User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch21

Re:Nancy Reagan

Hey Sandy. I have been working on the Nancy Reagan page for a long time, and as a well referenced, well written, neutral, factually correct GA, I think it is ready for a FAC. I was wondering if you could take a look at it, fix anything you like, and contact me on my talk page. I contacted you a few weeks ago regarding this matter, but you were probably too busy which is totally ok. Anyway, if you have time this would be great. Thanks, Happyme22 00:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I umderstand completely. Thanks for getting back to me, though. Happyme22 03:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Happyme22 02:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

More input needed at Hillary Rodham Clinton FAC

Hi, thanks for your comments in opposition at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton. However, you only gave one example of where you thought the prose was 'regrettable' and the sourcing lacking. That area has been fixed up, but we need to know what other areas you think suffer from these problems, so we can fix them too. Thanks ... Wasted Time R 03:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Firefighters' unions praise is in footnote presently numbered 169 at the end of that sentence - it was always that reference, and that reference does include praise of her efforts regarding health issues facing 9/11 first responders. Did you mean some other reference problem? Tvoz |talk 20:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Whats the problem, like

I'm going to hold my ignorant hands up here and plead that i did'nt know what I was doing. I though it was an independant checklist, I did'nt realise the might of FAR would reign down. Pity the fool ;) Ceoil 01:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

"my numbers won't add up". I'm an accountant bty, there is always a way to 'make them add up'. If you know the answer, i can find the question. Ceoil 01:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Its funny you should say that because what the cabal lacks is a gal. Outrigg's ok, but you know. So your in. Your code word is 'no. 3'. Ceoil 13:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Never understood the rules of baseball, though it looks great to watch. Anyway, Outriggr's out of favour after last night. Congratualtions, no.2 Ceoil 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the Lady is fine. We don't want to formalize removals there though we might add a note about the stats. Laika's OK too. I've been busy on my trip though I'll do some catch up edits tonight. Marskell 17:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Lol! Mild mannered during the day...Ceoil 17:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And

Not sure if you noticed Wikipedia:Content review/workshop. The first section is a list of review processes. Do you know any others? You strike me as the editor to ask... Marskell 18:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Second that. Guidance here (along the lines of Tony's how to write guide) could help raise the bar and maybe dissuade the perception of FAC/FAR as a MOS bearpit. The people to invoive, imo, are Awadewit, Hoary, Sandy, Qp10qp, Geogre, AnonEMouse, Outrigger, Casliber, & Piotrus. Thats a fairly tangled web though. Ceoil 18:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but. As soon as I show up there, so will someone else, who has a retort for everything I say. Not going there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You could go there quietly, just to add the review processes that exist but aren't mentioned, and then sorta watch... And hey Ceoil, comments welcome. Marskell 20:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no such thing as quiet in my contribs; just watch Tau Ceti. Mark my words. Twenty bucks ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, no, all my reviewing insights are recieved. I've seen many FACs in the last few months that I'd like to comment on, but I don't have the tools to dissect them. Which is why a 'how to' like this is so attractive. Ceoil 20:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

There are other Iriah overlords? I need to act quick; but have not yet found anything from you last 1000 contributions. Humour me with a diff. Dont worry; I am all mercyful, no harm will come of them. Ceoil 23:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine; but can you explain me this - why can't I page move H.D. to Hilda Doolittle. Its really bothering me.Ceoil 23:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha, so thems the reason. Do you reckon I'll get in trouble for asking such quetions. Many of them are watching us, you know. Ceoil 23:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Should I moon someone ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Not now, hold still. Their day will come (Leben der Anderen). Ceoil 23:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is I'm a simple person and I type what I hear. I'm listening to TV on the Radio at the moment, so im typing what they tell me to. Ceoil 23:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And and

Would you have any formatting concerns with Tau Ceti? It's FAC hasn't had a lot of traffic. Cheers, Marskell 18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I et al. things after two—I don't know if there are discipline specific rules for secondary mentions. Your semicolon is fine. Thanks! Marskell 20:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

How'sit going?

Just thought I'd say hi. :) Spawn Man 09:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries

Not a problem. I can see at least one ongoing and apparently personal feud being prosecuted via FAC, which is a misuse of the process and annoying if yo've got an article up for consideration. BT19 does seem to be going fine. I'm worried - everyone's being too nice! :-) Cheers. 4u1e 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tom Hawkins (footballer) - Template:ArticleHistory

Hello there. Thank you for correcting my template. I looked at the talk page, and will do it that way. The WP banners were on the talk page in that order, but will nest them if I again see multiple banners listed separately. Thank you for your note. SriMesh | talk 01:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yomangani

You're right about that I probably should have signed the edit myself. Sorry about that, and thanks for catching the error. John Carter 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem; I think of Yomangani as somewhat modest, and I don't think he'd want it to appear that he added that statement himself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ticks are...

arachnids! :D Mac OS X 16:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was waiting for that (in the "learn something every day dept). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

A Favor

Could ask you for a favor? When you get a chance, could you look at the refernces cited in the section "Mastiff" in the article Iowa class battleship? I only did the basic citation becuase of school constraints (I am allowing myself a few minutes on here as a reward for finishing an assignment), however I am certain that some of the citations could be expanded upon with the inclusion of author and publish date and the like. I would handle it myself at a later date, but I have no idea when I will be back on, and this is a featured article, so I feel like it needs to be done soon so as to keep with the FA philosophy here on Wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tom; I had a look and did some cleanup;[1] I can't convince myself that Isreali-weapons.com and vectorsite are reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not worry too much about it; when the opurtunity presents itself I intend to do some hardcore research into the drone and its role with the U.S. Navy. At the moment the sources provide are only for the benifit of article's FA-class status; I do not want to see {{cn}} tags on an FA class article becuase FA-class articles should have evolved past that point. After winter finals (early December probably) I will look into to the larger history of the Mastiff and see if I can improve the section in the Iowa class article with better info and more reliable sources. Given the nature of the drone program, I suspect that there may be reports from the Governemnt Accountability Office on this issue, and GAO reports are a goldmine of information since they cover costs, implimenation, R&D, and other relevant concerns. Thanks for the help with the formatting, I apprieciate it. :-) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

cite template bloat

Thanks for the tip on Obama about empty fields - I knew that, and promptly forgot it. Will work through the article. Tvoz |talk 09:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

MoSElement

Hey there. I hope I'm not being annoying (feel free to tell me so or just ignore me if I am), but I wanted to run this by you. Because you mentioned that the {{MoSElement}} template has the potential to clutter up talk pages, I learned how to make it collapsible. Maybe this will make it less problematic? (The folks at Talk:Harold_Pinter are using it to positive effect.) I certainly respect your objection, but I'm one of these "let's find consensus whenever we can" people – and I like to address everyone's concerns when I can. (As ridiculous as it is for me to try to please everyone, it doesn't stop me from trying, heh.) Thanks in advance for your time. – Scartol · Talk 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that Galileo talk page is a nightmare; but isn't that more a function of projects competing for space? I also never understood why the {{talkheader}} template is so popular..

We did indeed check in with Tony1 – he responded, and I implemented most of his suggestions. I really do want to make this as unobtrusive as possible, and only give a positive tool which can help (as impossible as it is to remove all the negatives on WP). Thanks for your feedback! – Scartol · Talk 17:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

FAR and away

Please check on Talk:Monopoly (game). [2] [3] [4]

Apparently two established editors have removed the FA tags, though neither said anything on the talk page first. Gimmetrow 19:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Master Editor Award

I had to remove the master editor award from your award page. You do not meet the criteria for a Master Editor Barnstar. You must have 40,000 edits and 5 years of service to receive or give yourself this award. You have only been a member since February 2006. You are eligeble for the Experienced & Established Editor award. I have informed User:Marine 69-71 in case he would like to give you an alternative award.--Dr who1975 23:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Boy, you are a stickler for requirements. I think you should make Sandy an honorary whatever, because she is the greatest!!!!!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm the greatest too. Except nobody seems to recognize it.--Dr who1975 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey there Sandy. Hope I didn;t offend you. It was a simple matter of criteria.--Dr who1975 16:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fill-the-hole contest

Well this is awkward. I'm launching a contest to fill the new hole here with the funniest cartoon commentary on this screwup. Dr. whoever you are, you're welcome to strike the words "or give yourself", since I certainly dont' give myself awards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• OK, an entry for you. I don't know anything about the situation so it is pretty neutral. May the best cartoon win. -Susanlesch 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• I haven't thought of a cartoon, but the "screwup" made me consider the possibility of an Ineligible Award:

The Ineligible Award may only be given to editors who do not meet the criteria. Enjoyment of this honour is brief, as it is usually bot-reverted within 24 hours. The Ineligible Award image is copyright; placement of the award on an editor's talk page is a violation of WP's non-free content policy. Editors who frequently award ineligibly may therefore be banned.

Colin°^Talk 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• 
  How many Wikipedia:Barnstars does the community allow User:SandyGeorgia in one calendar year?
• I personally like this one. Has no relevance, just slightly amusing. Woodym555 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  I personally like this one. Has no relevance, just slightly amusing. Woodym555 21:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Awarding Sandy the "Clam Down" award for inadvertantly causing a deletion debate, without actually having done anything. Well done, good and faithful editor! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  Awarding Sandy the "Clam Down" award for inadvertantly causing a deletion debate, without actually having done anything. Well done, good and faithful editor! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I like all of them, but I think I'm going to have go with TBSDY's "clam down" as the winner, since it refers to the funny deletion debate I find myself in the middle of; have to keep it funny without pointing at penii. Well, at least I think it's funny; I guess not everyone does :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations Ta bu shi da yu. Clam Down deserved to win. -Susanlesch 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sandy, you clearly have more friends than me to stick up for you. I truly didn;t mean to offend you. You know, I once had an award taken away from me for criteria reasons. I don;t recall throwing a rant like this when it happened. Clearly I showed a lot more maturity about it.--Dr who1975 19:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"Stick up for me"? "Throwing a rant"? I'm so confused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason that you had the barnstar removed from you is because you gave it to yourself. Dr who1975 is going very close to a slap across the back of the head with the cluehammer for the ungrateful and nonsensical tone shown above. Sandy, regardless of what criteria a bunch of users who are worth 1/100th of you try to set, I consider you a master editor, and I would suggest for you to add yourself to Category:Master editors if you so desire. Arbitrary criteria are silliness, really. Daniel 09:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, I certainly did NOT give myself an award; Tony the Marine gave it to me, and I didn't even check out what it was. If I had checked, I would have realized it was a silly editcountitis thing, and I would have addressed that myself. Thanks for the kind words, anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, my apologies - I meant the reason why Dr who1975 had his award removed (which he whinges about above as justification for his removal of your award) was because he gave the barnstar to yourself :) My apologies for the confusion - having followed Tony's edits closely for a while now, I saw him award it to you in the first place. If there are 'sides', I'm most certainly on yours :) Daniel 02:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No "sides"; it's just embarrassing (probably for Tony as well). I'm glad I've got TBSDY's clam to fill the hole. Thanks for letting me know, Daniel! Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Architecture of Windows NT

I think there are more issues in that article than just referencing. Could we please get it delisted? I'm not going to be able to work on it for the time being (my wife is pregnant, and I'm busy at work). It's degraded anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Sandy... for the record, I think the whole award is counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Florida Atlantic University

I saw that you did a nice peer review for Ohio Wesleyan University and was wondering if you would mind taking a look at the above article. It is currently undergoing peer review here. If things turn out well I plan on taking it to WP:FAC next.

Thanks, KnightLago 20:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I had one question, can you explain this:

Wikify full dates in the date parameter on cite templates for consistent display according to user prefs, example: Bandell, Brian (2007-09-18). Inconsistent date formats when date parameter isn's wikifed, example: "Weeks of welcome: What's happening on your campus", The University Press, 2004-08-12. Retrieved on July 22, 2007.

I am confused as to what you mean.

Thanks, KnightLago 23:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean. Thanks again for the help and the review. KnightLago 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome

I suggest that you google for "asperger serotonin APA" and reconsider your deletion, leaning towards citing one of the publications that comes back in a way compatible with your views on serotonin. Jok2000 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Texas Aggie band

I saw your comments in the FA discussion on the Fightin' Texas Aggie Band article and was wondering if you could weigh in on a current dispute over the article. I was attracted to the article while on anti-vandal patrol and saw edit warring over the addition of a "primary sources" tag by several users. Apparently, one side feels there is too much pov content from a single source. Since I have no knowlege in this matter, and from the seemingly large amount of content from a single source and the manner in which that content was written - I became a bit concerned over potential copyvio issues. I stepped in to stop the edit warring and started this query. If you could weigh-in on the discussion, I think it would be enormously helpful. Thanks! Dreadstar † 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Argh. I think you're right..I'm going to have to order a copy...<sigh>...;) Thanks much! Dreadstar † 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Auckland

 Done Nishkid64 (talk) 04:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

re:GA and articlehistory

Thanks a million Sandy. I do usually get it right with the template, but - as I copy and pasted the list of actions - I forgot to change some of the numbers on the parameters. Thanks for catching that, I owe you one. VanTucky ^Talk 18:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It's still on my watchlist, but I've been ignoring it a bit since it got off the mainpage. I can check in on it, as I have plenty of experience with dog breed articles. As a side note: Yomangani is gone? Did I forget some fortuitous event? VanTucky ^Talk 19:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for my error fixing as well. I think I have the hang of the template, but it's still slightly confusing. Regards, :) FamicomJL 17:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Nintendo DS

Why was the Featured Article Candidacy for this article removed? I feel that this article was not fairly given a chance. We only received a few comments for change, but we were working on the changes and just about to update the page. Zomic13 02:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Zomic. The decision to promote or archive is made by the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). I just looked at the FAC page, and it looks like the article was up for 10 days, it got one Oppose for citations, and there was no more feedback about ongoing work. If you're actively working on the article, it's best to give Raul feedback so he knows not to close it. Don't worry about a failed fac; you can finish up your work and bring it back in a week or so, and it will be a stronger candidate. If you're still concerned, you could ask Raul if it can restart right away, but it's usually best to take some time to really make sure everything is ready for the next round. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I guess I was a little concerned (which I should have mentioned) that this would prevent the Nintendo DS article from being able to be nominated again for a long time. But if we can still work on it, work on what was commented, and re-submit the improved article soon then I guess it really doesn't matter. Thanks. -Zomic13 02:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Casino Royale (1967 film)

Hi,

Would you review this film for GA Status ?

It's been outstanding on the GA nomination list since 12 September 2007.

Thanks,

Tovojolo 10:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Wolff family

The article I protected needed it, but the other articles have not had enough activity to justify it. --Eye of the minD 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have watchlisted the other articles, and if the level of attacking increases, I will semi-protect them. --Eye of the minD 03:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcus Trescothick

RE: your removal of the heading-break thing. My bad, I didn't know you couldn't do that. Apologies SGGH ^speak! 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Punk rock/archive1

Hi. I was reviewing this which you contributed to back in January in the light of an argument I am currently having about some style issues at Talk:Punk rock. I wondered if you would have an opinion on:

1. Whether the images as currently used are in compliance with our fair use policy?
2. Whether the use of terms like "seminal" is good practice in the light of WP:PEACOCK?

I'm sorry to ask about something from so long ago, but another editor is using the FAR (in which you were a major participant) to justify reverting my modifications to the article, which centre around these two areas. Thanks in advance for any help you can give. --John 22:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Santorum (sexual neologism)

I intentionally left the current status empty this time, as the article is on hold for a second GA nom. There is no currentstatus parameter for a nom on hold, so leaving it blank is imo better than perhaps leading people to think I failed it. VanTucky ^Talk 02:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the solution. Just leave the articlehistory temp complete as FGAN and add the separate hold template. Thanks Sandy, VanTucky ^Talk 02:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, lost my response to edit conflict; the template only supports completed processes (and when there are old peer reviews and AfDs, they have to be added). If a nom is on hold, it's not failed, and shouldn't be added. Is it failed or on hold? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

about Psihologie Solutii psihologice

Hy! I am webmaster for Psihologie Solutii psihologice http://grajdaru.3x.ro . About Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Pqr topic on "Psihologie" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Pqr#Psihologie

I made the modification and now on all my pages with wikipedia content is a notice about copyright and GFLD license. Contact email: oxus.e107user@gmail.com

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.102.117.1 (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted a question at mirrors and forks because I'm not sure what's next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is officially for, among other things, "extraordinary...community service". Our community extends beyond our keyboards, and I know you're still shaking from your phone call, and having second thoughts about making it, but I am fully convinced that you absolutely did the right thing. What we need more of is for folks to take the concept of "citizenship" and make it personal. There's just too many instances in life of people not making the call because they "don't want to get involved" (and if you'll notice from my user page what line of work I'm in, you'll understand why this matters to me so much). Maybe it was 99.999% sure to be a hoax...that doesn't matter. You did the right thing, and I want to commend you for it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Akradecki; well, that's certainly the *stupidest* barnstar I ever earned. Still shaking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was thanking you as Akradecki was adding the banner, so you should be proud, and go have a drink if you're still shaking. IrishLass0128 18:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

ah, thanks IrishLass, I missed your message above for a minute there. It's too early for a drink; maybe I'll go prep for mug shot instead <wince>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, don't worry about it. No one would ever interpret your call as anything but a citizen doing the right thing. I've actually had to make similar calls twice, once to the FBI regarding a possible terrorist issue (you see a lot in the aviation world). I was a bit nervous about the response, too, but even though it turned out to be a big nothing, I was thanked profusely by the agent I talked to. Remember the old saying (which I'm probably not gonna get exactly right): "The best way for bad people to succeed is for good people to do nothing." Have a great day! AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reassurance, AKradecki; I'd feel better if we actually knew someone had followed up. Scary stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To be sure something gets followed up, you either call them back to find out, or (in the case of the police) ask for an incident reference number, or trust them to follow things through. As (mostly) everyone is saying (and should be saying), you did the right thing. Carcharoth 22:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• ABSOLUTELY you did the right thing! see post on ANI too. Rlevse 21:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not an admin, but I am a person who sometimes shakes. I support what you did. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree, good work Sandy. This isn't the sort of thing that should be ignored, and I commend you for taking action. --Bongwarrior 21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments. I'm starting to worry about the WP:BEANS aspect of this, so I'm going to comment this section out for now so it's not quite so visible.

School threat and your phone call

As a former school district employee and member of a family with lots of teachers and a superintendent in the family, I just want to assure you of two things. One ~ you did the right thing. Two ~ they won't come looking for you. For one, they can't trace phone calls like that and wouldn't if you called to explain things as a mature adult. Two, whether the secretary you spoke with or not knows what Wikipedia is, it's likely the principal does. Wikipedia is on the watchlist of areas to keep track of and monitor for some schools, just as myspace and vainspace are. You did the right thing and you shouldn't worry about it. As a parent of a teen, believe me, you can never be too safe. A kid threatened our school last year via myspace, turned out that his father had a lot of guns and he was looking up how to build a bomb on the internet. Better safe than sorry.IrishLass0128 18:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ding!

Email for you :) ~Eliz81^(C) 22:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much ! I feel it in my shoulders; tomorrow = massage! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship

		The Original Barnstar
		For performance above and beyond the call of duty. Filll 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Beagle article

See, I pointed out a problem and it was solved (in a different way)! I wasn't trying to cause trouble. Trichiasis and distichiasis, I mean. That vet guy showed us where distichiasis isn't common in beagles.

Now the question is whether we are listing the other diseases but it's just an incomplete list of conceivable diseases.

That would be like saying "Humans can get appendicities, xxx disease, yyy disease, and cancer of the toe." While that's true, the above statement isn't helpful because it omits common diseases. Member - Society of Dog Lovers 21:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't really know since I didn't write the article; I 'spose if any of the others were a problem, Joelmills (talk · contribs) would have mentioned them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

South side (Chicago)

I am feeling neglected at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South side (Chicago).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Tony, I've got travel on the horizon, so I can't get entangled in too many FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

GA articlehistory

I understand that you're very busy, but I really do think that you ought to consider a somewhat more sympathetic and supportive approach to your reports of problems with reviewers misunderstanding how to use the article history template.

What about a "Thanks for the review but ..." for instance?

Thanks to you, I do now know to check for errors, and that GANs ought not to be included in the article's history. But I would have preferred not to have been treated like a naughty child in the meantime. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I agree with you, I wish that GA would address that matter in house as well. Sorry if I seemed a bit peeved. I was, but that was probably as much to do with the end of a tough day as with anything that you said. --Malleus Fatuarum 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bot?

Hey Sandy. Should I be doing manual botifying at the moment? Marskell 19:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk page repair

Thanks for fixing Talk:Storm botnet, sorry. I was just laying it out to get ready for the GA/FA process. • Lawrence Cohen 21:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

FA comments re Hillary and Nancy

Sandy, thanks for that detailed discussion on FA and the cite template that you left on my talk page a few days ago, and thanks for some sample edits on the HRC article - I've tried to find the others along those lines. As for the cite template and article size problems, I'm still pondering what to do.

But a question about what you consider reliable sources - on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nancy Reagan you just said "Can't the Newsmax.com sources be upgraded to something better? ", while a couple of weeks ago on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton/archive1 you said "If you're going to use something like Newsday, why not balance it with the equivalent article at Newsmax". Do you consider Newsmax to be a worthy source or not? And if not, why does using both it and another unworthy source [obviously your opinion of Newsday] be any better? Just wondering what your thinking is here.... Wasted Time R 01:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Harold L. Klawans

Good work on his article - I made a little stab at it (I've got and enjoyed one of his books), you've really picked up the baton and improved it a lot, thanks! DuncanHill 02:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever your reasons, it's much appreciated. He looks like an interesting man - I'll have to read more of his works. DuncanHill 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC discussion

I have responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cillian_Murphy, and am hoping you will return to continue the discussion, mainly because I have clarifying questions and therefore am not sure how to take action on your suggestions. Mainly, your comments about reliable sources are at issue, though there are a few other issues that are vague also. Thank you. --Melty girl 06:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:151.204.60.172

Oops—edit conflict, sorry :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll be around and somewhat "unbusy" on Saturday, but I'll be away all Sunday. Glad to help if necessary :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites FAR

I want to apologize for a critical comment I made here. Due to my hectic work schedule and some major health problems, I have precious little time to spend on the picky details that are required to bring the article up to snuff. I know you are a highly respected Wiki-editor, and I would appreciate it if you could take a more active role working with John Carter to save the article. I just don't have enough strength left after dealing with all the content issues. Ovadyah 17:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Ovadyah; I'll have a look, but I'm going to be traveling, so won't be able to work on it for several days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. John does not have a detailed knowledge of the content of the article, so please use Nishidani or myself as a resource for questions about sources. Ovadyah 20:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates

Sorry about the citation templates and Tourette syndrome; I had looked in the neighborhood of the edit and noticed some templates being used, and thought maybe you had softened your opinions about them. I'll try to remember to stick to a no-template style there. Eubulides 23:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oil shale

Oil shale is an Good Article candidate now. Your comments are most welcome.Beagel 10:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Mmm

This weekend Outriggr is more about broken bottles of blue nun and empty fag cigarette boxes than anything. How are you anyway. Ceoil 14:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I barely know what you're talking about, but it sounds rude. I told you not to talk about us with other people. Θ^U Hi Sandy. –Outriggr § 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Reading back over the Punk rock archive, I thought: helpful to an extreme and I've learned so much from you. So here, a long overdue thanks. (I'm tempted to use Tim Vickers 'b' word, but i wont). Ceoil 15:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007 Malaysian Grand Prix

I've renominated this for FA status. Any chance you could comment on the article at the above link? Much appreciated if you could comment! :) Davnel03 14:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you could look at it, I notice you haven't made any comments yet. Thanks, Davnel03 09:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. :) Davnel03 16:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat FAC

Hi SandyGeorgia. I wanted to inform you that I have addressed most of the issues you brought up about the Yasser Arafat article.

• Bold an and italic text in the references have been removed.

• I did not see any problems with month-date linking however I spotted and linked several month-year combos. Dates have been linked in citations.

• The capitalization in the heading you spotted was the only case of unnecessary caps in headings.

• I have fixed the overlinking problems.

• The issue of spelling out large numbers is defined as necessary for digits that are spelled in over two words. a thousand, twenty-eight, eleven, eighteen, one-hundred, etc. For numbers that were composed of three words I wrote the digits.

• I have removed several dates that weren't needed in the article and I tried to curb as much redundancy in the article as I could.

Leave your comments at the Yasser Arafat FAC Discussion --Al Ameer son 17:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Monopoly

The section you edited (seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monopoly_%28game%29&diff=next&oldid=164378300) is not spam at all. My question is why it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nazarian1 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Delayed Thanks and Question

Dear SandyGeorgia,

First of all, thank you for reviewing my California Condor article and helping to promote it to FA status a few months ago. I know my thanks are a bit delayed, but better late than never! Second, I’ve currently got another New World Vulture article, King Vulture, up for FA status and was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing it. I know that you are busy, but so far only three people have done so. Any comments and criticism on this article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ebionites

I dunno. Should it go at FAR? I've been trying to be fair to the people who keep putting in the work. Marskell 21:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, it would have been great working with you, but I am only one person. I can't fight all of FARC. Do what you have to do. Then I can finally be permanently done with editing this article. Ovadyah 16:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick source opinion needed

This new article from the IGN site AskMen.com has a bit of new information. Would you consider this online magazine a reliable source? Thanks, Melty girl 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sad about your travels... it seemed like you were about to remove your opposition, but Raul failed it tonight. Was that so? If so, would you recommend my waiting a while or putting it up again while it is still fresh in the minds of its many supporters? That was a looooooong month... my first FAC, without any co-editors, and I'm not sure that I have the energy to do it again, though I think the article is certainly ready now. Any advice would be welcome. --Melty girl 05:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Melty girl; I just got home after a very long day and difficult day on the road. I planned to review it tomorrow and strike my Oppose if all was attended to (haven't looked yet). I hope you don't let the first fac archival trouble you too much; it's a fairly common non-event, and you can easily come back to FAC soon, with the benefit that you may end up with much smoother sailing next time and a cleaner promotion. I would recommend waiting three or four days, make sure you've gotten everything, and then bringing it back. I need to get some sleep right now, but I promise to review it tomorrow, and will leave any comments on the talk page. Because of the recent Supports I saw this morning before I traveled, I'm fairly confident that the article is close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Not having previous FAC experience and after a month-long slog with my first one, I wasn't sure if it was worth opening again. But since you have more experience with how things tend to go, and you now say that I did get everything you were concerned about, I will renominate as you suggest. I will be very bummed out if that reviewer shows up again and insists that the whole article has the tone of a fansite. I don't know what the proper strategy is for dealing with things like that. It is confusing that anyone can come along in an FAC and tell you to do something, whether or not it's supported with specifics, and whether or not other reviewers agree. Thanks for your help, Melty girl 00:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice -- I really appreciate it. I think I was too combative in many instances. On the other hand, what do you do when a reviewer gives you copyediting advice and makes copyedits to the article that are grammatically incorrect or factually weaken the article? Do you state your case (perhaps more nicely than I did), or do you weaken the writing to try to be cooperative? The latter seemed risky to me, since subsequent reviewers might judge the article as poorly written. Not sure... Melty girl 00:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore FAC

I've done everything you mentioned at Raul's talk page. I think it's all fixed now. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan FAC

Hey there Sandy. Raul restarted the nomination, and I'm not sure why. Anyway, all of your citation comments have been addressed.The link's here, and was wondering if you could take a look at one comment in particular and shed some light on it. It's the first one under the first opposition and talk about supposed "naming problems" within the article. Thanks and good luck, Happyme22 02:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot

Check this link: [5]. I think you deserve a barnstar for being named. I suppose you are guilty of demanding verifiable references.

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Awarded to SandyGeorgia for protecting the encyclopedia from pseudoscience by demanding verifiable sources. - Jehochman Talk 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Good one. <grin> See [6] and [7]. I don't expect he had the same issues with me that he had with the others on his list, but it says something about his priorities. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Userbox" text

Hey Sandy. Just thought I'd let you know, in case you don't already—if you don't want your userpage to say "Userboxes", you can add |toptext=Handy links to have it read "Handy links", or even |toptext= to have no title whatsoever. Pagrashtak 19:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you SO much !! That is one of those things I've had hanging around since my newbie days, and never bothered to fix. Now, as soon as I get a free moment, I'll deal with it -- so kind of you to let me know!! I think I may have been Wiki's all-time clueless newbie when I was new, seriously abusing the {{helpme}} template :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

uh, oh, LOL. I can't make it work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Really? Are you putting {{Userboxtop|toptext=My title}}? It's working for me in preview. Pagrashtak 19:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you got it working. You can also change colors or add other CSS information if you feel the need—check out Template:Userboxtop if you want to see how. Pagrashtak 19:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Re.:California Fires

Just found out on ALL news channels that one ARSONIST is in custody abd the police, FBI are now after others. Can you place this in the 2007 California Fires article ? This is being announced on the news RIGHT NOW. My ISP is not exactly reliable. It is one of those Wi-Fi units that is messed up. Thanks. 65.173.104.140 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Content review workshop

Hi Sandy -- I hope you don't mind me jumping in; I saw your note to Marskell and thought I might be able to provide some information.

I'd suggest the first thing to do is read Wikipedia:Content review/workshop, which I think you've probably already done, since you made a good edit to it. That page is essentially a statement of what we're trying to do, and also a snapshot of where we are in trying to do it.

Next, I'd go to the talk page, which is here. The talk page has two or three kinds of thread. Some are direct attempts to move the process along--for example, discussion of which problem we should tackle next. Others are interjections from participants--ideas, complaints, suggestions. Sometimes these go nowhere; sometimes they turn into a problem statement on the front page; sometimes they lead to a reassessment of where we are in the process. Not every thread needs to be read in detail; the current thread is really this one.

My feeling is that the main goal right now is to get a group of editors who are familiar with GA, FA, PR, WP 1.0, and so on, and get them to trust each other and work amicably together. If we can come out of this with some good ideas for PR, that will be a huge win -- not just for PR, but because I think it will give the workshop faith that the work we're doing has real value.

I'd be very glad to get your input, both about the current process and where we are in it, and on the overall goals of the workshop and whether we can improve it. Please feel free to post to my talk page too, if you prefer.

Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick additional note -- the brainstorming page you found is not active any more. It was an initial attempt to list problems; we moved it to an inactive location because it did not succeed in listing them in a neutral way. It's been mined for problems and I believe everything which is reasonably thought to be a problem is now listed on the workshop project page. Mike Christie (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, you're raising some good points. When you've had a chance to go through, I suggest we make a separate section and try to summarize your points -- that way there will be a less overwhelming number of threads to go through. Let me know when you're done and I'll try to assemble a section like that; or please do it yourself if you like. Does that sound reasonable? Mike Christie (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Sandy, I'd like to talk further with you about some of your points. If you prefer, we can talk on our user talk pages, and I'll post a note about our conversation to the workshop so that it's visible to others but not "public" so to speak. The reason I'd like to talk to you is that you're an experienced FA contributor, and I want your input; I also want to see if I can work through some of the issues with you and identify where there are problems that the workshop has not spotted, and perhaps also where some of your concerns can be allayed. For example, I think you may be right that ArticleHistory has not been fully considered, though I believe Geometry Guy may know more about it than I do. On the other hand, we have tried to make sure that the workshop is not dominated by any one point of view; the most active participants have been myself, Marskell, Geometry Guy, Awadewit, Walkerma, EyeSerene, Dr.Cash, and Malleus Fatuarum. (I may be missing a couple.) Of those, I know that at least half are not GA regulars. Anyway, I don't want to miss an opportunity to incorporate constructive feedback. If you're up for it, let me know and I'll post a note to the workshop to the effect that you and I will have a sidebar discussion. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I still feel your points need to be addressed. Remember the goal is to create a forum where the different groups can work effectively together. I am out of gas tonight (plus I'm watching the Red Sox while I post here!) so I will probably defer anything substantive for a day or two, but I'll post a note to the workshop page saying I plan to spend some time distilling your concerns into a single thread. It would be distracting to keep revisiting every thread every time a new editor shows up, but if the proposals we are discussing have real merit we have to be able to show it. Part of my job, as facilitator of that group, is figuring out how to do that without disrupting the workshop.

I'll post to you again shortly; please take a look at what I post to the workshop page and comment there if you disagree. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Saw your post at the workshop; thanks. I'll get back to you in a day or so, I think. Re the Sox: I'm a transplanted Brit in Texas, with Canadian relatives, so I've supported the Blue Jays for years, but I've always had a soft spot for the Sox and would support them against anyone but the Jays. I still can't believe we saw the Red Sox AND the White Sox win it all in one lifetime! Now you just have to believe the Cubs have a chance . . . . Mike Christie (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... perception is an interesting thing, and first impressions make a big impact. I can easily see how you arrived at the view expressed on Mike's talk page. Part of the problem is that this process started as fallout from unhelpful exchanges at WT:FAR and WP:VPR. The workshop actually overcame this poor start very well, but it is still visible in the history. "Entirely driven by GA participants wanting to imitate the GA process" is not how I would characterize the discussion, however. Although I think it is unhelpful to identify editors by group, as most editors do many things, I would point out that the first 5 people Mike mentions are not really GA folk. Indeed the proposals go mostly against the kind of top-heavy centralization that you criticise GA for (with some justification). But is the opposite decentralization or fragmentation? One is obviously "good", one obviously "bad", but what is the difference?

Anyway, despite this difference in perception between us, I think you have made fantastic contributions to the workshop page already. In particular, you have made a very important and useful point about having an easily accessible archive of peer reviews, and the relationship of this issue with the ArticleHistory. This requires further thought. Geometry guy 09:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Gguy, thanks for the feedback, see my response below to Mike, and I'll work on this further later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat article size

Hello SandyGeorgia, as you know the Yasser Arafat failed the FA nomination. I've been reediting the article and have trimmed several sections of it. I'm not sure what the size of the written material is. I was hoping you can check it and tell me where it is right now and how much more trimming I need to do. --Al Ameer son 01:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have got it to 50 KB. If not I'll resume trimming what I'm sure is unnecessary info from article although its becoming harder to find. --Al Ameer son 02:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, for all you help and suggestions, I'll get to it tomorrow probably. --Al Ameer son 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through each section and trimmed the text to stick to Arafat's bio. The other peace agreements section should be double checked by you because although I previously trimmed it, I'm not sure if it might need some more. In particular the paragraph on the Barak-Arafat agreement attempt. --Al Ameer son 22:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering if we should split the lower portion of the Tunisia and First Intifada section because of largely different info. I just can't think of a name. --Al Ameer son 22:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

More on content review

Sandy, I found myself waiting for a meeting this morning with some time to kill, so here's what I think is a summary of the key points you made. I've only included the points that relate to consensus that has already been reached; for example I've omitted your comments on the bot review, because there's no consensus that we should eliminate the bot. I've also omitted your comments about having a reward system of some kind as you seemed to be saying that it wouldn't motivate you, but it was fine if it motivated others.

So here are the points I think we need to review. Text in quotes is cut and pasted from your comments. The first question is: are these the right points?

• You don't want to see PR arranged by category. “I'd really not like to see PR arranged by category as GA is; that choppiness and overhead is a particularly frustrating part of the GA pages for me. I go to PR, scan the entire list, and pick a couple of articles that tweak my interest, regardless of topic. It's fun! I wouldn't want to scan by category as that is restrictive, and top heavy processes just make everything harder.”
• Problem with talk page approach and articlehistory. “The {{articlehistory}} template currently "stores" peer review information in history; if they occur on article talk pages, that's lost. I'm not sure it matters so much where the review happens, and there are advantages to having it in a separate file.”
• Related concern: a change to PR might cause problems with articlehistory since up to the change there will be separate files for the review; after that there won’t.
• For both the above, it would be sensible to involve Gimmetrow and Dr. pda.

If so, I think all the ArticleHistory-related points are good and will require discussion. The main issue, I think, is the first one, since that seems to be the only disagreement. There are two things I'd like to ask about that point.

First, what is it about the process that is top-heavy, in your eyes? My understanding of the existing process is that this is a simplification, not an expansion. To put an article up you'd add a simple template to its talk page; a bot then constructs the list from those templates. To review, you click on the list just as you do now. What's the additional process that you see here?

Second, can you give me some more insight into why categories are such a deal-killer for you? I don't believe there's any intention to have a multi-level hierarchy. I had envisioned it as a simple ten-section page, with articles listed under each one. There was a strong consensus that only the article titles should be listed, not the whole review; I think the main reason was to simplify the page. Do you feel that's a mistake? Mike Christie (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Mike, having slept on it, I've much more to say than what you summarized above, and I'll attempt a new, more complete summary of all points later today. I'm sorry to say it, but I think the progress made so far, while a very commendable effort that has thankfully brought together people from all "sides" and at least gotten them talking, has failed to identify the main shortcomings in all the review processes, resulting in proposals that I believe may be flawed at the outset and unlikely to succeed at the community level. The proposals don't address the problems, and may make a few things worse. They so far seem to amount to adding a lot of "process" that doesn't necessarily address the issues. GA is doing very good work lately, but IMO the worst part of their process is that 1) there is no consolidated place/article/file where you can find GA history (it's just a talk page entry, and it often gets lost in talk page archives, and we should not repeat that for PR) and 2) the GAC page is one of the worst examples of instruction creep and unnecessary complexity anywhere on Wiki, starting with the top-heavy instructions and following with the extreme category divisions on the page. (There are other problems; those are just a few of the main ones). Just looking at the GAC page makes me dizzy, and I frequently am forced to interact with all of their pages, as I have to clean up daily errors in articlehistory on FACs or in the articlehistory error category. To solve the problems, we should really identify *all* the problems (I don't think the brainstorming page came close, yet) and for starters, consider asking GA to come more into line with the other processes rather than vice-versa. GA is the *only* process which doesn't have an archivable file for instance, and frankly, that diminishes accountability and credibility. Often, when I'm forced to spend 20 minutes digging into talk page history to correct articlehistory errors, I eventually find a GA pass by an anon or a sock puppet. Let's seriously identify and correct all the problems; having PR move towards GA is backwards. GA should be moving towards the other processes rather than consistently moving away from things that work, and then asking others to follow (as they surprisingly did in the discussion at FAR, where they proposed a change in the FAR name to agree with a GA change). IMO, the FAC and PR backlog can be solved by making fundamental changes at GA; people are currently coming to FAC with grossly unprepared articles because PR is backlogged and they know GA won't prepare their articles for FAC. They come to where they know they'll get a solid review. I will type up more later; like you, I was more involved in the ball game last night, and want to really focus on this, since you've done such an excellent job of facilitating a good working group. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I better get this off my chest first... <aside aka rant>"...they proposed a change in the FAR name to agree with a GA change". Erm, no: one naive and relatively new GA reviewer proposed a change in the FAR name. Pretty much everyone else working on GA thought it was a pointless suggestion: GAR changed its name to try to reduce the confusion with the review of a GAN, partly in order to reduce the number of ArticleHistory errors of this kind (in response to a plea by... User:SandyGeorgia). No such reasoning applies to FAR. Now, I wonder, can we have this discussion without the us and them "they did this" attitude?</rant>

Gguy, I hear you; don't sweat the little stuff. My bigger point is that the GA process still departs from other established procedures. Let's look at that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Very good. One small thing, then I promise to think about the bigger picture: the historical name for GAN is GAN, and this has always been the term used in ArticleHistory and ArticleHistory documentation. GAC was later provided as an undocumented synonym, after GA/N was stupidly moved to GAC instead of GAN. I understand your frustration at GA changes and GA ArticleHistory errors, but in this particular case (i) Using GAC instead of GAN does not generate an error, (ii) the move from GAC to GAN was done partly for compatibility with the ArticleHistory template. In particular, using FGAC instead of FGAN has always generated an error, and still does (!), so by insisting on using the terminology GAC instead of GAN, you are actually shooting yourself in the foot. As I said before, perception is a funny old thing... Geometry guy 20:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just a matter of telling Gimmetrow what to program; I'd love to see standardized consistent terminology across processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

When these changes were made, the point of view taken was that internal consistency is much more important (e.g. for avoiding errors) than consistency with other processes. After all, we don't need to rename "Peer review" as "Peer review candidates"! The terms "nominee" and "nomination" are deeply engrained in the GA process. I tested this just now by seeing how many ArticleHistory errors there would be if only GAN or GAC were allowed, and not both. Just GAN generated 22 errors in an hour (and I fixed 6 of them). Just GAC generated 500 errors in 2 minutes. That clearly shows, for better or worse, that GAN is well embedded into the psyche of the average Wikipedian, but GAC is not. Geometry guy 00:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What does that test? ArticleHistory used GAN for ages before GAC was put in as an option, therefore most uses will be GAN... Gimmetrow 00:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It tests what it tests. The interpretation is a matter for debate, but (1) GAC was not an option for a long time because GAN was the standard term, and (2) GAC has been an option (albeit undocumented) for most of this year I think, but has not been much used. Perhaps that is not surprising, I agree. Anyway, I still claim internal consistency is more important than using similar terminology for different processes. It is not a big deal. Geometry guy 10:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, returning to the issues: you totally misunderstand the proposals if you think that there is any attempt to add "process" or make the PR page anything like the GAN page. I totally agree with you that the GAN process is too complicated, and is suffering from a serious case of instruction creep. I am hoping that some of the ideas being generated about PR will help to improve GA, and agree it needs to move towards other processes in some areas. In particular, your point about the archive is even more important for GA than PR, because of the accountability and credibility issue that you mention.

Right, that's my main point. Don't read too much into the rest; I'm a sucky writer. Moving PR to talk pages replicates a weakness of GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The PR proposals, however, are aimed at minimizing the role of a central page, so that the PR page is little more than a dating service to match reviewers and articles. This is completely unlike GAN, which is one of the pages on my watchlist with the most traffic. For this it may be helpful to loosely subdivide the list of articles and/or reviewers, simply for ease of use, not for restricting which articles people can review. Such a plainly formatted list, perhaps subdivided into 10 sections, is nothing like the GAN layout, and the instructions would be as simple as the current ones.

Maybe this will make more sense to me after I've had a chance to revisit my big picture concerns; I think the Review Workshop moved quickly to establishing processes, without necessarily identifying and clarifying the issues. This "process" may work out, but I'm several steps behind you as to my main concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely that we need to discuss all the problems, not just PR in isolation. For this reason, I believe that our proposals on a particular issue should listed only as provisional ideas on the workshop page. But if we try to discuss everything at once, we'll just get bogged down. We started with PR because it was a good place to build confidence in the workshop process. I believe that some of the consensus we have found about what is good/bad process will be very pertinent when we discuss GA. We can revisit previously discussed ideas as the workship proceeds. Geometry guy 17:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think the group (to its credit, as it is working well), moved rather quickly to the technical details of how to implement something before it had necessarily identified the sources of the backlogs or all the problems. I'm trying to focus on putting my thoughts together, and I'm not a good writer. I'll get back to you as soon as I'm done. :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike and Gguy, I quickly typed up in very rough format my concerns at User:SandyGeorgia/Content review thoughts. I'm not a good writer, and it's not at all polished. I just wanted to initially get it in one place. Unless you think I'm completely barking up the wrong tree, I'll polish it up to present to the group. If I'm wasting my time, I'll just back out, because I don't think the current proposals are workable or address the issues. Shall I spend the rest of today polishing these ideas? (Please don't read it too literally; I'm not a good writer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I've taken a quick look and will read again. Thanks for putting in the work on this.

My suggestion would be that we first focus on the ArticleHistory and accessible archive question that's been raised on the Content Review talk page. That's a good point you made, and the workshop did indeed miss that. I will respond further over on that page.

For the remainder of the points you made, I'd like to engage you in conversation to see if we can shorten the subsequent conversation with the rest of the workshop. Would that be OK? The goal would be for me to spend some time both understanding your point of view in detail, and also conveying the background discussion, if any, that the workshop may have had on those points. That should shorten the time it takes to get to consensus on the talk page.

Let me know if that works, and if so where I should post my comments -- on the talk page of your review thoughts? If so, I'll head over there with some comments when I get a chance, tonight or tomorrow most likely. Mike Christie (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea; yes on that review talk page is good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

California fires article

I was just kidding about the pyroterrorism and the elections, based on people already sneaking Pyroterrorism into the article before, on top of the other absurdity. It's actually not too bad, if you want to take another look. I didn't see anything overtly political in the latest revision. • Lawrence Cohen 19:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for popping in Lawrence; there were a few things actually over the last couple of days that made me realize I *really* don't want to stay involved with that article. Too close to the pain, and if the article starts to go political, I just don't want to have to be there. Thanks for caring, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Good luck with everything, if you or anyone close are in harms' way. I'll try to help keep the idiocy out of there. • Lawrence Cohen 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

FA citations

I just (re)stumbled across Wikipedia:Featured articles with citation problems and was taking a look at some of the articles in the "no inline citations" section. (And turned some links into refs on one *cough*) Quite a few of them have at least one citation—should I move those down to the "few citations" section, or is this just a loose interpretation of "no"? Pagrashtak 01:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty loose; not worth worrying about if it's only a few. If it's more than a few, they may be worth moving down, but it's really not a big deal. If you find anything substantial, can you point it out on the talk page there? It's been a while since we last checked through them to see if anything could move. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! It's very much appreciated. I always feel like I don't do enough for FAC/FAR, but that helps. Pagrashtak 05:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:SIZE

Hi Sandy; so should that link be in the Criterion itself? Tony (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be, but I have no idea if that will garner consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Watchlist

No, I only kept Autism on the list. More problems? Tim Vickers 20:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Chorus

Yes, my voting style has changed significantly to more closely follow the instructions.

As for "NPOV opposes can be considered invalid," I'm certain it could based on the instructions of specific, actionable points. I had already to stated that I would edit the articles in question later on today, though would hope the editors would know how to do this themselves and become aware of their own biases, without me having to point out every single lack of neutrality.

For the most part, the issue was more so that some did not fulfill the NPOV policy in FULL, regardless of the articles' partial fulfillment. That's not good enough, and I know I don't like to be influenced by their POV and lack of care. Learnedo 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering how many samples I would need to provide in future NPOV cases. The point is even if these few samples are resolved, that does not mean the articles I would oppose to are NPOV qualified. Learnedo 23:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

FAC in archives

Will do, didn't know i had to. I know now though! Thanks for pointing it out. Woodym555 22:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ned Low FAC

Hi Sandy, thanks for the suggestions. I have fixed one, but the other two need clarification. I am sick of messing with dashes - I have already gone through the article twice changing them all to keep other FAC reviewers happy. Everyone seems to have a different opinion and/or preference for what dashes are used where, and the relevant MOS section isn't exactly categorical on the topic. Neil ☎ 15:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Neil, I'll look at those as soon as I get a chance; I'm curious to see where you're getting bad info. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I thought "peer review" when you said PR, and wondered why they would know what it meant. Doh. The references I have say "Guarda del Costa" - these days, Spanish language coast guards are known as guardacostas, but I am leery of applying a 21st century translation to an early 18th century group when all references say "Guarda del Costa" - that could possibly be wrong, or at least, OR. Thanks for the dash help! Neil ☎ 18:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, Learnedo is butchering the article and edit-warring to keep his ugly changes in as they are "NPOV". Adjectives are not neutral language, apparently. Neil ☎ 23:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm. I will ask Tony to look; you might know that I'm no prose expert, but I have been *very* concerned about some of Learnedo/Larenedo's comments throughout FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet suggestions

Hello. Thankyou for your suggestions for cleaning up the Hamlet article--getting on to those now. One part of one, though, I didn't follow. You mentioned single year dates and cited Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers); I've taken another look there and it says something to the effect that they should be linked if referring to the context of that year improves the reader's understanding. The article traces various histories--of the text and of its interpretation--for which the social and cultural context seems pertinent to me (particularly given that one of the major branches of research in the field, New Historicism, turns on the analysis of those contexts), so in most of the cases it does seem appropriate to link. Have I understood that right, or is there another aspect I've missed? Many thanks, DionysosProteus 03:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The year article has context that is specifically relevant to Hamlet? If that's the case, then yes, it's OK to link the year, but you should be prepared to defend that at FAC, as others will question that. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Should I check each year article individually do you think? I've only looked at 1601 so far, and it does (Earl of Essex beheaded). Thanks, DionysosProteus 04:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You might check them (since this will come up at FAC), and perhaps find a way to word the text (in cases where you can) that makes a direct connection to the year. It's not a big deal, but you have to be prepared for this at FAC, since seeing linked years is an automatic red flag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fire

Yeah, I'm doin alright luckily. It's pretty much left me now. I did get a call to pack our bags just in case, but then the OCFA called and said the wind changed so I'm ok. I could see the flames from my house, though. It was bad. Thanks for caring haha. Happyme22 05:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore

I had responded to the external link affair. I thought I should seek to understand why you think his personal site cannot be on the external link section. Thanks. Leranedo 08:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said his personal site couldn't be in the EL section, and I don't know where you got that idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore link followup

Wanted to clarify and offer my viewpoint:

"Links mainly intended to promote a website." I do not believe the main intent of having his personal website is to promote it. I'm not sure who added it initially nor what their intent was, but I think you know I'm neutral and objective when it comes to content-matters. I do not see it as a promotion, though I definitely understand how it could be.

"Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." It's his web page. He would be considered the foremost authority on himself. Leranedo 01:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And as you know, I think we should have it based on many more other good reasons. Simply ask me to expand if needed. Leranedo 01:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have never said Al Gore's personal website should not be an External link, and I still don't know where you got that idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

E-mail

One has been sent to you. :) Acalamari 18:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Responded, thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ganesha

Just to let you know regarding this, that section was created only yesterday. I requested it in order for the article to satisfy 1b). Thanks Gizza^{Discuss ©} 01:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine

• " Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the featured article director may ignore it." You've given one example of a possible weasle word, but the remainder of your oppose comments aren't actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you want it passed? It passes on my vote. Others may disagree and I hope they do and not pass it. Leranedo 07:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, I had tons of objections but we have low standards for FA and hopefully the editors catches them without me laying every single point. Plus, I don't have that kind of time. Leranedo 08:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Acceptable

Moved it as the editor doesn't seem to like side talks. Now I can be happy to clarify.

"I have passed many article that are fine and I never take pleasure in doing so." Leranedo, reviewers dont "pass" articles; they support or oppose featured status. *Zero* external links is perfectly acceptable on many articles; there is no such thing as a required minimum, but generally, the fewer the better. Please read WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Passing the articles means supporting, I think you're aware of that. "there is no such thing as a required minimum," and I never said there was. "but generally, the fewer the better." And this is one of those exceptions where it is vastly better to have more than three. "Please read WP:EL" I mentioned already that I had done over all of those. Thank you. "*Zero* external links is perfectly acceptable on many articles" Acceptable - I pass on that pathetic standard as well! I'm glad FAs are acceptable. Happy editing, and less talking. Leranedo 08:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Q

Question that does not need an answer. Are you trying some FA quota at the expense of quality articles? Wondering out loud. Leranedo 09:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

fairness

Ok, ok, fair enough but I hope that person received your note as well. There's understandable reasons for the reply, you know. Leranedo 23:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Leranedo SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Edward Low

I left some comments at the Edward Low FAC regarding the "Coast Guard". Joelito (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Email

I sent you an email. Pagrashtak 18:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, you aren't the only one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I second/third what I assume to be is the sentiment here? Is there anything we can do other than hope the reviewer gets bored and goes away? I'd really hate to see people driven away from the FAC process because of one person's misguided(??) crusade. Karanacs 18:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Patience; let's see what develops over the course of the day. Many people are concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To echo the above, and guessing the subject, and not being a regular FA reviewer, I'd like to fourth/fifth/six millionth this sentiment; given recent comments, I'm even surprised an RfC hasn't been raised yet! Carre 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that an RfC at this point would just be a pile-on and create bad will; I counsel patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done all I can do; I'm unwatching now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of disruptive editing - seems blockable to me, especially after the Wikiquette debacle.Tvoz |talk 08:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And saying he's confused, after all the moving around he's done and all the other discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd raise it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents before blocking. Pagrashtak 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm off for the day, but as you can see from my comments in a section below, I am not a fan of escalation of process or blocking without discussion. I started at Wikiquette alerts because it is a "tame" place to begin to reason with a user when there may be communication issues. I'm not advocating blocking yet, but I am very concerned about the disruption at FAC, because that stays in every article's history and may mislead subsequent readers as to how the process works (or is intended to work). Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You were named "worst editor" by pseudoscience scam artist and spammer User:Sadi Carnot. See [[8]]. Feel very proud. Tim Vickers 00:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be quite an honor if I was in good company there :-) LOL !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good for you Sandy. Outstanding work. I'm so jealous that you got that award before me, but I'm applauding heartily from the background. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

But, but ... I got it for fighting back extra-long rudeness, not for my ongoing fight against pseudoscience and poorly referenced quackery in the autism-related and other medical articles, which ... by the way ... is a very lonely crusade. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, where have ya'll been all week?  :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I was in drug rehab that week, so I missed the barnstar. Sorry.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That was some habit if you could kick it in a week <grin> ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is leading me to narcotics abuse. First, I have to take a Vicodin to put up with some of the writing. Then a Xanax to calm down before the POV-warrior fights. A Lunesta to sleep. Then, an amphetamine to get going in the morning after all of those drugs. Of course, Ritalin is necessary to read some of the long, boring, idiotic rants on talk pages. I'm going to have a beer now. So, let's just say the rehab didn't take.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's why God made beer; that should teach you to stay away from the man-made stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted page restored so you can gather evidence

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence/Extra-Long Article Committee. I understand that there's nothing confidential in here, so go ahead and grab whatever evidence you need. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Je, I'm going to be tied up all day tomorrow and I'm working on something else; there were about half a dozen pages plus talk pages, the mess was spread all over the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Pageant

Thanks for the help with prepping for GimmeBot, much obliged. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

No problem. I try to do it for all FACs, but it is nice to be thanked :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Oooh, now I'm getting nervous. Oh well, either way, it was fun to expand the article. Thanks again, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

Ah, it's Halloween in the USA; everyone will be on a sugar high and too busy for FAC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 08:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC).

And after that comes Tutti Santi and everyone will be in a bondadoso mood; that will be good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)