Jimbo himself regularly sends me chocolates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I used to do "comment"s but found too many nominators just ignore them completely if they don't follow an oppose. I don't like struck comments - they are a pain to read, & if you don't read them you might repeat one already covered. When I'm satisfied I just add DONE at the start of that point, which seems clear enough to me. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that works too! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, and I enter comments because a lot of times I'm asking questions and I don't want to prejudice things, and want to open a dialogue. I can't know everything about a source, and a lot of times source issues can be resolved without having to do a big oppose. And I'm just not that kinda person. I will oppose if they don't get addressed, etc. Also, a lot of my "problems" are just nitpicky things like missing publishers for perfectly respectable sites, etc, so no reason to oppose unless they just can't get things in gear. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
If you had to enter an oppose on all of your RS checks, it would be really overwhelming for you. On the other hand, it's a mystery to me why Supports show up right after a long list of questionable sources, or why others don't oppose when they see an article isn't reliably sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand it either, honestly. But, whatever. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Shooting out a random theory, but I think it boils down to the fact that images/verifiability are the less-understood criteria of WP:FA?. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a scary thought, since WP:V is a pillar of Wiki! Good writing is a luxury; good sourcing is a must. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, scary thoughts are my speciality *evil cackle, maniacal glare* I guess you can blame it on us young punks who grew up with Google and the world wide web. They really should post those FC dispatches in a more obvious place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Get people to add the template to their userpages, or maybe top of their talk pages, as I have ... oh, gosh, every time I go there and see those cats of Raul's staring at me, I 'bout jump out of my skin. Some of those cats are uuuuug-ly !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I added it to mine :) Perhaps posting them on the talk pages/further reading sections of the relevant guideline pages could also help steer some eyes towards them? I love the wiki-lolcats... I've really got to find the "AGF Plz" one again, it was perfect. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The horizontal one that I have on my user page is more noticeable:-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Fine, I added that too! Happy now??? *starts crying* :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments by Moni3
  • It's my experience that FAC nominators who don't respond to opposes or comments probably won't have an article that passes. I don't read every FAC, but those that I have read, and those that I've participated in are by and large quite congenial and communally helpful. Only on rare occasions have I seen comments I thought were drug-induced visions of someone's interpretations of insanity.
  • That said, I consider writing comments when I'm too on the fence to decide which way to vote, or it's almost right there, but what's missing is pretty major. I oppose FACs I would be embarrassed to see on the front page. --Moni3 (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cricket FAR[edit]

At Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cricket, the editors working on the article have lowered its rating to Start-class. Is this allowable during the review process? It's in rough shape, but I'm not sure what the rules are on this. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Project assessment is really unrelated to Featured status. It's a goofy thing to do, but they can do it. In terms of featured status, as long as an article is listed at WP:FA, it's featured. A different Project assessment may confuse editors, but from an FA point of view, it has nothing to do with us. Unrelated, separate processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Can you clarify, which article is currently on the bubble at WP:TFAR. I am considering nominating Augustus, which is at least a four point article on his birthday. Can you esitmate how many points you count. I count 1 for age, 1 for timing, 2 for importance, ? for main page relevance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


My apologies, I had not noticed that you had put up a Chris 73 (talk · contribs) article a day ago. However, I must note that the original FAC nominator of the article was Deus Ex (talk · contribs). Chris 73 has made a total of (38) edits to the article, and his last edit to the article was almost 1.5 years ago. I did also notify four separate WikiProjects. Cirt (talk) 02:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Diff - at User talk:Chris 73. Hopefully it won't cause any fallout. Thank you for the recommendation to post to his talk page, that was a good idea. Cirt (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Something for your mind to chew on[edit]

This should never be considered spam, but I would like to express my appreciation for your support during this past week's breath-taking exhibition of my ignorance by putting a vision in your head that will take a long time to leave. I was told recently that there is a massive canon of literature in the form of fan fiction using Star Trek characters. This, to me, is not surprising. A significant portion of that canon, however, is dedicated to the ongoing love affair between Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock. (It was at this point in the tale that I think I was unable to shut my mouth.) The person who told me this relayed a story: in the early 1980s, a friend of hers purchased an original objet d'art for upwards of $800 that showed the two Star Fleet lovers sitting beneath a tree in the clothes that God gave them (none). And the most spectacular feature in this art, was that Mr. Spock's penis was shaped like a corkscrew.

Thank you and good night. --Moni3 (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That is highly illogical. (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I knew there was a reason to come by Sandy's talk page today. My gob is thoroughly smacked.

This pair of posts should be preserved for posterity. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For those who don't know, there is a Wikipedia article on this topic: Kirk/Spock. I used to date a woman who was a member of this subculture, so I've seen the sort of artwork Moni3 describes -- though the picture she's talking about sounds more entertaining than those I saw. The usual abbreviation for this subculture, "K/S", is now an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary, partly as a result of a project I volunteer for -- see this page for the details. Mike Christie (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
While we are indulging in cringe-inducing tangents on the final frontiers of sexuality, the Fat Man offers his: I briefly examined our article on Pon farr, a phenomenon whereby a Vulcan male falls into an irrational and often violent rage if he goes too long without getting laid... believe me, I can relate. However, if the Fat Man were Vulcan and his penis doubled as a corkscrew, he believes he would have considerably greater success with the ladies, and pon farr would not be an issue. This is largely because I would have an excuse to get naked before cracking that bottle of Condrieu; my companion, invariably a cosplay-enthusiast space vixen, clad in an uncomfortable, seamless spandex jumpsuit would be enthralled (not literally, of course) by my corpulent physique and her inhibitions further relaxed by all the Viognier. It's safe to say we'd make it to Warp 3. (BTW, where might I find a depiction of Vulcan genitalia online?)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Find a depiction of Vulcan genitalia? Why, Fat Man, I'm most disappointed. Take His Eminence's cue to go where no one has gone before and envision your own. Go wild with creativity by changing the pointed to the curly, such as the visionaries from Star Trek have changed a nose with no wrinkles to one with three, or round ears to pointed. Apparently Star Fleet (and those inspired by their ideals) has not yet ventured to worlds beyond what can stick to a human under hot lights. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The cruelty; why are y'all doing this to me when I had to garden, arrange the dogs, pay bills, write letters, pack, and all that other good stuff ... and what on earth did Spock see in Kirk, anyway? Moni3, I hope those admin tools don't make you wish for a corkscrew a year from now, ha ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

FAR instructions[edit]

Hi Sandy. It's in the noble spirit of IAR that I'm suggesting that proceeding through the FAR to FARC and out the other end is a waste of time because the problems are so endemic and deep-seated. No-one is going to get that article up to scratch in a reasonable amount of time. It's going to take a whole lotta love to get it right. I'm suggesting you speedy close the FAR, defeature the article and let me and Blackjack and any other members of the WikiProject or wider community get on with preparing it for FAC. I guess it'll take at least six months. --Dweller (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Marskell and Joelr31 close FARs ... and there's no such thing as a speedy close there :-) Every article gets its full day in the sun. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. It's not like me to advocate away from process anyway! NB That (↑) is a mental image I could have done without! lol --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Isn't part of the problem in getting enough reviewers that only seriously expert copyeditors are actually welcome? I made a bit of an effort to review a few articles recently, if only because some seemed doomed to be archived through lack of comment. However, a remark by another reviewer makes me wonder if there is any point in non-specialists wading in at FAC. I'm not particularly thin-skinned (or maybe I am), but there's lots to do elsewhere. Don't feel that you have to be nice, polite, or even respond - just whinging really (: jimfbleak (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not misunderstanding a comment I made on the Pine Parks one, I didn't mean to step on your toes about sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand the concern behind your perception, but it's an incorrect perception. I weigh all prose comments; for example, I just archived one FAC because of prose concerns, not on the strength of one editor's prose complaints, but because four editors said there were prose issues. If *one* reviewer makes a strong case for a policy issue (NPOV, V, Images), I give a lot of weight to those concerns, because they are based in Wiki policy in addition to WP:WIAFA. On prose, I am less inclined towards the opinion of one individual. To answer bluntly, I understand this perception exists because Tony is my friend; the perception is incorrect, and Tony and I have always had a small difference over the relative weight of 1a vs. policy issues of 1b, c and d. A well-placed policy concern from one reviewer gets my attention. I look for a preponderance of 1a concerns, or concerns across the range of 1a to 4, before archiving. Tony and I have had our disagreements over the relative significance of 1a vs. 1b, c and d at FAC; you can ask him :-)) (After edit conflict, I'm unsure what Ealdgyth is referring to, so I may have missed the boat, but I understood the question to be a reference to Tony1 on 1a.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I was just checking to make sure he wasn't upset that I'd weighed in on a sourcing issue he'd brought up on the White Pines Forest State Park FAC. That's all. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Not naming names seems to have backfired, I have nothing but respect for Ealdgyth, and no criticism of her. Yes, it was Tony I was referring to, although it wasn't intended to be a criticism of him, otherwise I would have gone to him first. It was more that his comment made me wonder whether what was intended to be helpful was in fact pointless. I think I'm reassured. I don't expect to be given equal weighting with the 1a experts; away from content issues and obvious errors/infelicities, all I can say is whether an FAC reads well. Please consider this whinge closed. jimfbleak (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Coconut crab FAR[edit]

Hi Sandy. Unfortunately I won't have much time to review either the articles. I may give a try on the weekends, but otherwise the FAR may run its normal course. It is unfortunate for me, but i completely understand that this process is necessary to improve Wikipedia in general. Cheers -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Belated thank you[edit]

A belated thank you for promoting Baith Israel Anshei Emes to FA status. By the way, the synagogue has started putting the back issues of the Journal on the website again, and should be done in a week or two. Jayjg (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The thanks go to the reviewers; I'm just the referee. Congratulations ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for putting me out of my misery[edit]

Thanks for putting me out of my misery over the Edward VIII abdication crisis. I only came across it by accident during a GA Sweeps Review, but I thought it was too good to let it slip through your net. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put you out of your misery ... I saw that you were going to finish the little things, so I'm counting on you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope Dr Kiernan's OK btw, strange he would have abandoned the article ... probably just on vacation I suppose. Hopefully he'll be pleasantly surprised when he returns. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Since it's August, probably so; he likely didn't expect it to take so long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Good copyeditors to hire or recruit?[edit]

Do you have any recommendations for people I can touch base with that are good copyeditors who'd be willing to take a crack at an article I had up for FA, either to just do it or that would do it exchange for my helping on their articles with sourcing/building out, anything like that? I keep looking at my first and only FA attempt and keep getting stuck. :( rootology (C)(T) 04:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I could post a list off the top of my head, but most of them follow my talk page anyway; is it The Greencards? Have you approached Laser brain (talk · contribs)? If he's not interested, or if someone else doesn't respond here, I'll pop up a list tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
It is indeed The Greencards. I hadn't approached him--I didn't know who were the best people to talk to. I'll drop him a note--thanks Sandy! rootology (C)(T) 04:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If he's not interested, come back here and ask again ... I'll suggest others. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


Good day! The article Meshuggah was a FAC, but it failed. I tried to fix all things that came up during the nomination. Can you have a look on it, wheter it is ready for the nomination now please?--  LYKANTROP  12:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, here is my discussion on the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Going to India[edit]

I am leaving for India in a week. I thought I would be able to review images for the week between my two trips, but it is not working out that way. My semester is starting this week and life is crazy. I do apologize, but I will begin reviewing again when I return from India. I should be back reviewing in about four weeks. Awadewit (talk) 15:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Cue for everyone to go and bribe and beg Elcobbola and Kelly to fill in the gap :-) Have fun, and be safe !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Flipping an image[edit]

Hi Sandy. You and I had a brief discussion a couple weeks ago at the John McCain article about whether it's okay to flip an image so that the person is facing to the left instead of to the right, or vice versa. You mentioned that it wasn't kosher to do that. Can you please tell me more? The issue has arisen again, here. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy is traveling. I think you are looking for this:
Images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. If an image is ever reversed or otherwise substantially altered, there should be a clear advantage to the reader in doing so (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail that is the subject of commentary), and the alteration must be noted in the caption.
It's at MOS:IMAGES. Hope that helps. Maralia (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Great! Thanks, Maralia. Sandy has helpful friends. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

On the road pr/ar[edit]

I'm going to pr/ar, hard from my ickey laptop touch pad. It would be stupendous if my "talk page stalkers" doublecheck that everything ends up in the right place, as I hate promoting from my laptop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

By the by, I'm assuming Promote is pr, is ar archive? (You'd be surprised what keeps me awake at night :P) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


Enjoy your vacation :) Oh yeah, and I was thinking that it might be a good idea to set up User:SandyGeorgia/adminhelp so that you have a central place to ask for admin assistance. I've been offline and totally missed the request on my talk page. There are enough of us with tools that can watch such a page that it might save you time over pinging us individually. Karanacs (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, will do that and transclude it with my templates at the top ... thanks! Out the door now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Question on a FAC closure[edit]

In regards to closing "The World Ends with You" FAC as not promoted, I was wondering why this was the case; I had corrected the comments that David Fuchs, GuyInBlack, and Dweller left, and while David did not reply to the changes, both GIB and Dweller did, in addition to the other support comments. It's not that I can't submit it again, but unlike it's previous closure with non-promotion due to needing a copyedit, I'm not sure what I can change before resubmitting it again. --MASEM 21:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Masem; I'm sorry I had to close it, as I agree it was close. I believe you prompted Dweller's talk page, but his oppose remained unstruck and it had only two supports. As soon as Dweller indicates he's satisfied on copyedit, it should be ready to be re-submitted. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, he didn't unstruck it, but he did comment that the changes looked good (see third comment from bottom), that's why I was curious as to the closure. Again, no problem with a formal resubmission if necessary, just found that odd. --MASEM 03:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I see why you thought that - a brief 'changes look good' comment from most people would mean they were done - but Dweller is very thorough, and had last said something along the lines of 'more changes as I find them'. I suspect he has more :) If you can satisfy him on prose, you should have a much smoother FAC next time. Maralia (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)