User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch48

Kingdom of Mysore

Hi. I have a question regarding rules pertaining to name changes to a sub-article during FAR of main article. Here in this article, I had attached a sub-article called Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore. As the article had expanded to include some Kannada language poets and writers from a larger area in the last few days (outside Mysore kingdom), I moved the sub-article to a new name which was more inclusve, which is Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE and nominated for Peer Review. I meant to change the sub-article link in this FA article to reflect the name change sometime today. Fowler &fowler, the nominator of the FAR, promptly revrted the move calling it a controversial, though I am not sure what the controversy with the sub-article is. Please advice how to proceed. Is there a rule that a sub-article's name should not change when the main article is in FAR? If so, does it mean that all sub-articles remain frozen when a FAR of a main article is in progress?Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is not that the sub-article's name "remain frozen," but rather that when such a name change involves issues related to the FAR (and explicitly discussed in My concerns (#5)), it should be discussed on the talk page first. The page move certainly shouldn't be made without any explanation anywhere and with the "minor edit" box checked. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The page move was not done with a minor box check. I explained clearly in the "reason box". How am I supposed to know that you have linked one of your issues to a sub-article. BTW, Fowler, how could you complain about a sub-article in the main articles FAR.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the move summary I left when I moved the sub-article.moved Kannada literature in the Kingdom of Mysore to Kannada literature, 1600–1900 CE: Covers poets and writers over the entire Kannada speaking region. Fowlers claim that it was a "minor" edit box check is a falsification of information.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/WrestleMania XXIV/archive1

Why was this closed so quickly? The FAC was very active, and I was working on the last set of comments from User:SRX. User:Giants2008 was also planning on re-reviewing after SRX finished his comments. If it needs to stay closed, do I really need to wait to re-nominate it? ayematthew ✡ 11:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The nomination had been open for two weeks without drawing any support declarations and had attracted an oppose. While you were working diligently on the article, this generally means that it is not quite at FAC standards. Finish fixing the issues that were brought up at the FAC, then ask the reviewers to take another look at the article. Once they are satisfied that their concerns have been addressed, you may be in a good shape for a renomination. Right now there is a shortage of reviewers, leaving a large backlog, so wait a few weeks, make sure that the article is in the best possible shape, then try to renominate. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Responded further at IMatthew's talk page. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

FAC maybe?

Hi Sandy,

First of all, Season's Greetings and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia!

If you have a moment, would you kindly take a glance at Towson United Methodist Church to see if it might be suitable for FAC?

Thanks,  JGHowes  ^talk 14:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, JGHowes; I regret to say that I probably won't be able to find the time. Real life decided to muck up my Christmas, and keeping up with my regular Wiki chores will occupy all the time I have for Wiki over the next week. Hopefully others who watch my talk page will weigh in, but you may want to approach others after the holidays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Johnson

I haven't been able to purchase this, but I am rather afraid of what this may say on Johnson's "tics and gesticulations". I'm weary of popular biographies, especially with their treatment of the more delicate aspects of a subject's life. "A central concern involves one of Johnson's darkest secrets, which Meyers says other biographers have evaded: his masochistic sexuality at the hands of his confidante Mrs. Hester Thrale. The biography also speculates on other aspects of Johnson's sex life, both during his marriage to a much older woman and after her death." It seems that the individual has misunderstood various aspects, and I am tempted to purchase the book just to sink it in review. >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not concerned. It is abundantly evident that Johnson had a lot more than TS going on, most likely including what is now known as tic-related OCD. The TS is easier to write about and concretely diagnose post-humously because tics can be seen and his were documented, while the other issues are harder to pin down post-humously. I don't see anything in the parts of that text I could scan that concern me, and considering he lived at a time when he had to cope with diagnoses that were unknown, his accomplishments are still remarkable. Someday, some physician will write a journal paper diagnosing him with TS *plus* tic-related OCD; until then, it is what it is. And, OCD is related to depression and all of the other issues raised. It all fits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kept promise

Dear Sandy, I'm sorry to hear about all your troubles at home and I hope life is getting back to normal for you. A few months ago, I promised you 200 FAC reviews before the end of the year, in return for your helpful reviews of the virus articles. I have kept my promise [[1]]. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Graham, I know you'd be troubled that someone has characterized this as 'FAC quid pro quo!'. I rather think that congratulations are in order for your prolific article-writing and reviewing. Thank you for all that you do. Maralia (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really, so very upset that Mattisse should imply this. I'm almost lost for words. My promise to Sandy was meant to be funny; not a bargain. Recently, I offered Mattisse my hand in friendship during a difficult time. Maralia, thank you for you kind words, but I think I need a Wikibreak to reflect on this. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Malleus is willing to share...Congratulations, Graham, on an amazing number of reviews, and thank you to everyone who makes FAC a mostly happy place to be. Brownies for everyone! Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it was wrong of Mattisse to characterise this as a quid pro quo, and I do understand how hurtful that must seem. As the result of an unrelated matter I took a short break from wikipedia myself, and although I haven't yet returned to what this site is supposed to be all about—creating content—my faith in its potential is slowly returning. Take a break if you need to, and ask Karanacs for some chocolate cookies; they're very therapeutic. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not surprising that someone who is so bent against Wikipedia standards and traditions would complain about someone reviewing pages. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Least said, soonest mended." ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I remember there being a note in a policy that wikiana

I found it: "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." Just a thought. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This project will always harbor people who contribute little besides petulant negativity. They deserve to be ignored - which is actually the worst punishment Wikipedia can hand out, far worse than a block or ban. Keep up the good work, Graham. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bloody edit conflicts. Yes, thanks, can we just let this pass? I still have my sense of humour, love and enthusiasm for the project. Let's just move on. And, bollocks to the Wikibreak, I love Wikipedia. :-) Graham Colm ^Talk 21:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Graham, on not taking that seriously, and for reviewing 200 FACs this year. --Moni3 (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OK my friends, let's move on, someone is messing with Electron microscope. Duty calls. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• And thanks for the plethora of e-mails! I will reply to them all—another promise. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Through my fog of fever and pain, all I can muster is You're Still The Best, Graham; I'll come by your "house" when I'm better to say a proper thanks for all the wonderful work you do on Wiki and at FAC. Seeing all of you pull together here for Graham, and for the professionalism and camaraderie that is FAC, is so rewarding. (Now, if Moni makes any more cracks about locusts and boils, somebody please slap her.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

re: Well wishes

Thank you very much indeed both for your kind wishes and your support during the election. I've taken the last few days off to try to get completely rid of the infection (and to get me fighting fit for the upcoming over-indulgence holidays). I hope all is well with you. Best wishes, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandy, I'm a bit confused with the Nevado del Ruiz FAC. I'd be willing to add the material Avenue has requested, but I can't find a source for it anywhere. I asked Avenue but he comes off in bursts so i don't know when he'll be on next. Anyway, I'd like to source the statements but I need a RS before I can. As the primary FAC promoter, what is your opinion? Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 13:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A link, please? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's responded, but I still don't have much. The link is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nevado del Ruiz. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 02:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Deep fat flyers

I think of those deep fat fryers as the canaries in the AS article's mineshaft. Thanks for the holiday cheer, and same to yez! Eubulides (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Season's best wishes

Sandy—You've been such a pillar of wisdom and support for me this year, and you're making quite a mark on the project via FAC.

Here is how I imagine your back garden, although it probably doesn't look like this in winter. Tony (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

hmmm ... that looks more like my basement lately :-)) Thanks, Tony! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you!

and it's all right. Luckily Tim's talk page is watched by quite a few people, many of whose interests overlap with mine, so all's well. :0-) Serendi^podous 14:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Tragic Kingdom's FAC

Why wasn't the article promoted? Tezkag and I did everything that other users asked. That was our first article and neither of us know how to improve the article to pass next time. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 19:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied at editor's talk page. Steve ^{T • C} 20:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad you're feeling better

Just heard that you were down and out, but I'm glad to hear that you're feeling better. Never let it be said that your contributions don't matter. You do a heck of a job around here, and I for one really appreciate what you do. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

Sandy, this is my x-mass tune for you; I thought you might appreciate it's humour and sentiment. Best wishes, and I hope you know how much you are appreciated around here. Ceoil (talk) 07:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Pairs nicely with the Yeah Yeah Yeahs :-) Thank you for the sentiment, Ceoil; you're always so kind. Considering my December plague of locusts, I may have to send my greetings for the New Year.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You said 'Pair'. he he. Ceoil (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

vanished

My first review in months, and it's vanished. I was going to ask for more attention to the prose ... [2]. Tony (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you've been under the weather

Thanks for all you've done for us at FAC and elsewhere this year, and season's greetings. Apologies that I haven't been any quicker to get back to FAC and drag some copyeditors along with me; it's been one damn thing after another. Soon, soon! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I need some of the administrators' tools

Hi Sandy, I hope things are getting better at home. To continue to improve the coverage of virus articles on Wikipedia, I need to be able to do more myself. I have to ask Tim and other admins to help me with, what I think are, simply solved problems. I hate asking for power and I am reluctant to self-nominate at WP:RfA. I think I could be a good admin; would you consider nominating me? I know this might give rise to accusations of all manner of collusion; but I need more administrative abilities on top of rollback. I will make the same request on User:TimVickers's page. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes you do, and it's about time :-) Because of the plague of locusts, I am hopelessly behind on my Christmas preparations (and need to find at least an hour to respond to NYB above). How about this? Tim and I co-nom you, but can we put if off until after the 25th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You can give priority to matters other than responding to me; I've watchlisted this page, so get to it when you get to it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, there's no need to rush; it's going to take years to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia for reliable descriptions of viruses; but we are well on the way. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to nom too Graham (if others are busy). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cas, that would be very kind of you. I'm working over the holiday, but I will still have the time to respond to all those horrible questions so often asked at Wp:RfA Graham.

And I want to be the first vote. Although, that might kill GC's chances.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In my hospital GC is short for gonnorrhoea but I would be very pleased to have your support OM. Graham.Graham Colm ^Talk 00:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Graham, if you want to move forward with Cas and Tim, rather than waiting for me, know that while it would be an honor to nom you, I won't feel left out if you decide to get the ball rolling without me. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Skip the RfA completely. You have two arbitrators who would like to help. Skip straight to CU and get the Admin powers that way. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, however he does it I'll be glad to add my vote. Graham's definitely the sort of person I'd like to see become an admin. Mike Christie (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

To be honest for a moment, does he know how to use administrative tools? I mean, just the other day I made a block on an IP and ended up "blocking" over a billion IPs. People seem to pass out the tools left and right, so we need to be clear what he is to expect and what he needs them for. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, my support in an RfA is often based on whether I think the person involved will act responsibly, which includes taking care to learn what they need to know. In some cases a nominee already understands a great deal about the admin functions, but in Graham's case I believe he would make the right decisions while he learns whatever he might not know now, so I'm not too worried about his existing expertise, whatever it may be. Mike Christie (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, I have set it all up now, so...erm....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Mike, and what about you? (I know you've got the issue of moving and getting settled.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG I thought Mike would have been one...oh well, any time Mike and I am sure Tim, Sandy or me would be happy to nominate. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll pass for now. I'm not opposed in principle, but I really have no use for the tools and don't see a need for a long time yet. Maybe in a year or so. Thanks for the compliment, though; when I do decide to give it a shot I'll ask one of y'all if you're willing. Mike Christie (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

heh, no probs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I added my (hurried) co-nom when someone else transcluded it: it's live. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GrahamColm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of being able to co-nom him, I only noticed the RfA in time to squeeze into support number 99, this is what comes of Graham being so popular. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Archival instructions

Hey Sandy, could you please have a look at User talk:Gimmetrow#Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates.2FArchival instructions and let me know if there is any way we can make this transition better, and also if you have any ideas on how to better improve the WP:FPOC-closing process? Thank you, Cirt (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't get to it until after the 25th, Cirt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No rush at all. :) Cirt (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm all set now. Thanks! Cirt (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

sock puppet?

Hi, I've read the policy on sock puppets and since you have been on Wikipedia longer than me...what are they? Fake accounts you create to "back you up"? The policy page doesn't exactly explain it...so could you? I just of asking someone about it. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what they are. Mike Christie (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So how does one get "exposed" with having bogus accounts? I was reading that an admin recently did some stupid thing like that -- how did he get found out? サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 _Talk ^Contribs 18:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Some editors have an ability to identify the IP from which an editor is posting. See the request check user page for more information on that process. Identifying two accounts as posting from the same IP is not in itself conclusive proof but is regarded as strong evidence. If you have more questions about this I suggest you post at the talk page there; people with knowledge of the process will be able to answer your questions on that page. Mike Christie (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Stunted aspirations

I want to be a dentist like Hermey, but I'm stuck on the Island of Misfit Toys. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Moni, I go all fuzzy inside when you talk over my head like that. (You forgot the obligatory edit summary; have mercy on a girl with a garden in her basement and half-baked Christmas preparations.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Strike that. I just caught up and came down to Earth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow

I thought for sure that you were an admin until I read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GrahamColm. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 22:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

There are many editors like SandyG, and dare I mention Tony1, whose RfA would make an O. J. Simpson trial look like a walk in the park. Just the way it is here. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

How? I personally think Sandy would make a great sysop. FWIW, I'd be proud to nominate her, especially considering this. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 21:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree she'd be a great admin, but she's turned down many nominations. Sandy, you should have a little template your talk page regulars can post in when this question comes up. Mike Christie (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Sandy, why did you turn down so many offers? You're a true net positive, IMHO, and if you were to accept my offer, I would get to dreaming up a nomination statement immediately. You'd be the first person whom I've ever nominated for adminship, BTW. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 21:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(as Sandy seems to be absent) Dylan, seriously don't go there. I think Sandy would be perfectly good as an admin; unfortunately, there are a lot of people who wouldn't agree. The first rule of passing RFA is "annoy as few people as possible", and it's impossible to do what Sandy does without annoying people. Unfair, but that's the way it is. (If you want an exercise, compare WBFAN with Special:ListAdmins. You'll be surprised at how little correlation there is.) – iridescent 21:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

While I respect her decision not to run, I think Sandy would make an excellent admin personally. I don't think it would be as dramatic as some people imply above - would attract a few opposes but I think that would be vastly outweighed by the supports, and there'd be a lot from people who don't normally vote in RfAs. However, not everyone wants to be an admin, nor are the tools of specific use to everyone, and speaking personally I found my content contribution % decreased slightly when I became one. Orderinchaos 20:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a random guess regarding how many would support Sandy in an RfA: Definitely reaching WP:100, possibly reaching WP:200. But if she doesn't want to run, that's her decision, and we must respect it. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 21:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK GA/FA promotion idea

I don't have an opinion on this, but you might be able to offer a suggestion or two based on your experience (and your work on "article milestones"): This (or wikilink: Wikipedia talk:Did you know#DYK articles that make GA/FA). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA Reviews

Hey Sandy, I just noticed that Graham had asked me to do a RfA Review for him prior to your nominating him. Was that at your suggestion? If so, make sure to tell people to tell me that "Sandy sent them."---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 20:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall explicitly mentioning it (although I might have); more likely, since the subject has come up several times on my talk, in threads with you, he might have thought to ask you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, yes exactly this. I was impressed when I read about how many hours Balloonman spent looking into candidates's Wikipedia "CVs." I hope Dank55 will not mind my saying this, but he reminded me to request this review. Best wishes as always. Graham. PS. very much past my (UK) bedtime. Graham Colm ^Talk 01:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. I recommend that anyone considering RfA ask some experienced admin coach to take an hour or so to see if they can spot any problems before you run; they'll be happy to do it. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I have been extremely busy lately and have a slight backlog of RfA reviews, coaching reviews, and my new pet project---CSD reviews. I hate speedy deleters and hope to get some people to start adjusting their editing habits.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

I just thought I'd pop by and wish you a Merry Christmas, Sandy :-) - I know we haven't seen eye to eye in our limited interaction but I just thought it mightily important to forget about previous incidents and wish you all the best in the future :-) Take care, friend! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Sandy :) It's certainly been an interesting Wikiyear, hopefully 2009 will be a bit less eventful in the random drama sense. Orderinchaos 20:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

• a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; our paths have crossed many times, and I have enjoyed the banter on your talk page often. I want to thank you especially for your very kind endorsement of my recent candidacy; I hope you find that your faith in me is fulfilled!

Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement.
Best, Risker (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2

Here's to slipping it in at EST time. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, I'll assume that "it" refers to seasons' greetings... in which case I'll second the thought - Merry Christmas. MastCell ^Talk 05:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

	<font=3> Happy Holidays and all the best for the New Year! Thanks so much for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Merry Christmas and best wishes for the coming new year!Dineshkannambadi (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Xmas!

Glad to see you still around.... haven't edited in ages myself. Kind of would prefer to have more time to edit articles myself. Merry Christmas! RN 21:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• As myself, I hope you have a merry Christmas, and hopefully the December plague of locusts and whatnot has passed now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Mysore

Hi Sandy. Just wanted to bring to your attention that Fowler had added an large new section to the article without discussion and I have reverted this edit. If Fowler or his friends revert my revert, it should be considered content dispute and dealt with accordingly, which I dont think a FAR is all about. Best regards.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, an entire section on "origin" was removed by Fowler on Dec23rd without discussion with primary author, a basic requirement in a progressive FAR environment. I have reverted that also.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FCDW/WBFLN‎

All of the users are finished with the questions and I have added a bit of a lead, so it should be ready once some others have cleaned it up a bit. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevado del Ruiz

Please re-check the article. I've done my best to limit that information, but I think I've done as much as possible. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 23:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Omaha, Nebraska

I'm not sure why you closed this FAC today. Editing has been ongoing, and with the invasion of two holidays its disappointing that you have chosen to dismiss the efforts involved. Your reply is appreciated. • Freechild'sup? 06:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A link to the FAC will result in a quicker response, but in general terms, I don't "dismiss" any efforts (I archive or promote based on consensus of reviews). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

He's referring to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Omaha, Nebraska/archive2. - Mailer Diablo 19:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Small question

Greetings. I was the FAC nominator of Meshuggah. As I said, I will unfortunately not have any time to do anything on Wikipedia. I am starting to study and my life will be too busy during the next years. So hopefully the article will be brought to the end by someone else. I respect your decision because I know that you know much more about how Wikipedia works than I do. Though, I don't understand why couldn't the article stay for some longer time as a FAC. The article does not have any fundamental problems. You probably think that this is just one subjective opinion of an editor. Partly it is of course, but the article had a peer review very recently and only what it needed now was to change up some wordings. This could easily be done during the FAC. If you just have given me some time, it would be no problem to fix it all. So I think that one article pointlessly does not become a FA. If I could have work on it furthermore, what would you expect me to do when a PR was closed couple of weeks ago and about 5 copy-editors tried to make it FA-quality afterwards? There is nothing else to do about the article. What it needs is just a couple of comments on FAC, couple of fixes and that's all.

Don't see this as if I was blaming you or something. I just think it is a pity for Wikipedia. I simply wanted a small feedback from you please, about what do you wanted to say with the non-promotion, little bit about a reason of not wating, and what did expect. Have a nice holiday :)--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If you provide a link to the FAC, I'll be able to respond faster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, he's referring to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meshuggah/archive3. (Peer Review). - Mailer Diablo 19:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. I forgot that. It is the link posted by Mailer Diablo above.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pallid sturgeon

You have a pretty thankless job at times, being behind assessing whether a FAC should be promoted or not based on observed comments and the efforts to render improvements, etc. Just so you know, I appreciate your work in that area.--MONGO 16:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about references

A bit ago, I tried to get John Rutledge to GA. It failed its nom mostly because I used a book written in 1876 as my primary source of information, thus the style was not neutral (The person who failed the nom termed it the "great man" biography technique) and the book left out much of the information about Rutledge's involvement in keeping slavery legal in the United States. There is a book written in 1997 about Rutledge, so it was not like there were no good recent sources.

I recently obtained a copy of the 1997 book. It most likely has enough material for me to fill in the blanks about his contributions to the Philadelphia Convention and his later life, and will probably be able to add a "legacy" section. I will also likely be able to expand the lead a bit. However, a huge about, (probably close to 75%) of the 1997 book is cited from the 1876 book. Should I go through and replace the citations to the 1876 book with ones to the new book? Or should I leave them how they are? Or should I replace some of them, just for variety? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not so much the facts from the 1876 book that would be a problem, it's the interpretation that would have been put on those facts. Myself, I'd use the recent work exclusively, as presumably the author is a historian, and thus trained to deal with using a "biased" source. Be sure to double check all the article against the new book, so that you're acurately refleciting the new author's viewpoint. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

To be safe, I would rely on the new book for anything that is different. Then I would add in unique anecdotes or the rest to give "flavor" of the original time. Also, try to avoid any opinions or biased in the text, or list them after pointing out the bias. Contemporary biographies are a good source of context, but not so much of fact. Keep that in mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

		Saints Star Award
		For the extraordinary contributions you have graciously given to Wikipedia, in spite of vexations most of us would never have the patience to deal with. - Epousesquecido (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wonder Stories status

Sandy, Tony has indeed been asked to revisit; see here. Mike Christie (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks Mike, I'll recheck tomorrow or next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Brett Favre

Hi there. I was browsing the FACs at WP:FACL, which is not always up-to-date on promotions/archives. I noticed that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brett Favre does not exist, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brett Favre/archive1 does. Is there a reason for this? BuddingJournalist 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, nevermind. I see why now...I'm dumb. :) BuddingJournalist 20:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Cite web broken for some retrieval dates

Hi, Sandy. I'm hopeful that you or any of your myriad talk page watchers can help resolve a problem that's currently affecting some (and possibly many) featured articles. The {{cite web}} template was revised on 24 December to a newer version that apparently does not support all of the previously supported permutations for retrieval dates, like the parameters accessdaymonth, accessmonthday, and accessyear. As a result any articles that use those parameters, like SS Washingtonian and SS Mauna Loa (two recent FAs of mine), now have web references without any retrieval dates listed. I'm sure that there are other FAs so affected, too. I've posted an {{editprotected}} request on the template's talk page asking for a reversion of the template to the last fully working version, but neither that request nor my questions about why the parameters are no longer functioning has attracted a response. Perhaps with your help this can be resolved. Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Bellhalla; yes, I see no accessdates now at Roman Catholic Church. Busy now, but I'll look in over there as soon as I have a moment, and hopefully others will as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy-melon just fixed the template. Karanacs (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Karanacs (I just checked RCC, and it's working, but there is new inconsistent date formatting everywhere there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And now it's broken again… sigh. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there's already a thread…

On the subject, does any TPS know how to fix the {{cite journal}} problem mentioned here? I'm reluctant to manually amend every reference if there's an easier way to do it. – iridescent 16:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't with {{cite journal}}, it's that you've used both the citation and cite templates, which are not 100% compatible and so should not be mixed in the same article. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction. There is a problem with {{cite journal}}, as you say. None of the citation templates work properly, so the choices are probably to standardise on {{citation}} or to do what SandyG would probably recommend, format the citations manually. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Dammit, I was hoping there'd be a quick "tick this box and it's fixed" solution. (I only used {{citation}} once as I don't particularly like it, and now can't think why I used it – if the {{cite journal}} problem is fixable I'd far rather fix that one ref and leave the rest in place.) – iridescent 20:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest sticking with either the cite family or the citation family. Right now, if your access dates are not consistent, the best solution is to leave the access dates out of template and tack them on the end of the citation manually, which is luckily where they go anyway. Makes it a lot easier. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Done – thank you! – iridescent 21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Over the Edge (1999)

Tony added comments to this FAC that were intended for another one by accident, Dabomb moved them to the respective ones but can I remove them from the above FAC without violating any guidelines?--SRX 19:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You promoted the above article, but I want to make sure that it passed without the supports of Tony1, which were added accidentally.--SRX 04:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There were two Supports there from Tony; I understood that only one was in error? (Yes, it's OK to delete that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No actually, both his supports didn't apply to the above FAC, but the FAC had 2 Supports and 0 Opposes.--SRX 05:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'm going to have to ask Tony to be more careful :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

An RFC on the length of the lead in an FA

To Sandy's talk page stalkers: a user has requested an RfC on the length of the lead in Harvey Milk. We disagree because not only did I construct the article, but much of the lead is/was there due to comments received during copy editing, peer review, and FAC. I'm starting to think, due to the article's talk page discussion, that brevity of introduction is a higher priority than including important issues in the article.

Should you be interested, the talk page discussion and the RfC. --Moni3 (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

quark

Hi Sandy—I can't seem to see my edit to this FAC, at least not on the FAC page as a whole:

[3].

Tony (talk) 07:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you purged your cache, Tony? That usually does the trick. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I see it, Tony. One way to purge your cache is to type ?action=purge on to the end of the page URL in your browser, and then hit enter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively, open edit window and replace the "&action=edit" with "&action=purge". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Tony (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Purge info is at WP:PURGE. However, I've had this happen to me a few times, and a simple refresh does the trick. I've never had to purge the page for a simple update; purges are usually only reserved for pages that transcluded a recently updated template, etc. Gary King (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) There's a difference between purging the server's cache and bypassing your browser's cache. Often the latter is all that's necessary: Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. It's CTRL-F5 on Windows.Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New strategy on image reviews

Since you are closing FACs that have open questions about images (such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Arena Active Protection System - it has an unresolved discussion about the diagram source and two unreviewed images that were newly introduced during the FAC process), I am going to start opposing on criterion 3 until all image concerns are met. That way there is no ambiguity in the matter. Awadewit (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)