User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch11

Whats up

How do I make my user thingy blue like the rest? Do I need refernce for that? Superplaya 01:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To make the link to your userpage blue, you add some content to your userpage: have a look at WP:Userpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That helped. Thanks alot!Superplaya 06:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I didn't know that. Sorry, can you fix it back for me?

Thank you!Superplaya 04:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Superplaya 04:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: External links?

As I told you, there is nothing decided yet :-) I just created the list because I remembered (a year or over ago) when I bumped into a similar page, and haven't found it since then. If you do really want to review articles, you could give a different background color to the ones you have reviewed. To do so, in the |- that is above the item you have reviewed, add style="background-color: lightgreen;". However, since this process is not automatic, the next time I create the dump the cells will have to be painted manually again. As I said, we are just starting. -- ReyBrujo 02:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding the lists here for my reference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bolding the ones you recognize as having no problems. Wikipedia:WikiProject External links would be the correct place to search for help, but the wikiproject is seen as "competing" with WikiProject Spam, which takes far more resources. I do not expect this to change soon, but hopefully someday people will pay attention to the lists (just as some pay attention to {{external links}} and work with the backlog there from time to time). Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Technical question

Sandy, Is it possible to define the width of a collumn? If so, how is that done? Specifically I want to set the width of the second column to 410 px and let the first column float with the screen resolution. Thanks for your help. Frank van Mierlo 03:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it's possible, but I don't know how to do it - whenever I have to create a column or box, I have to copy someone else's. You could ask at WP:VPT. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Gallery formatting

Hi Sandy. As Adolfo Farsari seems to have ermerged from the FAC process, I've pasted your objection and responded to it here. -- Hoary 08:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Hoary - goodness, I didn't remember my Object on that article, and I'm sorry I didn't get back to strike if concerns were met. I view four different monitors - the only small screen is my laptop. I've had problems with wrap on image galleries and math formulas on all four. Maybe it's my screen resolution settings? I don't think it's only a problem with my settings, though, because on some of the math articles, the printable versions also wrap and text is chopped. Congratulations on the FA, and if I ever leave a resolved Object again on you, pls do ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbaro

I have to refuse to do my penance. I was tempted, but it is going to fail 1(e). Maybe next year. Until then it will have to be Hail Marys. Yomangani^talk 17:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL - well, it was hard reading about tortured horses while I was watching the sad Barbaro news on the TV :-) Hail Marys will not suffice - we'll have to come up with something else. Have a look at the Anne of Great Britain far - there's a new helper on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I finally got round to looking at the Anne of Great Britain FAR (now it's a FARC), and have filled in the last missing cites. Looks good enough to return to the pack now, what do you think? Yomangani^talk 02:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessments within projects

Regarding the edits to U2 and Snow Leopard - an assessment of GA within a project is not the same thing as an assessment of GA from WP:GA. Projects can, and do, use somewhat different scales, and a project assessment of A can coexist with a WP:GA. (Even WP:GA does not change project A assessments to GA when they list an article.) I've taken care of the U2 one. With Snow Leopard, it's remotely possible the project assigns a GA within the project without going through WP:GA, but I don't know if that's the case there, so I left it. Another problem is what to do with articles like Talk:Bruce_Springsteen which use one of the obscure GA template including extra categories. Gimmetrow 01:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think all FAR-demotions should be B's, the bot can do that in the future. Gimmetrow 01:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

More amusement at Image:Kevin-pereira.jpg. Take a look at the version uploaded at 10:45 January 26. (It's safe.) Did you notice what was amusing about the Pashtun FACs? You dug out the old version and put it in /archive1, but one of the article editors is apparently an admin who "fixed" your cut-and-paste move by splitting the page history. But left one of the pages a redirect... Gimmetrow 03:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The latest pile-up

I've decided the best metaphor for FAR is a wilderness stream: it gets blocked at points, and often meanders, but the general flow carries on... So then:

• Are you happy with the LEAD and prose at Panavision? Lots of good work there.
• I think Superman will clear out soon enough; just waiting for Wiki-Newbie.
• Illimatic only has one remove but hasn't had much work in a while. There were some efforts early in the review.
• Firefox is far from perfect, but there was work on it yesterday so it will have to stay up a while.

All of these are pushing two months, but that's becoming par for the course. Marskell 08:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, just messaging to hope that my occasional notification of FARs of late is doing you a favour as intended, and not being disruptive. LuciferMorgan 14:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"Utter frustration". I can imagine. I hate to repeatedly ask you, but at least in terms of referencing, you're the last word... A victim of your own success? :) I've started ce'ing Quartermass, BTW. Seems quite good. Marskell 14:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot has already swept the archive once and got it right. I asked Gimme on FAR talk if he wanted different archives, without reply. Marskell 16:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:sign

Hi there. Thanks for reminding me. Next time you see unsigned statements, you can use {{subst:Unsigned|username}} template. It will produce: — Preceding unsigned comment added by username (talk • contribs) . Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 14:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FAR

Hi, there - wanted to check in with you regarding your FAR nominations; we try not to overwhelm any given WikiProject with too many nominations at once. We now have four MilHist articles at FAR. The instructions also say, "Nominators are asked to improve an article that they nominate for review to the best of their ability," so we discourage nominating more articles than an editor can work on at once. Are you planning to nominate other MilHist articles right away, and are you able to keep up with two reviews at once? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I only nominated two and wasn't really aware there was two that had already been nominated. However, if an article doesn't meet FA criteria, I'd be concerned about not being allowed to promote it for delisting on the basis that the wikiproject was too busy. The wikiproject MILHIST is one of the largest projects to my understanding and can hopefully withstand this. I have been trying to offset my nominations by commenting on other nominatins for articles seeking FA and articles nominated for de-listing as FA (see my contribs). I currently have no more articles I wish to nominate as de-list as FA. I was just struck how articles listed as FA in the past fail to meet the rudmimentary qualifications for articles currently seeking FA, which seems wrong. FA should reflect the current article state and the current FA qualifications, not a historic version of either. I apologies if I have overloaded this wikiproject, but I will be monitoring both FARs on my watchlist. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help - PocklingtonDan 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Military History project is indeed huge, so if editors worked on the articles I'd say they'd be able to fix it. The worrying thing is that when I nominated World War I, which I would class as a core topic, it went through FAR/C without much effort. Also, Battle of the Somme, one of the major World War I battles, looks destined to be FARC. I hope I'm wrong, but I think they'll go through FAR/C and end up being defeatured. LuciferMorgan 21:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who FAs

Hi, Sandy. Thanks for your help during the Dalek FAR — sorry it dragged out as long as it did.

I'd like to get the Doctor Who WikiProject to work together on improving the citations on our other featured articles (Doctor Who, TARDIS, Doctor Who missing episodes and Sydney Newman), but I think our energies would be best spent working on one at a time. Early discussion suggested that members would like to work on Doctor Who first, but I remember you mentioning that you were considering putting Doctor Who missing episodes on FAR after Dalek was finished. Are you still planning to do that? LuciferMorgan suggested that he'd be willing to let us work on our FAs in a more relaxed atmosphere than the FAR produces — how do you feel about that? Which article do you think we need to work on most/first? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't say I was going to put it at FAR - I said it's on the list of articles lacking citations that will eventually need to come to FAR, and anyone else could do it at any time. I think it's the one you most need to work on, but I personally have no plans to FAR any of them any time soon, hope you'll be able to work at your own pace, but we can't control if someone else FARs them. Perhaps put a message on the talk pages that the Project is aware of the need for citations and plans to address it soon? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where editors have asked me, I'm reviewing articles also. Apartf from "The Quatermass Experiment", all the FAs I nominated are coming through FAR without any editors trying to improve them. I actually gave feedback in "The Quatermass Experiment" also. I'm sorry if you feel that I don't participate much, and don't "actively read the articles" and give feedback - I'm unsure if I was included in this comment about FAR reviewers on Josiah's talk page, but if so then I'm sorry you feel this way about me. It was me who actually suggested the Doctor Who Wikiproject for them to improve their articles, and I'll be helping them review the article as much as I can. The problem is prose isn't my strong point. I try to help where I can though, and that's why I've been trying to notify Projects since you've been swamped. LuciferMorgan 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, Lucifer, I wasn't referring to you at all - I was speaking about the general lack of reviewers, at the same time we have some off-topic rambling on the talk page from people who don't actually do anything to help !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok ok, chill!! My point was "someone else" is reviewing them, so no need to feel lonely. LuciferMorgan 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so there's half a dozen of us - that's still pretty lonely :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact there's 6 of us is a good thing, as it forges a stronger working relationship. LuciferMorgan 21:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Never got round to thanking you for your comments to Slayer, so thanks :). If you have any concerns, feel free to give me a message and i will deal with them ASAP. Thanks again. M3tal H3ad 06:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ATT

Check my evil strawpoll on the bottom of talk. Marskell 11:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In a stunning reversal (!!!) we may have found a way forward: simply use the existing wording from RS and V in the exceptions section. Third exception out, first and second verbatim from the P&G's now. Truly a lightbulb moment. Marskell 17:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the heads up Sandy! I had already noticed them on certain articles, but I didn't know what the markup for it was or where it was to be located so I didn't replace any of the articles I encountered without ut. However, if I encounter any in the future, I will go ahead and change them over. I do have one request though, and that is that for the maindate portion, the date listed on the article comes out in American format due to the page being in this format. While I'm American and find that fine, I do normally make the effort to wikilink each date so that it could come out in user preffered format. Perhaps the markup for this new template could do the same. Great job on your hard work!! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 18:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add the old system and hen advise you of any who are still using it. Thanks! -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 22:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Quatermass and the Pit

I have now gone through and had a go at this article, in an attempt to start bringing it up to scratch and preserve its FA status. I hope it's getting vaguely close to being able to avoid FAR, and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Angmering 20:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Expand this ref:

• ^ Newman, Kim in "The Kneale Tapes".

and then make a post at Wikipedia talk:Featured articles with citation problems that you would like to have it stricken from the list - unless someone objects and if there is consensus, we can call it a keep from there. That was fast ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I had to put the full details of "The Kneale Tapes" twice, because I put the full details in an earlier citation when referring to something Nigel Kneale had said in the same documentary? Angmering 20:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

ah, I missed that - since others may miss it was well, how about go ahead and repeat it ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll do that. :-) Angmering 20:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

El Hatillo PR

Gracias for taking care of some of the items from the peer review. I will get on the rest on Saturday.--enano ^(Talk) 01:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I worked on the PR today, I still have to do some research to fix the rest. When you can, I would like you to give me a hand with items 2, 4 and 10 please, which are minor syntax issues I don't know how to fix. As we thought, references will be the biggest issue during nomination.

Corrected those three, agree that See also should just be deleted - it doesn't add anything to El Hatillo except confusion, considering the way Chavez keeps changing things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannis' item #5 is about economic statistics like GDP. My research was unsuccessful, but I did found a very interesting site between my bookmarks, which has more recent unemployment data (2001), along with a lot more data than what is found in the INE's website. Sistema Integrado de Inidicadores Sociales de Venezuela (SISOV) generates data for a lot variables from the 2001 census. For instance, in the link above, go to Miranda, then "Tasas de condición de vida", select "Municipio" under "Area de salida", then select "Tasa de desocupación" under "Fila", and click "Ejecutar". You should get unemployment data for every municipality in Miranda, including a nice map. Unfortunately, the page is generated live and placed in a temporary folder in the server, so if you try to access it later, or to link to it from Wikipedia, you will get an error. Still, I think it can be used as a source by linking to the main page of the system and gving some sort of description in the citation. It has a lot of other variables, including ethnicity.

Experimenting - does this link hold? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Next: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Second link doesn't hold, but at least there is an intermediate link, from which you only have to select Municipio and Tasa de desocupacion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I also want to discuss the 2nd part of the PR by Yomangani. We need to unify how Spanish phrases are given. In my opinion, when a good translation exists, we should only give the translation, like Chrsitmas, Eastern, etc, and link to the articles, I don't feel the Spanish equivalent is needed. When the word can be translated but it's no well-known, I say we should give both the original word and the translation in the following format" Sucre Plaza (Spanish: Plaza Sucre). In case no proper translation exists, popular or not, I say we just put the original world in italics, like Alcaldía Mayor. Let me know if you agree and I will edit them.

Agree with this one - go for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The link you gave me looks interesting, I think it should be added, but I will look for more information in Eluniversal.com, it has been in the news for a few days already. I'm still unsure about adding or not the Transparencia data. You are right it does look strange seeing El Hatillo almost last in a transparency study, but I have already seen an article or two about El Hatillo's corruption. I will try to find them again, and if they point in the same direction, I will add the data, otherwise I will just leave it as you are suggesting.

A final thing, I removed the quotes from bedroom community, what do you think about "collapsed". Thank you for everything. Saludos.--enano ^(Talk) 19:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Will start through the list above - yes, remove the quotes from collapsed. More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, yes, we expected a problem with the lack of English sources, but it is what it is, and I've seen other articles go through FAC with no English sources - you did your best. You've worked long and hard on this article; I hope you feel reassured that two very good reviewers like it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just nominated the article. Before that I added the new unemployment data and the most common countries of origin for the population, so you may want to check if the prose is alright in those additions. I also created a very brief article on the Guipuzcoana Company. I looked for the corruption news articles, but they weren't conclusive enough to back up the Transparencia numbers. Thank you for all the help Sandy and let's hope this has the desired outcome. Abrazos.--enano ^(Talk) 23:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"The unemployment rate in 2001 was 6.1%, ranking as the fourth lowest unemployment rate between the twenty-one municipalities in Miranda." Better?--enano ^(Talk) 23:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Gracias ;-)--enano ^(Talk) 00:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Dear Sandy,

Do you have some time to take a look at the references for Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University. It is a fairly short article that came out as a result of moving a section not too long ago to a longer article. It is a fairly quick read and the references are not too many. I'd greatly appreciate any help that I can get. :-) LaSaltarella 05:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Wesley Clark

Is there any particular criticism you feel is underrepresented in the article? If not, would merging the now-existing criticism section throughout the article where applicable fix your issues? Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hi SandyGeorgia! I've now heavily rewritten the article, including weaving the criticism into the article as you requested and including other criticisms that others said should be included. I was hoping you could stop by and reevaluate the article and let me know if you either think it's good enough for your support or if not what needs to be done! Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! Responded to your comments as best I could. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Firefox 2.0

Get it :)? Well, an editor has suggested that we link to specific revisions of Mozilla Wiki pages instead of pages themselves; I think it's a good start. I've also pinged the folks on WP:RS as you suggested. BTW if you'd like me to stop giving you these "updates", feel free to let me know. Far be it from me to commit the ultimate crime of spam... Fvasconcellos 13:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL - thanks FV, no, pls do keep me informed, since that saves me from having to check back all the time, and thanks for doing the work ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to your daily edition of the Mozilla Firefox FARC Update!

No encouragement here, I'm afraid. Congratulations on the wikiversary—mine's coming up next month and it feels like I've been here a lifetime! Fvasconcellos 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look good, does it? Thanks :-) You also write like you've been here a lifetime - that's a good thing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll give myself a green light and link all wiki references to oldids (I counted 7, perhaps more). I will probably be offline all week, so good luck with this one... :) I just wish I could have helped more. Fvasconcellos 13:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

All done. I'm glad you feel that way, and thanks for your help! Say, this FA/FAR thing is kind of addictive, isn't it? Fvasconcellos 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha. I'm afraid it's work calling, not fun. I'll try to enjoy myself anyway :) See ya when I get back! Fvasconcellos 15:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Some issues

The bot is going to have trouble if someone re-noms right away, and the archived nomination isn't changed. Then the archived nomination link is pointing to the now-current nom, and the bot closes it. Ran into this with Talk:Tenacious D and had to undo things. As a result, the current FAC is already at /archive2, so it will also need to be done by hand when it finishes.

On Talk:New York City there was a FAC listed from December 2005, pointing to the recent page. Couldn't find it.

On some other page, I seem to recall that the recent facfailed template was not at the top, but later. An older facfailed template was at the top. When there is no {{fac}} the bot is programmed to grab the first facfailed, under the assumption that someone probably already updated the page. I guess I'll have to figure out a way to identify the "right" facfailed. Just something to be aware of.

This was at Atlanta, Georgia. The old facfailed pointing to /archive1 was before the facfailed on the talk page. I can probably program around this. Gimmetrow 15:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: the bot doesn't need the fac templates changed to facfailed. If they are changed, the bot (as currently programmed) expects the most recent facfailed to be first. I'll probably have the bot give priority in the future to any {{facfailed}} without parameters. Gimmetrow 15:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gee, MILHIST must have fairly high standards to drop a "FA" to "Start". Gimmetrow 14:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

More on New York City: the numbering of the archives doesn't matter to me. As long as the page exists, and it's not going to get moved again, it doesn't really matter. There are other pages already with a /Archive1 and a /archive1. No real reason to move 'em around. I think the problem on NYC was that someone made a small mistake trying to incorporate the recent facfailed into AH by hand, and listed it as a December 2005 FAC. I removed it. Gimmetrow 15:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I had the bot use /articleN style because it was the most common style in the WP:FAC pages. Don't recall if I've posted these stats already. Determined January 16, 2007. Gimmetrow 19:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• 3500 files beginning with Wikipedia:featured article candidates (includes rdrs)
• 491 contain two /
• 2 article AC/DC, TV/FM
• 260 with /archiveN (including at least one ending //archive1)
• 22 with /archive N (including at least one "/archive one")
• 8 with /archive (no number)
• 59 with /ArchiveN
• 47 with /Archive N (including /Archive I and /Archive II)
• 5 with /Archive (no number)
• 4 others containing archive or Archive, eg:
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Merit badge types (BSA)/RenamingArchive1
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Merit badge types (BSA)/SolvedIssuesArchive1
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cædmon/FACarchive1
• 12 with /Attempt N
• 3 starting Featured article candidates/Featured article candidates
• 4 using /Month Year
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sesame Street/August 2005
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sesame Street/June 2006
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sesame Street/October 2004
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sesame Street/September 2004
• 39 containing /Featured log/<articlename>
• 4 apparently numbered AfD style, but note others (probably redirects):
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard 1
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard 2
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard 3
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard 4
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard/Archive 1
  • Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charizard/Archive 2

Wow - and the bot can handle all of these? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the bot just needs to find one open pagename to move the discussion to. Since /archiveN is used most commonly, the bot just finds the next one of those available in sequence. All the others are just links, it really doesn't matter what they are, which is why moving them around is unnecessary work. But it shows how well people follow directions to archive to /Archive N ;) Gimmetrow 19:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Right - LOL ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK template

Just to confirm: they should be substituted for the bot to work, right? Just checking because they should already be...probably just means that one of the admins hasn't been doing it properly. I'll leave a note for the regular updaters. Yomangani^talk 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If they are subst'ed, this bot won't find them. Gimmetrow 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Per this, I don't think Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis was ever a featured article. Gimmetrow 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I took it off of FFA [3]. If it's still in the category, that means I'm out of sync still by one article, grrrrr ... yes, we should change it to FFAC, and I have to see what article is missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so now I'm short one an FFA in the category - can't find it. Can you run another one of those comparison lists? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pythagoreun -- going to check now. Think I found it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, another FFA/GA gone wrong [4] - those are going to keep me busy - I'll probably have to run regular comparisons to see which articles drop the FFA cat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pashtun people

I think all of the concerns have pretty much been addressed. More refs have been added (and made consistent), and anything that may have been OR has been removed. Any way you could reconsider your vote? :-) Khoikhoi 00:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Regards, Khoikhoi 01:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Khoikhoi 01:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations on the wiki-anniversary. Your contributions and especially your work in featured articles processes are very much appreciated; Wikipedia’s featured content is much better now than it was one year ago. Also belated congratulations on the FA status for Tourette syndrome, where you have done very good work. Unfortunately I was away when it reached GA and FA status and could not participate. I am also sorry I haven’t made that collage about which we talked last year; if you still want it (I don’t know whether it would fit in the article now), I’ll try it once I’m done with some real life stuff that is in the way.

By the way, I’ve just noticed this; how would you like an automatic way to estimate prose length? —xyzzy_n 02:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I’m not really on either side regarding the collage, so I’ll just accept the poll result. Thanks for pointing out prosesize.js; it’s a cool script (according to the source code, anyway; I haven’t actually tried it yet) and somewhat different from what I had in mind. There are some minor problems with it at which I’d like to hack eventually, but I’m glad you have something that works. —xyzzy_n 03:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For the unprecedented work on Featured articles review, Featured articles with citation problems and for enfocing WP:GTL among other things, I award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar to commemorate your first year of excellence on Wikipedia.Pethr 03:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

And you're very welcome. It should also read for the countless invisible edits but I thought it would be too long. Thank you for all of that, good night and sleep well!--Pethr 04:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Repeats

Unilaterally removing noms may cause more problems than it solves. If it gets worse, I'll think about it; we'd have to warn people on the talk first. Marskell 05:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Put Beer in place

Put Talk:Beer in some order. No page found for the original candidacy. Also when trying to update Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/June_2006 to have /archive1, I get a spamfilter error: I'm guessing one of the other pages transcluded there has been spammed? Anyway, now 322 items are both in the FFA category and linked from the FFA page. Gimmetrow 05:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Gimmetrow - you're the best. Now that I've fiddled with the template enough myself, I probably could have done it. On the archive, I saw that issue once before on FAC, and Raul quickly fixed it - do you want me to query him? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Raul654 14:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That was speedy :-) Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Raul654 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

When I updated the Beer archive link in the June 2006 log, I noticed that there were a couple pages with colored archive tags already. That seemed odd, since the bot only started adding them in January. Apparently links to subpages are not being updated when the subpages are moved for later FACs. There may very well be multiple old links in the logs pointing to much later FAC submissions. If the links are fixed, it appears the bot can reasonably well process older log pages. I'm not tagging the older FAC discussions. Also, tested putting headers on the cleared redirects after a FAC discussion is moved. On another note, do we want articles that failed a FAC but later were promoted nevertheless to show up in the featured articles (contested) category? (Currently they do.) Gimmetrow 17:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that's correct; not being aware of the intricacies, I know I've moved FACs to archiveN without updating FAC archive, and I'm sure others have as well. What links do you need fixed? What I'm focusing on now is making sure that every new FAC/FAR nom has everything correctly listed on the talk page, so the bot can handle it - should I be doing more (for example, making sure I update archive on anything I find)? I would think we wouldn't want subsequent promotions to show up in contested, but I'm not aware of what that category might be used for or by whom - ask on articlehistory talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm generating a list of pages that start with "Wikipedia:Featured" that are either not linked on a talk page with a directly corresponding name, are not linked in a log, or are linked twice or more in logs. Where would you like this list of problem pages? (It's going to be >2000 problem pages.) I have a tool now which can update the ArticleHistory of specific talk pages, or can go through pages in a category, or can go through pages which transclude a template. I think these will work better the log pages, so actually fixing the log pages is probably very low priority. I would like to run the bot through all the articles with {{featured}} to begin with, so it would be nice if the talk pages for those could have all the former FAC info. For instance, if Talk:Jake Gyllenhaal could have {{facfailed|Jake Gyllenhaal/archive1}} then the bot can incorporate it into ArticleHistory when it hits the page. Gimmetrow 00:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

So, the 2,000 are lists of things we may need to examine for manual addition to talk pages? Can you put it on a sub-page of my userpage, or is that a no-no? What are the choices? If it's in my userspace, can everyone edit it for strike purposes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've put up a list at Template_talk:ArticleHistory/work. It's the 200 or so pages that are likely old failed FACs for current FAs, but not linked on the article talk page. In some cases the article has been renamed or the article has been through FAR. (Great Mosque of Djenne comes to mind.) If we can get most of these checked and onto current FA pages, the bot will figure out oldids and such. Gimmetrow 21:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to fix the logs right now, but perhaps don't strike them out because they really should be fixed if someone feels inclined. As for articles like "White's Tree Frog", the article was renamed and you just have to make sure it is linked appropriately from the new page. In that case, the templates were substituted, so I unsubstituted them. I don't know why subpages of talk pages are taboo. In any event, this page can be deleted once the pages are reviewed. Gimmetrow 22:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

On Venus, you put another featured tag, which was a good thing. Two successful FACs was odd. I figured there had to be a FAR in there somewhere, and changed the tag to formerFA. Yes, the link in the featured template wasn't right, but you were either following examples I've done earlier, or using common sense. The code currently interprets the paramters to the featured template the wrong way, but it's the way people usually use it unless they provide an oldid. Gimmetrow 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You moved through those fast enough that I had trouble keeping up. Anyway, I've changed the code to interpret the featured template correctly as I ran into a few using oldids. The template actually expects {{featured|oldid|link}}, so if you need to specify a link to a non-standard page, leave out the oldid and use {{featured||weirdpage}}. There should only be a handful of these and soon that template will be obsolete. Gimmetrow 04:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You have done a remarkable job trudging through that deleted info. I think that should be a large part of the missing links for current FAs, and it will take many days to go through them with the bot. Take a rest, you've earned it. As for the space after the template, I'm going to have a hard time fixing that since it doesn't appear on my usual browsers. Gimmetrow 03:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the GA history on Dallas all good now? Sorry for the conflict, it looked like you were done with it. I saw you went back through all the other pages with the template and added spaces. Since it looked like you were going to do it anyway, the bot just uses that style from now on. WW2 done. Also I came across two articles that were genuinely from the BP process (rather than RBP), so it will be getting some use. Gimmetrow 03:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm thinking of it, Talk:Crushing by elephant and Talk:Bob Dylan were originally promoted under the BP process. Someone made a FAC page for Bob Dylan at one point. Gimmetrow 04:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, got a problem with Talk:Ernest Hemingway. It was promoted before the WP:FAC page existed so I can't find any history except the diff when it appeared at WP:FA. Gimmetrow 00:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

hmmm ... sounds like we have to ask Raul if he remembers where it came from, and then build an FAC page to use? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In the short term, I made the default link work on Talk:Ernest Hemingway. Also noticed you changed the Talk:New York Yankees currentstatus to FGAN. I've only recently started supporting {{failedGA}}, and this only affects the text/graphic shown, but in the current convoluted logic needed to support this template, FGAN only takes precedence over no previous status (ie, reviews). Finally, someone else is asking about current FAs in the CAT:FAC(contested) category over at Template_talk:ArticleHistory. Gimmetrow 00:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I processed Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh War. I've seen a few cases like that where a failed GAN was shortly after listed as GA. I think in these cases the "failure" was likely an editorial dispute rather than a substantial review event, and it's probably not worth noting. Just my opinion, but I would remove the "failedGA" on that article. Gimmetrow 03:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This edit raises a couple issues. The FA folks don't seem to have a problem having a FAC template on the same page as a FFA or FFAC template, but it looks like this may be a concern in the GA process. Has the ArticleHistory project had any input from the GA folks? I never did get a response when I asked about the specialized GA templates. Gimmetrow 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That edit commented out the ArticleHistory template - which was displaying a Delisted Good Article text - when a new GA nomination template was added. Gimmetrow 00:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Should you fix it? I don't know. This seems like avoiding confusion, kinda like Raul deleting failed FAC info when an article is finally promoted. Someone needs to get a conversation going over at GA. Perhaps with Homestarmy or Walkerma? Gimmetrow 01:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems like you're adding old FACs inside the template. You don't need to do that. That bot can grab and insert them. Gimmetrow 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

When you get a chance, could you sort out Talk:Graffiti - the FARC link went to a later FAC. Also I can't find an encoding that likes the ndash in Talk:History_of_Poland_(1945–1989) so the program won't process it. Gimmetrow 07:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there was a January 2004 pass for Indus_Valley_Civilization, then it was removed and renominated in December 2004. The formerFA template linked to the later nomination. The original discussion is probably lost in edit histories somewhere, but if you find it the Jan 2004 log is currently pointing to the Dec 2004 discussion. Gimmetrow 03:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Thanks very much for your comments, I try my best :-) Your work at FAC/FAR is tremendous, both in reviewing and "filing" (if you know what I mean); you pop up everywhere on my watchlist making insightful comments or sorting out article histories and so on. Without you, there'd be a danger of the whole thing falling apart. Trebor 14:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Its possible if I weren't doing fungi, dinosaurs and real life stuff is starting to pile up like mad so I have to nix it unless someone else gets stuck into it. I noted it to Spawn man, who as a Kiwi may have been interested but everyone seems a bit...Cas Liber 20:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but I'm not sure how much to revert - some of the cn tags might be legit. Wish he'd leave it until it leaves the main page though. Trebor 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll leave it to MilHist. Trebor 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Panavision

Just a heads up; that article is going to be extremely difficult to copyedit, mainly because most of the issues I see are completely subjective. I did a redundancy screening, but it was tough to find the "common mistakes". — Deckiller 14:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Tyler, my problem with it is that I just don't know how to analyze prose to the extent that Tony can, but I just find the prose really tough going. Without Tony, not sure what to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I should probably give myself more self confidence. — Deckiller 18:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just hate to see an article that has received so much work go by the wayside because of prose; Tony has enough confidence in your copyediting that I'm assured you can fix 'er up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Dear Sandy,

Thanks for the help! The WP:FN page will be helpful for future reference. I corrected the reference that you mentioned. I was confused about the third point that you brought up related to the block quotes. Is there a place where I can see the proper format for the block quotes? The one where I first saw them used has them in the way that I included them in the Activism at Ohio Wesleyan University page. Thanks for your help! LaSaltarella 22:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Should I include where the reader can find the quote in the template or separate from it? LaSaltarella 22:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

One user allowed to cast 4 votes in WP:FAC??

Hi. The user User:Semperf has (so far) made 4 separate "oppose" votes to my FAC candidacy page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campaign history of the Roman military, which I know you monitor (and admin?). I am trying to address his concerns one by one but he keeps raising new oppose votes on different matters whenever I address each existing oppose vote. I am concerned firstly that it will throw the review in a bad light to have (on brief inspection) four separate oppose votes, when in reality they are all from the same user. I am also beginning to suspect that this user has something against me, perhaps because of an edit I made to an article of his in the past. Could you plesae advise what I should do in these circumstances. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 14:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I'll go have a look to see if there's something irregular. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you said something, thank you, he has now changed the oppose votes to comments. - PocklingtonDan 14:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people just aren't aware, and it only takes a word :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for review for Leonard Orban

Hi! I have finished writing and copyediting an article on Leonard Orban, European Commissioner for Multilingualism. I made considerable changes following a peer review. It seems to me that there are no more changes to do -or I am too familiar with the text to see the weaknesses- and I don't know what exactly to do next: submit it as GA candidate, ask for a new peer review, submit it to the League of Copyeditors, something else? Yannismarou suggested to ask you to review it. I saw at WP:FAC that you are very active at reviewing. So, if you have the time, it would be nice if you could take a look at the article and make comments. As you may see from my user page, I am not a very experienced wikipedian (though I contribute to the Greek Wikipedia too) and I am not a native-speaker of English, but, as I have done with the peer review, I am ready to make changes to the article following your remarks and answer to your comments. Many thanks in advance! --Michkalas 15:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

TB vaccine edit

I can't find any direct mention of this, but if phase I has been completed (as the ref shows) phase II is next, not phase II which would be many years away. TimVickers 17:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Double help

Heh. I just noticed the same thing; see WT:MILHIST#Harvard references versus footnotes. Kirill Lokshin 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, probably best to just let it go, at this point. An extra article or two on FAR won't make that big of a difference, I think. Kirill Lokshin 17:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Should interested parties of T-34 be informed of their FAR by me, or are you trying to delay its FAR due to the amount of military history related articles at FAR? Just asking before I go ahead. LuciferMorgan 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good policy. Your advice always proves valuable on Wiki :). A thing that annoys me, which I've already said at T-34's FAR, is that most will have forgotten about the article in 2-3 weeks, and the FAR regulars will be left to help with advice etc. (especially you usually :( - even though the page is a bit clogged (partly my fault). LuciferMorgan 18:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Popups

No I didn't, but I knew a mistake was inevitable and was re-checking the edits periodically (I'm actually reading posts on T-34, at the moment...). My popups is cool but it actually creates an interface problem if the pop-up comes up right at the moment I ctrl-x something (sometimes grabbing two or grabbing none). It's annoying. Marskell 19:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

FAR

Sandy, thanks for your note. I've been meaning to chip in here for a while, as you mention I should be familiar with the process by now! I'll be busy in real life for the next week or so, but can give more attention after that. + Ceoil 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi Sandy, thanks for the barnstar. It's always nice to be appreciated :) Btw I've modified the articlehistory script so that it now gets all the revisions automatically, it's not necessary to click to get the next 200. Dr pda 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandy! What happened to Dan!

Dan seems to have gone strange over his own article! I said it was a bit long but compared to the short version I like it long. Is there anything we can do here? rv it again?Dave 02:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Kirill's talk page, and read up on a few entries on my page here - I don't exactly know what happened, because it caught me totally by surprise. We'll eventually have to revert it, but didn't want to upset him further.  :-(( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Somebody else nominate the article, then somebody fix the immense number of notes for Dan. I've never gotten much into the administration because I am interested in building articles of interest so I do not know how to do the nomination. PS: where do I find Kirill? Is that the right user name? Thanx.Dave 04:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic Steroid

Please tell me if you support the Anabolic steroid articles nomination to be a featured article or oppose it.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did - Tim gave you some very good tips; I'm surprised you didn't work on those items before bringing the article to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I already made most of those improvements.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The references aren't formatted, and there are several long lists. You might take time to work on those. What is this ref? Alen, Reinila, & Reijo, 1985 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Alen M, Reinila M, Vihko Reijo. Response of serum hormones to androgen administration in power athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1985;17(3):354-359.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well don't tell me - put it in the article :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Scouting

Where in the FAR page does it indicate what you said on my talk page? i just re-read it. --IceflamePhoenix 04:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it, thanks, my bad =) - i'll hold my horses for a few days. --IceflamePhoenix 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Foreign language citations

Hey, SandyGeorgia. I've noticed that you are an active participant in FAC and I've read some of your contributions with great attention to detail for my own article that I am trying to bring to FA status. You mentioned here that foreign language sources should be marked with the appropriate language icon. Several of my sources are in Italian and I would like to mark them as such. Could you please help me figure out what the appropriate language icon is for Italian? Thank you very much, JHMM13 (T | C) 05:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

{{it_icon}} (in Italian) (found by guessing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much again! Utilissimo :-D. JHMM13  18:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Per niente. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lion King FAC

Hi, thanks for commenting on The Lion King's featured article candidate I'm new to the whole references thing here at Wikipedia, and I was wondering if you could look at the article and tell me if I got them right. If I didn't, let me know what to do to improve them. Thanks. PlatformerMastah 05:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For your radar

Norte Chico civilization will be on FAC within a month, barring calamity. You can check in advance if I'm doing anything wrong on the referencing front.

Damn, you've got a busy talk page. Marskell 09:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask again when this is done. To answer a couple (and to give you some of my own preferences at once...)

• I have PDFs sitting on my hard drive and have been using "retrieve" dates for my main "look". This doesn't actually make sense--they can't be retrieved at a click if you can't access Science--but I was thinking of them as a "last-read-over date."
• "Can [CNN and BBC] be expanded using cite news?" No, please. I didn't spell them out because I'm not actually sourcing info to them. I'm attempting to provide the link (proving it received attention), while deprecating it.
• "Some reviewers are now asking for full date wikilinks even on refs, so date preferences will work: Northern Illinios University (22 December 2004)." Did I not do that?
• "Should Pre be capped here?: The Norte Chico civilization was a complex Pre-Columbian society." Yes, insofar as archeologists do it. But I do need to be consistent.

Anyhow, you're attention is great, as always. I'll tell you when the page is really ready.--Marskell 21:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies over yesterday

I have re-instated the article and am working on it again - PocklingtonDan 11:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Changeover Articles

Hey, Scottish Parliament needs a switchover to the new template. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 19:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Able Archer 83 and Make Way for Ducklings both need changeovers. Would there be a specific section on your talkpage I could put these at so that it'd be easier for you to find? -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Teach me how to add it and I'll do it myself as I come across them. :-) -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, no problems then. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi there. As you see I just can't stay away... Anyway: I've long been bothered by the redlink to paracetamol's FAC (as you can see on the article's Talk page) and just found out why it's there—the article was promoted way back when as acetaminophen and later moved to paracetamol. Long story short, is there a way to circumvent this? I thought of moving the FAC page, but I'm definitely not comfortable doing that myself. As I know you'll find a way, thanks in advance :) (Caveat: do not read the rest of the talk page! The article's smack in the middle of a minor content dispute and FAR is backed up enough already). Fvasconcellos 19:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it's for you, I'll see what I can do :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, thank you! That was quick :) Fvasconcellos 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Poetry

The template can't handle an oldid for the review links, so there are two choices:

1. I split the portal review off somewhere
2. We ignore the peer review (which didn't get any responses anyway)

Pick one (you have until the sand runs out). Yomangani^talk 23:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ignore :-) I was kinda hoping you'd say that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Good, that's the easy solution. Yomangani^talk 23:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Brooks-Baxter War

I know you know your referencing; so you are the right person to ask! The Brooks-Baxter War has references placed in the body of the article, rather than in footnotes. Can you help with the minor task of moving these refrences to appropriate footnotes? Thanks. I should also be pleased if you copyedit the rest of it, but I know this is too much to ask. Rintrah 13:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Rintrah. You'd better check with The stuart (talk · contribs) before doing that. I recall that article from WP:FAC, and it is written with Harvard style inline citations. Somewhere in some Wiki guideline (can't recall which) it is stated that we should respect the original referencing style. Harvard inliness are an acceptable form of citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kakapo

Hi Sandy, I know you're watching all of the FAR items, but I just want to notify you about my recent bulk changes in Kakapo. Could you please take a look to the prose? Also if you are still on remove to the current status. — Indon (reply) — 16:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Mariah Carey FAR

Thank for informing me! :) Extraordinary Machine 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And now, for something completely different

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Now this kind of Talk page you don't see every day. *LOL* (Outriggr got one too, in case you're wondering.) Go ahead—you can keep it! Fvasconcellos 01:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiwikiprojects banners

Hi. Although it's a good idea to condense the banners as done at Talk:Angelina Jolie, is there any way of doing it so that the WP:BLP warning banner is still visible. I'm concerned about that not being immediately visible, given current concerns regarding libel, etc. 23skidoo 16:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that as well - I'll raise the question where it was programmed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I also left a note there. I also left a note at the Biography Wikiproject as well. Given its special nature (i.e. it's helping to prevent libel suits against Wikipedia) I've recommended that that Wikiproject be given an exemption and be listed separately. Personally I don't like this whole idea of condensing banners (I'm not a fan of condensing template boxes either), but one battle at a time. 23skidoo 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campaign history of the Roman military

Hi. Thank you for your comments on the nomination of Campaign history of the Roman military‎ for FA at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campaign history of the Roman military. You made three comments regarding footnotes, WP:GTL, and Article Size. I have addressed two of these in the article, and made comments on why I do not believe it is possible to sensibly address the third. If you get a chance, I would appreciate you taking another look at the article, as well as my response to your comments, and stating whether you would now be able to support the article's nomination, or whether you have further or continuing concerns. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 16:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please re-run the ref-fixing script from Gimmetrow on Campaign history of the Roman military, I have added several new references and I think it needs fixing again. I tried installing the script myself but couldn't get it to isntall (I don't understand monobook at all). Thanks - PocklingtonDan 09:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben Thompson

I noticed that you have been editing the article Ben Thompson before, and so I wondering if you could help me. There is a user called BMT (real name Ben Thompson) who is editing the article and he is removing valid, referenced and relevant information that I have added to the article. He is giving me warnings and threatening to block me. Could you please check the sources for me and then assure user BMT that they are correct. I dont want to get blocked, but I think that this user is going that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheEditor20 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Tenacious D

Thanks for helping sort out the talk page. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

B movie

Personally, I would've given Dan a couple days to recover, but I understand why it needs to go to FAR because of its length. — Deckiller 17:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what he needs to recover from, considering he's had a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm talking about the Panavision FAR. It was mostly a lighthearted comment, anyway :) — Deckiller 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ah, thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Stuttering links

Why did you delete so many links from the stuttering article?--Tdkehoe 17:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1. WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:RS
2. I left a note on the talk page more than a month ago, and nothing was done.

Wiki is not a support group and not a webdirectory—it's an encyclopedia. One thing you might consider is linking to DMOZ, as other articles do (see Tourette syndrome External links). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Campaign history of the Roman military

Many thanks for fixing the placement of refs int he article per my earlier request. I have been working to address the points you raised in your oppose vote - I have answered all your queries, ensured all the refs are named refs (I had missed a few) - basically addressed all your complaints other than article size. Do you feel able to remove your oppose vote under these conditions or is the article size an absolute dealbreaker for you? i'd far rather remove two or three images that total 40k than remove 40k of cited prose! - PocklingtonDan 17:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Images aren't counted in prose size; it's readable prose that is calculated. I've never supported an article over about 40KB, and I can't/won't do it. Even I—on a very fast connection—have a hard time accessing the article. Please don't take it personally—I just don't believe we should ignore the reality that more than half the world has dialup, and those people won't even be able to read your article. We also have to remember we're writing an encyclopedia—not a book. The article may pass FAR without my Support, but I must be consistent in my application of a guideline I believe to be important. You've done excellent work—work to be proud of regardless of the outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Sandy. I still don't understand though why size of prose alone would be a factor if you are considering time for download. If you were saying that you couldn't support an article of that length because of the time taken to read it is too great, I could understand. But time to download an article is the time to load all elements, including text and images. In this case an article with 40k of prose and 100k of images takes longer to load than an article with 120k of prose and 10k of images. I certainly appreciate that you have a hard and fast rule here, but I just don't quite understand the reasoning. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize the question wasn't addressed to me, and I still believe 117 Kb is way too high for a Featured Article, but I'm impressed at the new perspectives that you get from covering ALL of Roman military history at one go. I wonder if the author would consider dividing the material into two or more sub-articles by date (rather than by Republic vs Empire, which I admit is arbitrary and adds confusing thoughts). Perhaps there could be a super-article to introduce the sub-articles that cover periods by date. One could choose unusual breakpoints such as 200 BC and 100 AD. EdJohnston 18:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I think you have inadvertently hit the nail on the head - my argument has always been that it is necessary to have the article as one whole article for people to appreciate everything in context - otherwise everyone would just click through to the Roman Empire article - not many people know what the Riman Republic was, and fewer still know about the prior Roman Kingdom etc. I can see how splitting it down into smaller articles would be good for page load times but I believe it would cause more hassle and confusion in every other respect. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 19:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sandy asked for some feedback... I'm not quite following where this conversation is going, but I ran the article through [5], which reports a total download requirement of about one megabyte. It suggests that it would take more than three and a half minutes to load the page over a 56.6k modem. Although download time and text size are somewhat different issues, when the number of images is kept in balance with the amount of text, the two are correlated. Anyway, yes, articles this big present usability issues, and they don't follow WP article size guidelines (policies?). –Outriggr § 01:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Outriggr; I was trying to understand the division between text and image problems on download. Looks like we have both, but bigger problem with images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the work Outriggr - what you have pointed out is what I was trying to say - that whether the article text is 70k or 112k is immaterial when the images amount to 900k! I would be much happier reducing the number of images, or optimizing the filesize of each image through compression, than removing some text which, after all, accounts for only 10% of the download time in any case - PocklingtonDan (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pashtun people

I'm concerned about using images that have been essentially researched by the editors and decided, for various reasons (~ they look like Pashtuns I've known in America), that they're Pashtuns. Isn't this original research? I've asked a family member who is an ethnologist to look at the pictures, but, really, that's just original research on my part, isn't it? KP Botany 18:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

ugh, I hate the whole images thing—I really don't know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if that isn't my usual cop-out.... Yeah, I just don't know either--the whole images on Wikipedia issue can be trying. I'll still ask the Afghan ethnographer. Thanks. KP Botany 19:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Cúcuta

Could you please send me suggestions to improve the article of Cúcuta?

I hope one day it be a featured article!

Thanks,

--Ricardocolombia 21:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

T-26

The T-26 article achieved A-class status after its A-class review. In the Article Milestones it says it's still considered Good Article status, when it isn't - it's an A-class article. I hope that this message isn't taken as if I were writing it with a hostile attitude, as I can see how the style I'm writing this may send that message - I apologize if it comes out in that fashion, it isn't my intention. I don't have much experience with that banner; if you have any suggestions or help I'd appreciate it. Thanks! JonCatalan 01:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Some advice

Hey Sandy, i thought its time for another FA and was hoping you could help me out again. I been working on a number of Slayer related articles to get them up to GA, as most of them would fail FA criteria 1b. Anyway there is one that has potential for FA, Reign in Blood. I was hoping you could point out any thing thats missing, reference problems (if any), and anything else, thanks. :) M3tal H3ad 13:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Know that i think about it there isn't enough sources to cover every aspect, where it was recorded, how long it took etc. sorry to bother you. M3tal H3ad 11:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm well, if you have the time i would appreciate your input. thanks M3tal H3ad 01:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What specific sections would you like to be expanded? I'm currently working another section called other appearances or appearances in media where songs have appeared in films, tv, covered by other bands - members opinions on them etc(not a trivial list ;). The album is mentioned in almost every interview so if you could please elaborate on the expansion suggestion I'm sure i can find the info. Thanks. M3tal H3ad 08:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a reference question, you'd be the appropriate person to ask ;p. There's a source with the RIAA site which has when the album got gold status (500k copies sold). But i can't link to the Slayer search, i can only link to the search menu. [6] Is it ok to use this as a source and put something in the reference like 'Search Slayer in artist" because this is a good source and it shouldnt take too much effort to search, thx. M3tal H3ad 11:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, enjoy your trip :) M3tal H3ad 09:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

If you have time, please have a look at Delhi, which is in FAC now. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

World Energy

After all this you remove the failed fac template?? Mierlo 16:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

After all what ? The conversion—which is being done on all FA candidates—to the articlehistory template has been done, reflecting both GAC and FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Max Rebo Band Article History template

Sorry about that, thanks for letting me know. Dmoon1 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Given the recent hostility on the FAR (particularly between LuciferMorgan, who you are close to, and Giano/Bish/George, who I am close to) I wanted to say that I really do appreciate all the work you do around here. I think Wikipedia is *much* better off because of it. Raul654 19:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for saying that, Raul; it is appreciated. In general, I make a practice of staying as far away from hostility, consternation, and imbroglio as I can, so I'll do my best not to comment further on the current situation. I hope others can just find a stop button and let it go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Raul654 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now pressed my stop button. LessHeard vanU 21:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, vanU—sorry 'bout the mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I can do better than my rather terse comment above; I am truly very sorry about the language but more specifically the tone I used. No excuses. I had no right to say what I did. Whatever the mess was, I am certain that you were not to blame. LessHeard vanU 21:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, vanU; and I truly appreciate you taking the time to comment. Onward and upward, Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite. There are lots of good people doing lots of good work, both of you included. I sure hope they don't stop. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Argh, sorry. I'll leave you to it then. Best, Fvasconcellos 22:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh, the ouch was mine, not yours, for giving you trouble with the inline comment. Don't worry, brevity is a virtue! Get back to work now, and don't you dare answer this one! :) Fvasconcellos 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Law talk page

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your last edit on the law talk page. In this edit you made the banners small; and moved it to the right of the page. You have been here longer that me, so can you direct me to guideline which states you must put all the banners to the right of the page? Because I like the banners to be big and on top of the talk page :) . But if you still want the banners small and to the right of the page, feel free to do, I will not revert it again. Peace :). --Parker007 08:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible Template Problem

In Talk:The Four Stages of Cruelty, if you look at the template, it only recognizes the milestone that is most to the bottom. So it will either list Did You Know, or mainpage date alone, but it refuses to list both. Thought I should bring this to your attention. -- SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 19:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, SmthManly; I'll ask someone to look at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Spam block

If I'm not mistaken, the spam blacklists are maintained on meta:, so you'd need to ask a meta admin (which Raul happens to be) to change them. Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Those Pashtuns

You asked to ping you if you forgot, so...PING! Khoikhoi 02:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Request on Delhi: update

Last access date provided. See alsos of each section would be moved according to WP:GTL. Will think about the See Also template. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I weep

Goooooooooood. Peta can handle himself. Let's wait and see. Marskell 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen masculine pronouns attached to that handle. Erk. Terrible how the assumption can still creep in even when you aren't 100% certain. Marskell 18:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

FA Mixup

Thanks for your input on the Dartmouth College article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.170.49.21 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I hope gimmebot doesn't excessively archive Talk:Linux

Hi. I've no idea what GimmeBot does, but since it's something to do with archiving Talk pages, and since you've targetted it at Talk:Linux, I thought I should tell you that Talk:Linux currently has an archiving problem. It is currently archived far too regularly, so discussions keep disappearing, and then the same points get discussed again on the new blank Talk page, and the page gains a few sections, and suddenly it's all put away in an archive, and the cycle continues. Please ensure the bot doesn't aggravate this. Thanks. Gronky 21:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection of DNA

Sure, if it's possible that would certainly help. I'm just reloading the history every so often, and then reverting in a tab, which reduces load time. You could also turn off images in a browser and use that to watch the page. TimVickers 18:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Sandy, thanks California Gold Rush

I think all those good fixes you're doing are to relatively recent edits, that just weren't cleaned up in the past few weeks. I know we'd never make those kinds of goofs the first time around! ;) Thank you so much for your constant support and good thoughts throughout this project - it's a great feeling to see it up on the Main page! NorCalHistory 01:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll let the WikiProject Calif folks know as well, there's probably other CA templates in need of similar updating . . . NorCalHistory 01:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi ho, Silver. Away! Ronbo76 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Edward Hargraves connection to Californian gold

Edward Hargraves does exist as a distant tangent. Ronbo76 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The California gold connection to Australia is a major historical nexus for us Aussies. The small sub-article plus reference gave a wider appreciation of the importance of the Californian historical event, especially for anyone doing an article or research. There are many historical reference books in Australia that explore and study the similarities and connections between the Californian experience and Australian experience of gold, plus the Chinese & Americans on our goldfields etc. Perhaps the piece plus links to Australia and Hargraves might be re-instated at the tail-end of the article, so as to provide a logical follow on for a reader. California's gold experience has a world-wide picture.Tonyob 04:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm back, and can spell you and Ronbo - thanks for the edits - just what I would have done! NorCalHistory 04:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple thanks, and wishes for a good night's sleep! NorCalHistory 05:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy; Not up to date with 'featured articles' protocol and happy to hold off for a few days. I've a real interest in gold histories etc - Will touch base also with Norcal. Tonyob 05:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just checking in to keep up the good fight! NorCalHistory 16:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Just our luck - major "snow day" in Northeast - lots of kids at home with not enough to do! NorCalHistory 16:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sly

Since the FARC seems to have quieted down, I'll just let you know that I just need to give it another quick pass and then I'd say it's passable. — Deckiller 04:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)