User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch16

Getting Started With The Working Group

I've suggested getting the Working Group together at Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Working_Group to start talking about any potential compromise on the attribution policy issue. Perahaps you can add the page to your watchlist. I have also mentioned this page in the community discussion, so there is public awareness of this discussion. Hopefully you will be willing to participate. Whatever exchanges may have taken place in the past, between the various parties, it's in the community's interest for this discussion to go forward. Thanks. zadignose 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Daylight saving time FAC review

Thanks for your FAC comments for the DST article. I have tried to fix Daylight saving time along the lines of your suggestions. My responses are after your comments. Eubulides 08:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bottom of the page

Well then, backlog not so bad right now. On the three at bottom:

• I'm guessing United Kingdom corporation tax still provides insufficient ref info for your liking. But Winklethorpe is trying his darndest. Any more suggestions you can give him?
• Quadzilla has been working alone on Jim Thorpe. Refs could still use dates, at a glance, but seem OK.
• Despite the gnashing of teeth, Brian did, generally within hours, act on suggestions to Great Lakes Storm of 1913. I specifically asked him for the summative cites, and I don't think we have reason to doubt the info. Marskell 12:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Mimi Smith

You wrote in your Mimi review that "Several sources are missing publication dates". Which ones? (so that I can fix them :) egde 18:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Length

We have not spoken directly lately, but we have crossed paths at a few modern sports articles where I have been taking heat for requesting too many citations. (I am currently engaged in both Dominik Hasek and Joe Sakic discussions) You may have noticed. Any expert opinion on this matter would be welcome. However, I am here on another issue. WP:CHICOTW attempts to produce reviewed articles from redlinks, stubs and redirects. We have over the course of two tenures as the featured article converted Chicago Landmark into a 100kb+ article that will eventually go to WP:FLC. What are the largest WP:FAs? I have heard Charles Darwin may be the largest. What do you know? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured lists have nothing to do with featured articles; I don't know what the longest lists are, but I do know that there are far too many of them that are far too large. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for helping to prepare Ellis Paul for May 22, 2007 TFA. Kmzundel 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Daylight saving time headings, sectioning, accessdate

Thanks again for your followup FAC comments. I further changed Daylight saving time along the lines of the followup suggestions, and responded on the FAC comment page. If there's anything else standing in the way of a Support comment, please let me know. This is my first Feature Article Candidate so I'm learning the ropes here. Eubulides 22:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

re

I wanted to thank you for your constructive comments regarding Manhattan. I have tried to address your comments to the best of my ability, but I am unsure about your issues regarding template positioning. Any further details that would allow me to better address your concerns would be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 01:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Alansohn; see WP:GTL. Templates belong at the top of the section, right under the seciton heading. There's a Main article template right in the middle of some text, and there are several templates at the bottom of sections. I'd move them myself, but I'm not sure how to deal with the one I saw mid-text. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Sandy, just a note to say thanks for all your hard work on the schizophrenia article references! - Vaughan 13:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Check it out

Very familiar. You should be chuffed that a high quality, well-sourced article is at #1 on Google. The copy/paste keys must be worn out on some journalist's keyboards ;-).

You might have schoolchildren stealing your text for their essays, but have you been translated into Polish? it looks like the editor on that article has done some of his own research on top. Just a shame I can't read a word of it.

I finished reading my copy of Kushner the other week. Took me longer than a "flight" to read it, but then I'm starting from zero. I enjoyed it and saw some medical names appear in the early European history that I'm familiar with from TSC. I plan to skim back over it to make some notes. I'd like to get hold of Kushner's journal articles on the subject (can you help) and various bits of biographical material. However, I'm also conscious that we mustn't rely too much on just one source/author. He's got a definite POV (as I'm sure have you). Colin°^Talk 18:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Schizophrenia FAR. I've had a (very quick) read of the article and the FAR. You've done a very thorough job. I've popped this in my watchlist. If I have time, I'll have another read and might have some comments. I agree with you on the size, amount of prose, lack of pictures and need for Summary style. I feel bad about not helping you more with the medical FAs. I know you'd like some more hands. I've got limited time and pile of things I'd like to improve that I'm more knowledgeable about (or want to be more knowledgeable about —- writing for WP is a great way to learn something) or personally interested in. Oh, I wish there was an active neurologist on Wiki.

Just to add to your pile, have you remembered Poliomyelitis? I won't bug you again about it cause you do more than your share. I just thought you'd like the change of helping with an article heading towards FA, rather than at FAC or FAR where everyone gets so defensive. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No, there are no arguments at all. It has been refreshingly constructive. I'm working on some stuff for it off-wiki at the moment. I also intend reviewing the sources to spot if anything is missing, in the history for example. It is a fascinating story. I had no idea that there were doubts about Roosevelt's diagnosis, for example. Anyway... must go to bed :-) Colin°^Talk 23:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If I may... I found your comments during the immune system FAC to be exceedingly helpful and any comments you might have regarding the Poliomyelitis article would indeed be very much appreciated! No pressure though, it seems that you have much on your plate already :).--DO11.10 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy, for kindly forwarding that link to the review on TSC. That's a new one I hadn't seen. I have access to it. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 19:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC comment, please?

Hi Sandy! I've agreed to copyedit user:Indon's FAC, Toraja, but only if the referencing is reviewed and updated as necessary. (In other words, I don't want to invest in copyediting and then see the FAC failed for other reasons.) I see a lack of page numbers for books. I wonder if you could add your insights to the FAC review? Thanks! Hope you're not too busy. I'm thinking of helping with the Schizophrenia article as well, superficially at least. –Outriggr § 02:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Done for now; left questions for Indon and on talk page. Hope he doesn't mind that I moved citations into the Notes. It looks very doable ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, on Schizophrenia, we still need for the main editors to put a lot of work into citing and trimming before it's ready for a copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Toraja

Hi Sandy, thanks for reviewing. I am going to answer you and Outriggr's concern centrally in the Toraja talk page, but I want to ask something to you first about separating References and Notes. But first, I really don't mind if somebody else directly edits the article. I really need that, seriously. Okay, about Ref & Notes, I prefer to separate sources that mainly explain about the subject, that is Toraja as an ethnic group, apart from tangential information sources. And that includes journals and books. Therefore readers can grab quickly the most important sources, instead of digging in the sea of notes. Web sources are usually tangential, thus they always put in the Notes section. Let me know what you think about this. — Indon (reply) — 09:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Please disregard my comment above. I decided to use all citations in Notes section and left general sources in the References section. — Indon (reply) — 11:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Last update: I have fixed all references that all are now verifiable. I've answered your concerns in the article's talk page. — Indon (reply) — 13:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, back for anothe look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. I finally eliminated the book source as I don't have time to go to the library. I think all of the sources are now verifiable. Please take a look again. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 15:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Duran

Well, the fact that these issues have been pointed out now confirms that remove was probably best, though I might have done one of the "how are things going?" comments. Catherine's reasonable about it, and it is a good article all round. On the prose, I notice a lot of "it is this that" writing—unnecessary words. And lots of too short paragraphs. I'll pick away at it. (Oh, and right—no reopening FARs, AFAIC.) Marskell 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reagan

To tell you the truth, I have no idea what User:Fabartus was talking about on my talk page. Last week he tried to help the Reagan article by adding an equal amount of pictures on both sides with some technique, but it looked awful. He and I have set some images indifferent places though, and I think it's all good now in that field.

Yes, it's going to be a heck of a job getting Reagan's article passed. I have a good book written by a scholar about all of the Presidents that actually just came out, and I will begin citing statements and fixing up the page that way. I already have fixed many citations, which is good, but the job is far from over! Your helping on the citations and general clean up of the article is much appreciated, and I thank you. Once everything seems to be done, I'm going to submit Reagan for a peer review (the last one gave great suggestions, especially from Awadewit), and we'll see what comes of it.

Again, thanks for all your help! I look forward to working with you again in the future. Best, Happyme22 23:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Heads-up

Just to let you know I've moved "Causes of Schizophrenia" to Causes of schizophrenia—a minor cap mishap, perhaps? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Duh - thanks ! I'm a bit concerned that none of the regular editors are working on the issues. I wish the article hadn't come up just as we also have Lesch-Nyhan syndrome and Byzantine Empire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I wish I could help, but I have a lot going on right now—loads of work, meatspace deadlines, and something hush-hush that will probably happen to me next month. I noticed a name-drop, and wouldn't want you to think I'm just hiding :( Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Made me look. :D Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

TFA/R

The conversation is getting spread out. I think there are two sorts of date requests. Those where the date is central to the article (date of birth or major milestone for biography or historical event), or when the article relates to the date (holiday, popular sporting event). In the latter, the article may not mention the specific date but still be relevant, eg Samuel Adams on July 4, even though the date is not mentioned in the article. Flag of Portugal is one possibility for Portugal Day, though it would obviously be stronger if the flag article mentioned it as an official flag-flying day. Which makes me wonder - why is there not a section in that article listing all the flag-flying days? Gimmetrow 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what to do next; the idea was to help get the monkey off Raul's back, but I'm not sure what kind of help he wants/needs, if any. <shrug> ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like he wants a centralized place to locate these date requests. The TFA/R page is still a mess, it's no wonder he generally ignores it.

This discussion at WT:FAC reminded me about something I had thought of a while ago. A lot of articles come to FAC with fairly obvious format (MOS) and language issues. Someone (maybe you) suggested a "pre-FAC" stage to sort out these issues. What if every article had to start in the pre-FAC stage, and could not move to FAC proper unless one of a set of FAC clerks (out of perhaps six, determined by Raul) moved it there? This would be a pretty weak bar, and if an article can't pass that, it's not FA level. This would reduce Raul's workload without (I think) stepping on his toes, and would help to filter out those articles better prepared for a serious read. I'm certainly not tied to this idea, but it might help avoid some difficult situations with withdrawn FACs. Gimmetrow 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that was Awadawit's proposal. I'm not sure Raul would go for it. Before putting work into ideas that will get erased, we should get his take on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't put any work into this, just thinking in text. One problem that comes to mind is how would something be removed from the pre-FAC. Eh, just a thought, only tangential to the current issues. More than one person has said something about two featured spots per day. That would double much of Raul's work setting up the TFA pages. It might even make the scheduling more difficult, as there would be twice as many topics to balance out. Gimmetrow 20:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Smells Like Teen Spirit

Thanks for cleaning up the citations on "Smells Like Teen Spirit". I must admit the cite templates often confuse me, and the reason the blank fields were left in the templates was because I get confused if I take them out. By the way, I figured out the proper date for the NME.com citation from the dead link. The spot that showed the 2006 date is the part of the site page that shows whatever today's date is; the 2006 date was thus the day the screenshot was taken. Thanks again. WesleyDodds 21:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but I must admit I'm surprised that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is going to be on the main page. Not because as the main author of the article I don't think it's ready, it's that I never put it up for the Main Page request queue, because, well, showing up on the main page was not something I ever really thought about since it got featured last month. My attitude was, "I'm proud of the article and look after it, but my ultimate goal was never to aim for the Main Page, rather to write an excellent article for a topic that deserves one. If someone wants to put it up someday, that's fine, but I'm not pushing for it." I guess Raul really liked it, or something. When I read your previous reply on my talk page my reaction was, "Well, I guess it'll be on the Main Page eventually. Probably not soon, though." Then I found out a few hours later it'll be there within the week. Once again, somewhat surreal. WesleyDodds

Do you have an idea of who I can talk to regarding the recent move of the page to "Smells like Teen Spirit"? WP:CAPS was cited; that page does say, In general, titles of books, films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles ("a", "an", "the") and prepositions and conjunctions (e.g., "to", "from", "and") unless they begin the title. Thing is, nothing, including mainstream and music press, textbooks, and academic journals, adheres to that guideline in regards to this song; "Like" is always capitalized in every single instance I have found. The talk page at WP:CAPS is somewhat dead, so do you have an idea of where I can further discuss the subject before Main Page day? This topic is also relevant to another page I work on, "Just like Heaven (song)" (which is also never spelled with a lowercase "like"). Thanks. WesleyDodds 15:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your work

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This isn't for anything in particular, just for being a great editor. Keep it up. Quadzilla99 02:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

OK then, more work (?)......Peterborough Chronicle has no inline refs.....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's a whole list of them: that one is not high on my priority list. There are a lot of them that don't meet current standards in many other ways, and are lacking much more than just citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy %$)$&$!! Wow, that's an impressive list. Have to bookmark it...at least Peterborough Chronicle looks sort of ok otherwise and is fairly esoteric. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Dashes in album articles

You recently made changes to Kid A, changing en dashes into em dashes in the track listing an credits sections, citing WP:DASH. Please see WP:ALBUM#Track listing and WP:ALBUM#Credits, which explicitly mention using en dashes for these sections. --PEJL 23:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like WikiProject Albums is wrong and goes against WP:MOS; hopefully that can be fixed on the Albums Project, as WP:MOS should be respected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition to WP:DASH — which is pretty clear on the issue — see also Dash for more information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sandy, spaced en dashes are perfectly fine in lieu of unspaced em dashes, as per WP:MOS and WP:DASH; they are actually preferred by certain style manuals and publishing houses (if I'm not mistaken, Penguin is one of them). <shrug> Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I just read both articles above and don't find any such notion — where are you getting it? clue me in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "In the house styles of many publishers (e.g., Penguin and Routledge), spaced en dashes are also used instead of em dashes (see next paragraph, and Guidelines below). This is acceptable in Wikipedia; consistency within an article is the most important consideration." --PEJL 23:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also:

"Many writers prefer to use the en dash (spaced) for this parenthetical use, with many of those also preferring a spaced en dash as a colon substitute."

"The em dash (—) can be used to link clauses of a sentence—like this one—as can the spaced en dash ( – )."

I'm an em dash man all the way, but that's a purely personal choice. The only thing I'd think is inappropriate would be spaced em dashes—I've recently read something to that effect, off-wiki; can't remember where now. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Wish you all would tell me where you're getting this text, so I didn't have to go digging for it :-) Cluestick? From Dash:

Traditionally an em dash—like so—or spaced em dash — like so — has been used for a dash in running text. Some guides, including the Elements of Typographic Style, now recommend the more concise spaced en dash – like so – and argue that the length and visual magnitude of an em dash cater to grandiose Victorian era taste. The spaced en dash is also the house style for certain major publishers (Penguin and Routledge among them). However, some longstanding typographical guides such as The Chicago Manual of Style still recommend unspaced em dashes for this purpose. In practice, there is little consensus, and it is a matter of personal or house taste; the important thing is that usage should be consistent.

Which explains why WP:MOS advocates emdash (for consistency). And, if articles are supposed to be consistent, what are albums doing about the other emdashes in the text?

Gosh, a dash conversation on top of dot conversation; but now I know why all the music articles are messed up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So, does Wikipedia have a consistent house style, or not? Albums is different. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We're getting the quotes from WP:DASH. --PEJL 23:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Waiting to hear from Tony, but I don't read that the way you (both) do, particularly in the context of the rest of the info in the two articles. I guess the question is, do we have a consistent house style or not? Will see what Tony says, but I still think Albums is swimming against the tide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly in WP:MOS does it say that an em dash is preferred over an en dash? --PEJL 00:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, "The em dash is used in much the same way as a colon or set of parentheses—it can show an abrupt change in thought or be used where a period is too strong and a comma too weak." In the Albums example, the dash replaces a colon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's more from WP:DASH — (this is specifically what Albums is doing):

• Spaced en dashes – like this. Entered by means of –, directly if your keyboard allows it, or retrieved from below the edit window. (Note: an unspaced en dash is properly used to indicate a range of numbers; unspaced en dashes should not be used for the parenthetical or colon-type uses, as discussed above.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, those quotes are from WP:DASH, I thought you were actually referring to WP:MOS. Note that the section you boldfaced talks about unspaced en dashes, and says nothing about spaced en dashes. Anyway, I need to go... If you think we really need to change all 50000 album articles, please bring it up at WT:ALBUM. --PEJL 00:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry (WP:DASH is part of WP:MOS :-) I don't think anything yet — waiting to hear from Tony, but in practice, it still looks like only Albums is swimming against the tide. If Tony isn't bothered, I'm not either. (But on the bigger picture, things like this help explain why there is so much incorrect use of dashes elsewhere; if Albums insists on using a non-conventional style, then it's no wonder it's hard to get other folks to understand the correct usage of mdashes elsewhere in the text. It's the big picture problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hyphens, en dashes and em dashes should all be typed with no space on either side. All the major style manuals are in agreement on this issue, Chicago included. However, there's a growing tendency in print media to use a spaced en dash instead of an unspaced em dash for interruption, but not, of course, when used for ranges and relationships, as I recently fixed in the Australia article (pp. 157 – 59; Asia – Pacific region). Spaced en for interruption is the style used by Cambridge University Press, and I note from above that Penguin and Routledge have weakened on this matter. I forgive newspapers and other texts with short columns, since an em dash, especially without spaces, looks odd when unwrapped, hanging at the end of a line. But WP doesn't have short columns (except where those dreadful infoboxes clutter on a small monitor). Thus, I'd be happier if MoS preferred them, while not making them mandatory. Sandy, do you not have keystrokes for these dashes? It's a lot of work pumping out the html code each time. Tony 00:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

PS The spaced en dashes look fine in that article. I forgot to say that it's normal to space "range" en dashes where the items themselves have interal spaces, such as full dates. Tony 00:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You explained the keystrokes to me once before, but 1) I forgot what you told me, and 2) I'm pretty sure I can't do it from my laptop (and whenever there's a ballgame on, I'm on my laptop :-) So, what I do now is link to the dashes from the Insert line below the Edit screen. Bottom line: are you saying the Album guidelines are OK, although not preferred by major manuals of style ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a "concise" MOS page somewhere listing the sticky points of the MOS often dealt with at FAC? If not, perhaps there ought to be one outlining dashes, units, ref marks, cite info, and a few key prose issues such as that/which and repetitious "also". Gimmetrow 00:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, but gosh, I think almost everything comes up now and then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, the keystrokes are in that attachment I sent you. Mac: en dash is option + hyphen, em dash is option-shift + hyphen. Windows: en dash is control + hyphen at top right of numerical keypad, and em dash is control-alt + that corner hyphen. If you don't have a number pad on Windows, as most lapdogs don't, you're stuck. Try the insert below the "Save page" button in edit mode on WP, or copy and paste another.

Gimmetrow, that's why I wrote my 1a page, which seems to have ballooned beyond that purpose. Tony 03:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is a.m./p.m. a unit?

Hi Sandy, I notice you inserted non-breaking spaces before a.m. and p.m. in this edit. I wouldn't have classed a.m. and p.m. as units, and the examples in WP:UNITS#Time_formatting don't use a non-breaking space. Should we ask for clarification on the guideline's talk page? -- Avenue 01:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's a unit, but the reasoning behind the guideline is to prevent wrap, and wrap on an am or pm would look really stupid :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. -- Avenue 02:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes we do something that makes sense, even if MOS doesn't tell us to :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey!

You've been busy now, haven't you? ;-) 30,000+ edits?! You go girl! I'm sorry that I haven't been anywhere near as active as I'd like to have been these past months, but you know how it is... real life stuff has a way of getting in the way of one's best laid virtual plans. Yes, I recall your mentioning Tourette's was going up for honors — and it sure looks like it deserves 'em too. I remember having written up PANDAS, by the way, but for the life of me can't find a copy now. I'm sorry about that, Sandy. Well, you take care then, ok? —Encephalon 06:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New FAC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cougar. Have at me! Marskell 13:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Surface weather analysis FAC

I'm curious if you'd had a chance to look at the article since its peer review last week. It is a bit improved. Let me know if you're still in opposition. Thegreatdr 13:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens

Re: "ugh, so now we're using these horrid cite templates" - Go ahead and change them to whatever format you prefer. I have other things to work on, so not sure I'll be spending more time on the article. --Aude (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at Mav's older FAR articles to see how he cites. Since he'll probably ultimately be the one to finish this work, we might as well use the style he is likely to use; he does apparently use the cite templates. Even though you shouldn't change the citation style already in place by other editors, and I dislike the cite templates because they chunk up the size, are inconsistent, and make the article hard to edit, I'll leave the cite templates in this article because they do appear to be Mav's preference for citing his articles. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree on using whatever format Mav prefers. I helped User:MONGO some with Yellowstone National Park which used cite. Not sure if he'd be interested in helping with this article, but possibly. --Aude (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert and Sullivan

I did some work on the article. See what you think. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Editorial assistance

I apologize for not recognizing you earlier. I am just getting familiar with this type of userbox. You may want to place the following on your user page:

This user helped promote Campbell's Soup Cans to featured article status.

TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Calvin Coolidge

Thanks for cleaning up the internet citations in that article. I'd been meaning to do it since I first worked on it, but I never got around to it. I think Silent Cal's in good shape now for his trip to the Main Page next week. Coemgenus 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Since you are an expert on footnote formatting, I was hoping you could help me out with a problem. In a page that I am currently working on, Mary Martha Sherwood, I quote a particular websource quite a bit, sometimes in conjunction with other sources and sometimes not. I was wondering if you think there is a more elegant way to cite that websource than I have adopted. Thanks. Awadewit ^Talk 07:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why you're not using a named ref to combine those that are used solo into one line ? If it's because you don't know how, would you like for me to do it for you? I can easily do that if you wish ... Let me know ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Because then every time I have a double reference such as "Demers" and "Cutt, 2" for the same piece of information I would have a double inline citation in the article and I know that some editors at FAC (where I will eventually take this) get very upset over doubles. I am actually aiming for double citations for most things in the biography section - trying to find multiple references for these facts, so the article could end up peppered with double inline citations all over it. Is that clear - somehow I feel that I did not explain that well at all. Awadewit ^Talk 08:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're saying, but let me be sure. You don't want to combine the solo entries to a named ref because:

• 1. Almost all will eventually end up as double citations anyway, and
• 2. You're afraid FAC reveiwers will complain if some are combined and others aren't into doubles.

I think it would work to not link to Demers each time in the Notes, since you do list it in the Bibliography. Just do something like (making up this example):

• Cutt, 87; Demers
• Cutt, 89; Demers
• Cutt, 90; Demers.
• Cutt, 97.
• Dawson, 280; Demers.
• Dawson, 271.
• Cutt, 98; Demers
• Cutt, 99; Demers

I'm also in favor of using page ranges within reason (two or three pages at most) in conjuction to shorten the citation list — using the above example:

• Cutt, 87; Demers
• Cutt, 89–90; Demers
• Cutt, 97.
• Dawson, 280; Demers.
• Dawson, 271.
• Cutt, 98–99; Demers

I hope this answers your question; if not, keep after me ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew I did not explain myself well! I've already tried to use page ranges where appropriate. What I meant was, putting all of Demers into a template would result in text like this:

"Sherwood was born on January 1, 2007."[1][2]

Because Demers would always be [1] there would be quite a few sentences with double citations after them. Awadewit ^Talk 10:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I understood that; I was saying to combine — for example, using the sample above and adding on Demers when it's solo— them into one set of ref tags, like this:

• <ref name=Demers>Demers</ref>
• <ref name=Cutt8990Demers>Cutt, 89–90; Demers</ref>
• <ref name=Cutt9899Demers>Cutt, 98–99; Demers</ref>
• <ref name=Cutt97>Cutt, 97</ref>

assuming the ref is used more than once; if not, you don't need to name the ref, just enclose the two in the same set of ref tags. That way, you avoid double ref tags after any sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could translate Demers into a template so that this is easier? Once I see it done, I can do it again myself elsewhere. Thanks for your patience. Awadewit ^Talk 05:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I will work on condensing now as much as possible. Awadewit ^Talk 10:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff of my sample changes, so you can refer to it to see how it's done. It's a combination of three things: 1) don't repeat the detail in the footnote that is already given in Bibliography, 2) group pages to ranges of two or three pages, so you have less notes and more possible combinations for employing a named ref, 3) employ named refs to make them all come out together on one line. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Raptors FAR

It appears that Punctured Bicycle has restored the FAR listing. Is he adhering to protocol? Thanks. Chensiyuan 16:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay well he just reverted himself. Chensiyuan 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Sandy; I thought I would let you know that USS Missouri got moved off the FA w/o adequate citations list a few weeks ago while I was studying for school. Thanks for your help in making sure that heppened; I apreciate it very much :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

MOS changes

Sandy—I've implemented that change you brought up. Please let me know if you see a problem with it (or with any other changes). Tony 05:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom corporation tax (again)

How do you feel about the ref formatting? The HMRC doesn't appear to date any of it's webpages. I'll probably err on the side of keep, once I'm through my own ce. Marskell 15:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, HMRC does not date its Manuals, although you can find "dateIssued" buried in the meta headers if you look at the HMRC source. For example, this page has <meta name="dateIssued" content="2007-01-02"/> A "retrieved" date should be sufficient, I think.

I have been more tied up than I would like, but will finish it when I have time. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm OK with the refs, especially if ALoan is (since I don't know the UK system). The prose is the problem, and it's just hard for a non-UK person to sort it out. ALoan, I hope you can make it work, because Winklethorpe has much such an effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as the prose goes, it's not so much being a non-UK person as non-beancounter. You could write it in simple English and still lose people. But on the whole, I don't think the prose so bad. Marskell 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Death of a Salesman: The Jayne Mansfield starrer

Can you lend a hand in dredging up something about the Jayne Mansfield theater performance of Death of a Salesman (probably in 1953), and add to Death of a Salesman#On Stage? May be you can lead the redlink on Jayne Mansfield#Notable theater performances to that update as well. Please, respond to my talk page. Thank you. Aditya Kabir 06:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Frustrated Wikipedian Requesting Assistance

Pyroluria

I don't know what to do, anymore.

All my hard work in the past has be removed to the discussion page.

I'm afraid of "disturbing" the Pyroluria wiki. That whatever work I do will all be removed for "discussion".

I read your comments that you made for your edits.

I do not understand how you can be so sure that Pyroluria does not exist! I do not even understand why you would say such a thing. Unless you could "prove" that it didn't?!?!?!?!?

In fact, "I" do have Pyroluria. And my symptoms since the diagnosis of Pyroluria have now stopped, since taking MEGA doses of vitamin therapy and eliminating foods that might otherwise cause me to have Cerebral (Brain) Allergies.

If you could please tell me how to better post in the wiki, Pyroluria, so that my posts would not be removed for "discussion", I would be very greatful.

I just want to help other individuals learn about Pyroluria so that they do not have to go through what I went through, searching the Internet, and calling libraries and universities to understand the condition.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I look forward to hearing from you soon. OnaTutors | T@lk 11:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, OnaTutor. I had to refresh my memory; it turns out I removed four sentences to the talk page six weeks ago. Content added to Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources; reading that page (and WP:V or WP:ATT) might help you understand the kinds of sources needed on Wikipedia. You might also review proposed guidelines at WP:MEDRS. jcglutenfree is someone's personal website (not a reliable source); a reliable medical source for a connection to pyroluria and epilepsy should be provided. doctoryourself.com and curezone.com don't appear to be reliable sources either, and a reliable medical article discussing allergies and pyroluria is needed. Pubmed is a good place to begin your search for reliable sources. On the talk page, JFW also gave several good starting places for looking up reliable sources. Since pyroluria is not a recognized medical diagnosis, you'll need to be very careful in sourcing the article, avoiding overreliance on sources with a POV, and expanding your sources to include all opinions for NPOV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Tech Tower / Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tech Tower update

You said:

Fixes needed: Please see WP:MOSBOLD. Also see WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT; solo years and As of years need not be wikilinked. Georgia Institute of Technology is used in the lead, switching immediately to Georgia Tech, which should be "defined" in parenthese on its first use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to remedy those problems. As soon as it is convenient to you, would you mind having another look at the article? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Responded on FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization

We now have about five opinions from people who know something about SEO that the sources are reliable. They include two world renowned experts (Jill Whalen and Bill Slawski). The discussion is very long and messy. Would it make sense to archive the discussion to date, and then refactor the page to create a summary? I get the feeling that people are discouraged from commenting because the discussion is hard to follow. Again, this is my first time so I don't exactly know what's acceptable process. Jehochman ^Talk 05:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I just had a quick peek (no time right now to comment thoroughly). IMO, it's not too long or hard to follow, and doesn't need refactoring. Maybe you can just add a summary at the bottom — not too long — of what each has said. When Raul gets to really long and convoluted discussions, he restarts the nom, but this one isn't in that territory at all — it's just that there are so many FACs now, that it's hard for people to get to them all, so be patient :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added that summary. We seem to have a consensus that the sources are reliable, including opinions from well known experts. Without my input, this nomination was reported on two major blogs yesterday,[1] [2] so we've had an influx of newcomers. I did tag the review page with a canvassing warning, and the newcomers are behaving well for the most part. Jehochman ^Talk 07:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Raul654 promoted the article. You responded with great poise to my initial, provocative comments and then gave generous assistance. Though I may not be able to repay your kindness, I will try to pass it along to somebody else in need. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome

I'm going to involke my sole priviledge here as a "expert" to cite the literature. Recently, it has become clear that oxidative stress induced by urate is a general mechanism of pathogenesis. Thus, other examples are quite relevant to the Lesch-Syndrome. The big puzzle with respect to this disease is the odd symptomology. This is ultimately related to it.Pproctor 14:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you can integrate the comment better into the rest of the text then, to give context. Are you able to cite the article completely? If not, it will lose its featured status soon, as the clock is ticking and the article is still uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Will do so as soon as I figure out what you mean. Do you mean the role of urate-induced oxidative stress in stroke and metabolic syndrome. This is noted in those articles, unless this changed while I wasn't looking. Likewise, I give a link to a journal article in the case of stroke. Or do you mean the relationship between Lesch-Nyhan syndrome and other such hyperuricemic diseases. This is noted in the literature already cited in the article. It may be that I assume too much knowledge on the part of the reader( e.g., the relationship between metabolic syndrome and atherosclerosis, in any case, noted in the articles on those subjects). Prior knowledge is always a compromise here and ya don't want to reinvent the wheel. BTW, did you notice that your reason for revert is original research and thus needs a citation?Pproctor 14:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I only just now saw your msg of May 4. I should've known you'd notice right away! You are truly everywhere, and one amazing person. I was drooling over your shiny things the other day and just shaking my head.

But anyway, um, you're welcome. Wish I could contribute on Wikipedia 0.001 as much as you. Maybe someday ...

8.8.196.12 20:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I try not to miss too much, even if I don't know what year it is :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The link to oxidative stress appears to be original research to me. I'm going to do some more reading, but there is very little literature that addresses this question - which may be a significant silence. TimVickers 03:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

Would you look this over and see if I messed anything up here for Gimmebot? You can probably see what I was trying to do (hint, hint, future nominators). Here's my edits, where you can see all of what I did here. Quadzilla99 21:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Will look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, hopefully that will get the message across. You didn't have to move archive1 to charizard 6, but it won't mess up the bot. GimmeBot looks for the next open archiveX, and uses that, so it will be OK next time. But by moving it to 6, rather than archive1, you leave a redirect in Raul's archives, and one in articlehistory (I changed articlehistory). Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, I didn't update it in Raul's archives, since I'm not sure that won't mess up GimmeBot; we can update that after the month closes and GimmeBot no longer has to access May. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot looks for new pages added to the fac log, so changing the name would look like a new page. However, the bot also checks if the page has a close tag, so assuming it's already processed and the close tags aren't changed, the bot should skip it. Gimmetrow 22:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we change it now to test the bot? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

With Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, when I see an edit of some 1,000 or more (and it isn't a userpage or talkpage) I instantly revert as vandalism....and sometimes when I am reverting many articles at once, I do a copy/paste in the edit summary (much quicker)....so, that was my fault. Sorry about that...please know that it was a good faith revert and not in anyway negative. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem....glad I can help out where I can. Wikipedia is pretty huge, so even when my little radio/TV station section is quiet for the night, there is always work to be done. Take Care and enjoy the rest of your weekend...NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Small Problem

I hate to admit, but I might not be able to look at this objectively, since I have Aspergers myself and personally to me, this all sounds right. Due to my own Aspergers, it might be a conflict of interest, if you will. The more I read, the more I go "this sounds OK to me". Perhaps I should leave this up to others you can be objective and don't have the conflict of interest that I have. Also, my sentence writing ain't the best it could be. If I can help in any other way, please let me know, I am willing to help. My apologizes....NeutralHomer ^T:C 05:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You can do it if you don't focus on what it says, rather focus on whether it's cited, if the cite is reliable, if the ref is formatted correctly, etc. It's not whether it sounds right; it's whether we can prove a reliable source said so :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

~

"Please do not add a second review until concerns in a first have been substantially addressed, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each."

Do you mean "Do not add a second nomination until concerns in a first have been substantially addressed, as this may make it difficult for nominators to do justice to each."? The "please" isn't necessary, I think. Tony 14:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I just put Marskell's wording in to try and get the ball rolling, as this has been going on too long; can I leave the wordsmithing in more capable hands like yours? There are other suggestions at WT:FAC  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Or just "Do not add a second nomination until concerns in a first have been substantially addressed." The justification is hardly worth expressing; it's common sense. Tony 14:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

major headache

Gawd, now I've ventured onto the various antipsychotics pages...aaargh. Loads of misinformation. Started to correct chlorpromazine...then saw big problems on amisulpride, haloperidol..etc. Sod this I need to sleep (yawn) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I know ! It's very bad timing for him, but eventually you might enlist the help of Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs). So much to do, so little time, and bad medical info on Wiki really really concerns me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

My name seems to be getting thrown around an awful lot lately… I need a wikibreak. Or some Thorazine. Mmm, Thorazine… Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Victim of your own success; no thorazine — Merlot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Carmona Decree

Gave my two cents at the Talk page. I don't do Spanish; although Spanish and Portuguese are quite mutually intelligible, that's a far cry from having enough expertise to translate it; it's not my specialty at all—I also probably couldn't hold a decent conversation with a native speaker unless my life depended on it :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Any time. It's amazing how some things can be a world away and hit so close to home (and vice versa). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

True (and sad at times). I'm having a go at the above, by the way; today it's chlorpromazine, let's see who's next! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Sargent; G&S

Hi there. Has your house dried out yet? 2 questions: First: What do you think of the images at Malcolm Sargent? Would you remove any? The Ballet Russes one? Please advise on the talk page. Second: At Gilbert and Sullivan, we solved the "Cultural Influences" problem. Please take another look. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

FACs

My five FACs have been fixed. Epbr123 15:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Herne Bay, Kent has had a further copy-edit as you requested. I'll wait for you to check it before I copy-edit the other four. Epbr123 17:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Whitstable and Birchington-on-Sea have now been copy-edited. Westgate-on-Sea still has other problems to fix first. Epbr123 00:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the three articles are ready for another look. Epbr123 09:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

RCTV

As you can see I made some edits to the lead. The second paragraph is now very simple, I'm still not sure what to do about "democratically-elected", maybe leave "elected" only?

There are tons of missing resources. Fortunately, plenty of reliable sources are covering what's happening, so that won't be a problem. El Universal in English, BBC, another on from BBC, Google News (tons here), NY Times, NY Times 2, NY Times 3, CNN.--enano ^(Talk) 19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Articlehistory Q

I'm only currently trying to get to grips with the Articlehistory template, but I feel like I'm doing a poor job of it. I tried this at Slipknot (band) and for some reason the 2nd PR it had is classed as invalid and I cannot work out why. Is there anything I did wrong? Hope you don't mind me asking by the way. :) LuciferMorgan 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll go look ... do you have Dr pda's articlehistory script? If not, doing the templates is unnecessarily hard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Found it, common mistake, happens to me all the time. When you edit-copied into the third set of parameters, you forgot to change the 1s to 3s. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have his script yes, as it makes things easier. Thanks for taking a look by the way and pointing this out - least I now know what to look for. Thanks for everything which is greatly appreciated. :) LuciferMorgan 23:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The Carmona decree

I'll take a look at that talk page and reply there, ok? Bolivian Unicyclist 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Off away? Shame; one less rational voice on those highly controversial Venezuelan articles, now of all times. I've got my cmmts on the translation just about ready to save; just need to preview and polish. (And, sorry if I'm being dense, but what are my "ces" that you are so fond of? Constructive edit summaries? Concise edit summaries? Caustic edit summaries?) Bolivian Unicyclist 22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

ces. slaps forehead. Bolivian Unicyclist

FAR notifications

Hi - Automatically posting a notification to a given list of users/projects and posting the "notified" list to the top of the FAR (as you suggest at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review) should be a fairly easy thing to do. I don't exactly have gobs of time at the moment, but this is something I could probably work on. If you're willing to run pywikipediabot (and some shell/awk surround - this is there by default on a mac or linux system, also available on windows with minimal effort), I could probably supply you with a program of sorts that you'd run to do this. This is distinctly in the category of repetitive, automatable stuff I've been automating. If you'd like to pursue this, please let me know. Note that you'd probably have to create a "sandy bot" account (whatever name you'd like) if you're going to be running a pywikipediabot. . -- Rick Block (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you underestimate the level of your head :). For example, here's what I do to update the FA by year lists and WBFAN list at this point. I start up a shell on my mac (like a DOS window on a windows machine) and I type:

./daily

the scripts I've written then do all the rest. There's a script that adds recent noms to the current FA by year list that produces a line for each newly approved FA like:

Article name | [[user:nominator|nom's name]] ?

and if I hit <return> it takes the suggested nom. If I type a different nom's user link, it takes that nom. The point is the programming may be over your head, but a program can be run by any idiot with a computer (which includes most people who have windows machines). I suspect you far exceed this criteria. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Oil shale

Hi Sandy. I hope you could assist to improve the article on oil shale. This article has developed quite well, but still some work has to be done. Hopefully in some day it would be a FA, but as of today, I am even not sure if it's ready for the peer review. Maybe you could go through this articlle and make some improvements. I understand that you had some kind of connections with the Seven Sisters, so probably you are familiar with the topic. Thank you in advance. Beagel 18:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Seasons in the sun (or Nor'easters)

Hi Sandy... I wanted to say bye to you, my early WP acquaintance! I'm in limbo here, trying to overcome ingrained WP browsing habits because I feel it just makes sense to move on. (The difficulty being that WP is one of the most interesting things to observe on the ol' internet.) My compromise position is to remain available for copyediting help at least (although wiser folk would tell me I can't have it both ways). Regardless, you are still welcome to email me if I can be of help. Keep up the good works! –Outriggr § 04:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply and wiki-autobiography are in the mail. :) –Outriggr § 07:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Belgium FAR

Could you check the ref formatting: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Belgium? Some ungainly quotes, but I think all of the ref info is there. Marskell 07:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Schizophrenia. Does it need FARC? Marskell 07:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Texas A&M

Texas A&M University You made some very constructive comments on our article a week or so ago. I was wondering if we have addressed all of your concerns. we have trimmed off 6359 bytes have made 401 edits since your last edit. thanks for your help. looking forward to seeing more of your comments. Oldag07 20:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

?? Oldag07 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The editors of the Texas A&M University would like to thank you for all your help. Hope you enjoy our future articles. Oldag07 21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone

Hi, Sandy. Tropical cyclone is currently on FAC (after a PR that essentially yielded nothing), and one editor asked to give it a copyedit. That said, I've probably gone five times through the entire article, so checking it more would probably yield nothing. So, I was wondering if you could check it for style? Data-wise, everything should be there, but still, "more eyes = more better." Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Disgusted!

I paid over $3 to get an article for wiki on another topic. A citation was needed and I stupidly paid to get it.

Now, after all my hard work on RCTV post under history of Venezuela, you just delete it, and don't even tell me.

HOW RUDE! HOW DISGRACEFUL!

Wiki clearly uses people - it's an arrogant parasite that takes others for granted. Well, it's a good job I found out sooner, rather than later.

I've heard about how Wiki treats others, and I've found out the hard way.

I'll be letting others know not to waste their time or money contributing to wiki.

SandyGeorgia is not an administrator, so cannot delete anything. Please calm down. What's been deleted? If it was of value, it can almost certainly be restored. --Dweller 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mikey, I'm sorry you're upset about this content; information that is actually about a current event that is already covered at May 2007 RCTV protests was being added to the History section of Venezuela. The content doesn't actually belong there, so I linked instead to the current event article, which has the benefit of correct manual of style conventions on Wiki. At the bottom of each edit page is the information, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Any information which you want to add at the current event article can be incorportated there, but it's mostly already all covered there, with correct use of wikilinking, WP:DASH and WP:FN. Perhaps you'll be interested in working on that article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Disgusted 2!

I can't get in contact with Dweller, so I'm leaving my message here since SandyGeorgia deleted my post.

- copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia>:SandyGeorgia is not an administrator, so cannot delete anything. Please calm down. What's been deleted? If it was of value, it can almost certainly be restored. --Dweller 16:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC) -

Well, my entry HAS been deleted. On the "Venezuela" page, under history, I contributed to a section on RCTV being shut down, and Sandy removed it saying it's not history, it's current, and was deleted:

- 15:29, 4 June 2007 SandyGeorgia (Talk | contribs) (48,150 bytes)update ref mech, revert to last JRSP version of June 2. Content is not "History", it is a current event, link to May 2007 RCTV protests. Also restore Daebello LEAD deletions.) -

A previous person edited my comments yesterday and asked for citations, which I spend some of today doing.

I don't know how to contact you, Dweller. Please let me know how.

This is not the right way to treat people who put in such hard work as honest contributors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey31415 (talk • contribs) 16:50, June 4, 2007

Disgusted 3

How can I add my content to another page if you have deleted it?

And it's debatable whether or not it's history.

For visitors to the main Venezuela page - who know little about Venezuela - the end of 53 years of a national television broadcaster, the demise of a national institution, IS a historical event, and should be recorded as such - if nothing else, a mention and a link to the other page.

When Bush leaves office in 2008, he goes down in HISTORY, not as current. RCTV as a national broadcaster is now history!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey31415 (talk • contribs) 17:22, June 4, 2007

Disgusted 4!

Sandy, you have the time to waste on a stupid dispute, but no time to add a simple line on the Venezuelan page citing that RCTV, having been broadcasting nationally for 53 years, can no longer do so. RCTV may mean nothing to you, but to Venezuelans it's a national institution.

You seem more interested in the thrill of exercising power over others than doing anything constructive, let alone intelligent.

I spent $3-4 on an article to get a citation for wiki, which wiki has been happy to keep on its page, and then I'm treated like complete crap.

Wiki is evidently run by wannabe politicians, people who enjoy trampling all over the hard work of others, and I'm not wasting any more time on it.

--

To Dweller (who seems somewhat smarter), wiki should be built upon a foundation of intelligent and considerate people editing the content, not stupid little kids who aren't interested in the subject matter. Wiki is too much the amateur outfit for my liking.

--

Hi Mikey. Appreciate your confusion/annoyance. We were all new to Wikipedia once. Let me start by telling you that your contribution is not "deleted". It's still there, in the article history. SandyGeorgia and you are having a "content dispute", where two (or more) editors disagree about text in an article. The way to settle content disputes is to put the two sides of the dispute at the article talk page and wait for other editors to agree/disagree. Wikipedia is built on this... consensus. --

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey31415 (talk • contribs) 08:59, June 5, 2007

Cat

Look again in an hour. The section was redone and now has to be re-redone. Marskell 16:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is capitalized at all mentions in the body with the exception of a direct quote. I did not capitalize it in the titles of papers. The short story: an animal name is a proper noun and proper nouns should be capitalized (prescriptive) but native English writers rarely do so(descriptive). Thus there is no right or wrong way, but a given article needs to be consistent. Previously, I had used lower case but I have since changed my mind. (In fact, four days ago I started capitalizing animal names for the first time in my life.) Note when I say "cats" as in a variety of cat species it's not a proper noun, but when I refer to the Domestic Cat it is.

I think I'm done with the taxonomy section, so it's good to go. I've had to sacrifice ease of reading in order to unpack everything there, but I needed to be precise, as I learned with Jaguar. Marskell 17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncle

I wouldn't involve yourself in any reverting on WP:FA. TonyS will keep at it in all likelihood, and others may show up. Raul can take care of himself. Marskell 07:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Itanium FAC

I have responded to your review of Itanium, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Itanium.Please take a look if you have time. Thanks! -Arch dude 00:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Coonskin FAC

• • Sorry, no, I don't. I was working from Karl F. Cohen's book. Cohen didn't give any article titles or authors. (Ibaranoff24 04:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
    • Then you should cite the entries to the book, no? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Done. (Ibaranoff24 15:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

The Bus Uncle featured article review

The Bus Uncle has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Jonel | Speak 20:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Whitstable FAC

I think the grammar problems have now been fixed by Tony1 and Yomangani. Epbr123 14:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You!

WikiChevrons

In apreciation of the help you so freely lend to me and so many others with our Military Hostory related FA, FAR, and FAC articles I award you the WikiChevrons. Semper Fi, SandyGeorgia! Carry on! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Another Shiny Thing! Is there any topic you don't contribute to? Have you considered figuring out The Universe? --SirSnick 02:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

oops

Hey Sandy! Thank you for the note! I fixed that. I'm ok, in the middle of my exam period. :) Through my medical blog, I'm trying to find more and more participants for the medical projects here as I feel we'd need more editors. Much more actually. We haven't talked for a long time. What are you working on these days? NCurse _work 16:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

:)

[3]. Care to reconsider that userbox right on top there, Sandy? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

NO! Congratulations ... you'll break the mold !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was worth a shot. And now for your note, ma'am:

Thank you for commenting on my RfA, which closed successfully with a tally of 76/0/1! I hope I will meet your expectations, and be sure I will continue trying to be a good editor as well as a good administrator :) If I may be of any assistance to you in the future (or if you see me commit some grievous error :), please drop me a line on my Talk page. Again, thank you, and happy editing! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

El Hatillo in the main page

That's great news! Thank you Sandy. Saludos.--enano ^(Talk) 18:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Goodness

Who do you mean, then, saying Do you remember who became the most critical and uncivil during that FAC? Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your explanation. I really want to put that FAC behind me, but it does seem to pop up at the most unexpected times now and again. See ya Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. It was only nasty on one regard, and the end result more than made up for it. Cheers Sandy Raystorm (¿Sí?) 18:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Dhoni - talk page

i got that one wrong. got a doubt right after i finished it and went to the template page and read that my edit was wrong. before i could revert, you had done so. thanks. Kalyan 18:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manhattan

Still objecting. I objected to the WP:MOS problems almost a month ago, and started fixing them myself, but my changes were reverted. There are still MOS issues, as outlined on the talk page and above. Also the prose size is 62KB, above WP:LENGTH guidelines. There are numerous sections that could be further summarized, per WP:SS, including History, Neighborhoods, Demographics, and probably others. It's interesting to note that the Manhattan article is much longer than the New York City article. And there are still random copyedit needs (... and the nation's first public park.[22]</ref>[23]). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am still astonished at the speed with which the New York City article was granted FA status, despite the fact that it took two-and-half-years and seven attemptsd to achieve FA. There are still an extensive number of unsourced, poorly-sourced and patently false statements (e.g., longest subway system) that still exist in the article. The Manhattan article has been edited extensively since the FA candidacy was submitted, and substantial additional information was added to address concerns raised. There are clearly some sections that are running a bit long that could be trimmed per WP:SS, but there don't seem to be too many sections that run too long. I will do some pruning. I have made a few dozen passes through the article to address your WP:MOS concerns. I have no idea why any of these changes would have been reverted, and I would still greatly appreciate any assistance and pointers that you could provide in this regard. Alansohn 16:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you that NYC was not yet up to snuff, but such is the process of fan support which allows articles through. I hadn't yet had a chance to review it thoroughly, as it took so long just to clean up the refs. People question why I lodge Opposes; that's why. If you don't oppose, they pass by default or fan support before issues are addressed. I'll be glad to help out on MOS stuff at Manhattan If I won't be reverted (perhaps it was a Wiki glitch :-); can you do some of the trimming first ? I have guests due today, and can get on it tomorrow or the next day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that User:Jayron32 and others are simply "fan support"? If you still had issues with the article or still wanted to check things, then you should have left the "oppose" there longer so that Raul would have left the FAC open. I don't mind if you do that. At this point, please use the article talk page. --Aude (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, but I seem to recall a string of Supports prior to Jayron's. I didn't feel right leaving an Oppose based on ref formatting, since the ref formatting was cleaned up and sources were reliable. It's an imperfect process, but the best we can do. In an ideal scenario, someone else would be reviewing content while I'm cleaning up formatting, but it doesn't always work that way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I had been preparing a lengthy list of issues with the NYC article, assuming (based on my experience with Manhattan) that this would be a drawn out process. I'm still cleaning up some of these issues. I have no idea why some of your changes were lost, but I have already started the pruning process, chopping out 1.5K in my first pass. Any time you can spend on this will be greatly appreciated. Enjoy your guests. Alansohn 16:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I should be able to work on it tomorrow; maybe tonight if guests' flights are delayed (which is looking probable—some huge delays at all NYC airports). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have further concerns with the article, you could have brought them up on the FAC page. The bit about the "longest subway system" was changed yesterday, before passing FAC. At this point, please use article talk page so we can work with you on any outstanding issues you have. (Sandy too) As for "no idea why any of these changes would have been reverted", I suggest going back and re-doing the edits that Sandy had done, rather than leaving them reverted. Once that's done, I don't mind taking another look at the article, if you would like some help with copyediting or whatever is needed. --Aude (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned about NYC, Aude; just pointing out that it did have an easier time than Manhattan is having. I do worry about medical articles that have inaccurate, unreferenced info, and I have to prioritize. Congrats on NYC; I'm sure you all will clean up anything outstanding. As long as the sourcing is reliable, I feel that other things will be addressed, when responsible editors are involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all involved on the Manhattan article. I will continue my edits on NYC. Alansohn 18:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage

"I don't know how anyone can argue the mainpage is good for an article." It's always good for the article. At worst, it's reverted to the original two days later. No difference—except hundreds read it fully, thousands read a few sentences, and hundreds of thousands glanced at it. At best, improvements are worked out, if not the day of, then at least over the next few days. That has happened with every one of mine. It only seems bad if you worry about every iteration of vandalism. Marskell 19:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for the El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda featured article

Though you are one in a fairly large group, I guess you're the contributor best suited to congratulate for this article. It puzzles me to witness your unfaltering interest in Venezuela, and your knowledge of it. How come? It cannot be explained by other reason than a love for the country, the land, the people, the culture, etc. I recall that you once wrote to me: "we must have some friends in common", a nice remark which I didn't reply soon enough, to my regret. With appreciation, --AVM 02:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Epa, AVM, El Hatillo es el labor de corazon de Enano275 (talk · contribs); I just helped out with some minor ce and ref formatting. He gets the credit ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Tompkins

Hey SG, I finally replied to your comment on my talk page. Check it if ya can. -Pete 05:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Old facfailed

Are you intending to convert every use of facfailed over the articleHistory? If so, I am a little doubtful of the need, since a large percentage of these articles will probably never appear at FAC again. I was thinking of another approach using template code to point at an appropriate new subpage to begin with, so as to avoid the entire post-facto archiving. Gimmetrow 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I did, so you can advise me what you think. First, I started looking at the What Links Here on the facfailed template, and checking articlehistory that way. But I was unable to find too many of them, so decided instead to start through December 2006 archives. And still, there were too many I couldn't find, some because they were the old type. So then, I decided I'd have to start at the beginning, as that was the only way to find them all. That's the only reason I'm doing it that way; if you've got a better idea, I'd love to avoid going through all of the old ones.  ??? For now, I'm through May 2004 on the early end, and December 2006 on the new end. I'd rather do November 2006 next, but don't know how I will find all the old pieces if I don't go back and pick them up first. Maybe I should just forget them? Ideas ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to dig up old failed facs, I guess that's ok, but it seems like a rather low priority task, even the part involving getting the logs in order. Do you have a way to run python scripts? Gimmetrow 20:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what a python script is. OK, would it make sense to do the following: as I go through the old facfaileds, I ignore those that have only an old facfailed, but we convert and botify anything that has other templates, such as GA or multiple facfaileds. Would that make sense? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much I'm going to keep up with. I was going to give you the code so you could keep up with the botifying. Gimmetrow 20:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the code would be over my computer capabilities ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

On a separate botification question, I used to manually convert DYKs to articlehistory, because they used a weird infobox. Is the new template (see Talk:Four Times of the Day) handled by GimmeBot? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the same weird infobox, it just hasn't been substituted. There was some discussion about putting the article history template in as standard when we did DYK notifications (if we can make it easier for you some other way just let me know). Yomangani^talk 16:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Yomangani ... will leave that to Gimmetrow, but if GimmeBot handles the template, he's probably set. I hope to read all of your recent articles soon, but since I know they'll be topnotch and well-referenced, they always get pushed to the bottom of my pile :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's handled the non-subst'ed version of {{dyktalk}} for quite a while. Gimmetrow 20:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Good news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask for the DYK notifications to be added without subst: to save Sandy the job. (Sandy, I've not added any references to Four Times of the Day as I'll be here to ask if anybody has any questions) Yomangani^talk 15:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC) (...made you look?)

:-) ... right, like you would be capable of putting up a sloppy article? Well, the good news of the day is that at least there's one good editor who isn't planning to quit Wikipedia ... I'm glad to hear you plan on being around a long time, as that's not the trend of late :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

G&S

Hello, Sandy. Did you see my e-mail? Also, why do you think we're not getting many comments on the G&S FA nomination? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had houseguests for several days ... still getting through my e-mail. There are multiple factors on G&S. First, it wasn't nominated by its main contributor (you), and some reviewers hold back on such cases, particularly if it's not clear the main contributor considers the article ready. The nomination might have been more effective if it had been your nomination. Second, there are some factors on the FAC talk page that may be leading to intimidation of reviewers right now, with people reluctant to comment. Third, FAC in general lately has been bogged down by the number of nominations; it takes longer to get responses. Be patient, but it would be good to know if *you* think the article is comprehensive and ready—I've never been a G&S fan, so I don't feel I can comment on 1b comprehensive, but the article is structurally sound now. Will catch up on e-mail as soon as I'm able. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks. Frankly, I have no idea if the article is ready. It certainly covers all the important points and links to all the important related WP articles. More detail could be added, but I am too close to the article to know whether any particular sections ought to have more detail. For instance, the section from Patience to Gondoliers is relatively pithy. It describes the period when the partnership produced six of its shows, four of which were extremely successful (and the other two modesly successful). There is much that one could say about each show, but that is said in their own articles. One could also say more about the significant bumps and potholes on the G&S roadway during that period (and the film Topysy Turvey does a pretty good job of that with respect to the creation of The Mikado), but the partnership cranked out their hits pretty continuously, and the section puts that history in an accurate context. Does it look like it ought to have more detail there? Finally, again because I am so close to the article, I have trouble deciding whether any further referencing is needed. Also, I was sort of forced to re-vamp the cultural references section in connection with the GA review, and I have been tweaking it, but it's pretty new content, and I'd value your judgment of it (and others'). Best regards, -- Ssilvers 16:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If reviewers sense that you aren't convinced the article is ready, they may be reluctant to Support. Again, as I'm not an aficionado of G&S, I have to ask you if there is any important info about their work that is left out or should be better covered. I guess my excuse for not following their work more closely is that, since they're public domain and you don't have to pay for rights to produce a G&S show, lots of bad G&S work goes up. If you believe the article is ready, you should support the nom, indicating you're the main contributor. If you think it's not ready, you should say so and perhaps approach FAC later. The last time I looked at the article, it looked well referenced. I'd like to say other reviewers will pick up any defiencies if there are are any, but I find very few people actually check or consider sourcing, unfortunately. The cultural references section was problematic before (bordering on trivia), but is much better now IMO. On a larger scale, because the entire series of Musical theatre articles are in such bad shape across the board, it would be stupendous if Gilbert & Sullivan would set the standard for what needs to happen on all of those articles. They are such a mess, and it's so irritating to me that I always have to go off-Wiki to find information about performances. You have a great start, but as to whether it is comprehensive, I have to leave that to others who know G&S well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Another friggin' whale..

We-ell it is more fun than schizophrenia and Belgium that's fer sure........cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Which whale—the blue one? I'm not worried about whales; we have boatloads of competent whale editors :-) Haven't kept up as closely as I usually do because I've had houseguests. Schizophrenia is looking to be a stunning FAR success, if the final little tweaks can be finished up; what a stunning improvement over what was there before. Belgium, ugh ... I wish someone would fix it, but it seems to be a repeat FAR candidate, suffering perhaps from lack of sustained attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The blue one it is, and an easy fix....better than an upcoming problem for Right whale which is likely to be cannibalised into separate species pages...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

E.T.

I was wondering if you would take a look at the the E.T. FAC. You once explained to me that the reason you and others were giving Michael Jordan such a hard time was because the project needed to understand the standards for FA. I feel that something similar needs to happen at E.T. The article has no sections on the themes of the movie nor its cinematic style. To properly discuss a film, one must, of course, discuss these issues. There is also ample scholarship available with which to do this. I have tried to suggesting this idea but have met with quite a bit of resistance. I also tried suggesting on the talk page for the WikiProject Films guidelines that they include such sections in their guidelines. This was also rebuffed. Any help you could offer on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Awadewit | talk 20:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: recharged

Very relieved to hear that. It is 07:30 here. I'll try to look at lunchtime. Failing that, this evening. Timezones! Colin°^Talk 06:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've sent you a brief email about your current draft. Colin°^Talk 21:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Colin; have another look at my sandbox now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And...

The Resilient Barnstar

Not for your blunders or mistakes, but for picking yourself up and keeping up the good work ;) Remember, if you need anything I'm right here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)