User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch23

Liz Birt

Sandy: Is this source sufficient: [1]? I know nothing about the article or the subject, but did a search for some text and this came up. Regards, Kablammo 01:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't use a blog, but sometimes they lead us to the reliable sources. When I'm trying to google up reliable sources, I put -blog -forum -wiki -wikipedia at the end to see if anything reliable comes up. I can't find anything on Birt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ah, ha .. that does give us some leads to some newspaper articles that will be useful ... I'm looking for them now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I had thought the testimony would be easy to find but I'm striking out. It may have been prepared comments. Kablammo 01:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC) While transcripts of floor sessions exist, and an autism bill was before the Ill. 94th General Assembly, there do not appear to be transcripts of committee hearings available online. Kablammo 01:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that surprised me. If they can be located in a library or somewhere, they can still be cited, even if they're not online. For now, I've added back everything I can find, and at least the article is cleaned and untagged. Thanks for the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fight Club

No problem, thank you for getting back to me! I guess I'll see about including academic interpretations on the film article before I do a content fork. Appreciate the feedback! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bryan Jepson

Hi Sandy, I notice you've removed the notability tag from Bryan Jepson without providing an explanation. I'd appreciate if you could let me know why you think he meets the criteria at either Wikipedia:Notability (people) or Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I tagged this article four months ago, so unless someone edits it soon to explain why he's notable, I intend to nominate it for deletion. Thanks, Sideshow Bob Roberts 05:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sideshow, I removed it because I found and added several more independent, secondary reliable sources. I'm generally trying to clean up all of the autism-related articles and don't know anything about this fellow other than what's there; if you disagree that the new sources meet notability, that's fine with me, and an AfD would be fine. If you want to re-add the tag, that's fine too, but I thought the additional sources would be enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Re : FARC/MRT(Singapore)

Even though the India FARC is closed please put the MRT one on hold first. We are trying to put the house in order by addressing the concerns first with the nominator directly so that we can possibly avoid the process altogether. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A bargain... ten links for the price of one!

Hey stranger!

Can you take a look into and opine as needed on this request and join the beating up on Frank! I could use any general advice on the 1632 series overall, as at the moment, I'm mainly a one man band. Hopefully, now that I've worked out some templates and methods, (Things are becoming much easier to shorten, as links to explanatory sections such as characters and 1632 institutions allow cutting a lot of verbiage. See 1634: The Ram Rebellion for a good "Bad" example of what "verbosities" needed fixing... that's next on the To-Do in articles.) Any way, my need right now is cites, and cites approaches and that the bargain link! Thanks! // FrankB 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon Burge

I am writing for your opinion on an issue where I believe you are one of the best arbiters on WP. There was an issue at Jon Burge, where a past version was stubbed by a pair of admins who question the validity of the sources with respect to WP:BLP concerns for a very controversial figure. Could you please weigh in at Talk:Jon Burge/Archive 1#Stubbed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

FARs

How does Seattle look to you now? There's a few at the bottom that could use an extra kp or rm. Someone seems to work on Riel every day or two, so I can't pull the trigger. -- Marskell (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Although I appreciated the constructive criticism at my RfA, and also the opportunity to respond to it, I have to admit that your comment made me chuckle. Thanks for that, and for your support. I look forward to working with you more to harmonize Wikipedia's processes ;-) Geometry guy 20:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Take another look

Hi Sandy. Awadewit and Qp10qp have taken a look at John Knox. I consider myself lucky as they are both historians and they have very high standards. I hope I earned their support. You took a look as well, but a lot has changed since Qp10qp's review. I have since corrected the ndashes. Could you take one more look? And don't spare any criticisms. Thanks! --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not right

Conscientous Wikipedia editors should not be added to Conflict of Interest lists by a bot, with no warning, no notification, and no means of remedying the wrong. My name has been wrongly listed for more than six hours, I've not been able to get any idea what to do about it or how to remedy this, and nothing has been done in spite of all of these posts.

• User talk:Beetstra#COI
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#COI question
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Starting to steam
• User talk:COIBot

Wikipedia editors should know that by merely googling up a news source to cite an article that ended up at AfD, a conflict of interest can be claimed against you. This is not right.

1. Why aren't we notified?
2. How does this happen?
3. What is the remedy?
4. Can I delete those entries myself?
5. How are we supposed to know not to link to certain sites?

Six hours of wrongly being listed as a COI is too much. This is not the right way to treat Wikipeople who care about their reputation. Good night. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I have deleted the entry from one page. That doesn't really address the problem. This is news to me—a bot creating reports that compile usernames under the general heading "conflict of interest"? Wow. –Outriggr § 06:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm sorry you didn't get any answers earlier. The COI report you mention is produced by a bot that looks for new links to certain sites for which there have been past COI issues, to try to head off socks continuing with more COI edits. There are loads of tracked sites, including such sites as time.com and cia.gov, and the COI report is just a list of people who posted links to those sites. From this report history for the hispanicbusiness site, it appears that in October editors originating from that site were editing the article Hispanic Business, hence the COI concerns. Your name showing up on the recent report is not a condemnation of the site or of you; it only indicates that you added a link to a 'tracked' site, albeit in a rather vague fashion.

As a side note: I don't participate in WP:SPAM, and had no prior knowledge of this report at all; I only dug into it because I saw your post here. I think it would be wise for them to rename the report, given the extremely wide net they're using. Maralia (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandy: This happened to some of us on the Minnesota project. User_talk:Appraiser#Bots_on_the_loose (I think it was the same sort of thing.) The bot operator was asked for whitelisting of the source in question; he complied.[2] Please don't let your experience with an impersonal bot keep you from contributing-- you are far too valuable. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 10:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm sorry this sat for hours without being responded to. The reports are not intended to imply you are COI editing. They are merely bot generated lists to help human editors review additions of links that have raised concerns but have not yet been black listed. Many additions, like your own, are made in good faith to improve the project, being on the page isn't supposed to imply otherwise. I've replied to your post at WikiProject Spam, and suggested wording changes for the reports to Dirk. I hope this goes some way to reassuring you that your intentions are not being questioned. -- SiobhanHansa 14:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who responded and tried to help—particularly Outriggr for removing the offense. I'm putting together a longer response now; this was a very upsetting incident, and it shouldn't happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why it matters

This business troubled me a lot. Thanks to everyone who helped sort it out, but it's not sorted properly until the underlying issue is addressed.

By pure chance—because I followed What links here on an article that I had cited after it was submitted to AfD, to see if it was orphaned—I encountered my name listed on a spam page and a Conflict of Interest Report. Spam and COI are hefty labels for any editor, and particularly one who has gone to great pains to avoid any such issue. I was, to say the least, shocked to find myself there. More troubling was that I was unable to figure how to resolve it, so that needs to be cleaned up so future editors don't go through this.

Here's another reason it mattered to me. The article—¿Por qué no te callas?—was at AfD, its notability questioned. Anyone checking on notability might check "What links here"—as I did—to see if the article could be merged elsewhere or to see if it is orphaned. Editors who don't know me or my editing would have noticed on the very short list at What links here that it was linked to a Spam and COI report. So editors who don't know my editing would see my name as someone involved in COI editing. This needs to be fixed. Not only could it have influenced editors' opinions of me; it could have influenced the AfD, as not everyone would necessarily take the time to understand that I happened to end up on that list because I googled a news source that had been previously involved in a COI. This is not right, and I hope it will be addressed. I was the last to know, because the bot that dumped my name to a spam and COI list didn't dump that same information to me.

In my case, it was resolved by someone else removing my name from those lists; what if I had removed my name? What is the process for resolving this? Having your name associated with COI and spam is not pleasant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

adding a "wikitable" to The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

Can you add add a "wikitable" on the section Crew instead of the list that is there on The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie articale, Thanks! --AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Annie. I don't agree with the extensive cast and crew lists in these articles, and I don't agree that tables should be added. Here is some information for you to study:

• the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, part of Wikipedia's Manual of style
• samples of Wiki's best film articles can be found at WP:FA#Media
• one sample of one of Wiki's best film articles is Halloween III: Season of the Witch.

As you'll see, the goal is to write compelling prose about the film, not to include an indiscriminate collection of information. For example, the cast list at The Tic Code does not need to include every non-notable actor who appeared in the film. I hope this helps guide your future article writing efforts. Please do not add these tables to The Tic Code. Also, be sure to have a look at WP:OVERLINKing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I already did that on the cast, songs, and special appearance section. Should I revert them back? --AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you like them on the Naked Brothers article, it makes no difference to me; I would not want them added to The Tic Code, as it is linked from the Tourette's articles (a featured article), and is a more significant film. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Seattle FARC review and a question

Sorry to post directly on your talk page, but the last couple of times I've posted comments on the FARC page it has been a couple of days before there was a response. Can you take a look at what I've done on the Seattle, Washington article and see if I've checked off your concerns about WP:MOSDATE, WP:DASH, and WP:OVERLINK?[3] I also had a question about WP:UNITS. Do things like "4,000 years" and "1,000 people" require a no break space?--Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

HI, Booblehead; I'm heading out for the evening so will have to look later. On the non-breaking hard spaces per WP:UNITS, just let common sense be your guide. The idea is to prevent the number being separated from the non-numerical element by line wrap. Ask yourself if a linewrap between the two elements, leaving the number hanging, would look weird. I tend to think any hanging number looks weird, and like to keep them together with either an nbsp or the {{nowrap}} template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

re. GA and articlehistory

Oops, my mistake...that doesn't usually happen, my bad. Sorry to hassle you, Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

miles from the tic code movie age.

Dear SandyGeorgia, According to this website http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tic_code/about.php, Miles is 12 not 10, I don't think that Imdb is always accurate and when I watched the movie I am almost positive they said he is 12. Thanx! --AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotten tomatoes isn't as reliable as all of the other sources I posted at the article; please check all of the sources listed at the bottom of The Tic Code. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there's a problem. He is reported as 10 years old by the New York Times and Variety (as two examples only, there are many more), and as 12 by The Village Voice and the San Francisco Chronicle. I need to dig further; reliable sources conflict, but at any rate, I wouldn't use either IMDb or RottenTomatoes as the source for resolving this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Should I watch it by DVD again and what ever it says on the DVD can I put on Wikipedia. Thanx! --AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Preity Zinta

Hello Sandy!

The Zinta article has gone through major c/e, reliability and neutrality issues were addressed, it was toned down etc. A big part of it was cut down (even the 65% success ratio haha... :)). Could you please tell me what your opinion on that is now? mmm and could you please help with some MOS problems if you have the time for it?

Best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick glance, there are still box office figures sourced to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi sandy. I am trying to help improve the article a little bit. here are quite a lot to do. Yes, IMDb (and a few other debated sources) are there. We have been able to remove most of the debatable sources, except a few supporting the box office data. We are trying to take care of those.

Although the work was not complete, I thought to go for a PR. Do you see any other MoS issues? I went through almost all the references a few days back. There are still a few references which do not foloow the usual pattern (use of templates). Will convert them to templates soon. Any other thing you see?

And, how are you? I met Raul654 and others a few days back in a NYC meetup!--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, now I'm sorry I didn't go! I'm glad you're on the job :-) I'll peek in again tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Shut up

I've commented there. Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, if you use "Por qué", it automatically denotes a question; "porque" would be the corresponding declarative form. The reason behind it is to make little kids in elementary school cry... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that works too. :) Piscina is femenine, by the way. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm... I'm not that sure about the Chilean page. I mean, it is a list, but the previous title was bad as well. It should probably be moved to something like List of Chilean electoral divisions or something like that, but I'm not even sure about that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotavirus

Dear Sandy. Thanks for your review of the article and your helpful comments. I'll work on it this week. Sorry about deleting that old talk, I'll get the hang of this one day, I am learning all the time. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm 18:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here ya go!

		The Working Woman's Barnstar
		SandyGeorgia, I award you the Working Woman's Barnstar for your efforts to assist in the development of Youngstown, Ohio, a working man's city, in it's attempt to become a Featured Article. While the outcome is not yet known, your edits and advice clearly improved the article.Daysleeper47 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try and address the remaining concerns today. Thanks for the advice. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Stuttering

If you have a minute I would be grateful for some help and advice on the Stuttering page. User:Tdkehoe has reappeared along with an IP that I presume is him. User:Stutterman also reverted the article to the version before your and my edits, with an interesting edit summary [4] that makes me think it may also be Tdkehoe. I have reverted back, but would be glad of some other eyes on the situation, especially one who knows the history. --Slp1 (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've watched it. I've got some homework to do before weighing in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am travelling again with limited time and access, so particularly appreciate your willingness to do this homework! --Slp1 (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Slp, if you have time, can you re-summarize for me the conflict of interest issues? If not, I'll dig up what I can, using the info I seem to recall you gave on the FAR as a starting point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Briefly, as noted on his userpage, Tdkehoe is the inventor of several anti-stuttering devices, including the SmallTalk and School DAF and he owns Casa Futura Technologies which makes and distributes them. He has been upfront about this, including mentioning at the peer review [5] where I first got interested in his edits and made some suggestions (which he didn't follow). There was a report to COIN [6] but nothing much was done it seems, except advert and cleanup tags being added. I notice boosterism of his own products on the Anti-stuttering devices (as compared to those of other manufacturers). Also very positive portrayal of the therapeutic use of devices that page and the Stuttering page, as it was when I first started working on it seriously. Does that help? --Slp1 (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had gotten caught up that far, and looked at some of the issues at anti-stuttering devices, which looks problematic. I can't do much if you're traveling, though, since you're still the only content expert :-) I'll do as much as I can; I hate to see the stuttering article revert to a biased advert after all the work we both put into it. And the anti-stuttering devices article is quite concerning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks great what you had done, and knowing that I am not the lone voice in the wilderness is more help than you can possibly imagine. I agree that anti-stuttering devices is problematic: it was to be my next port of call after the stuttering article, but your suggestion and challenges to him are excellent, and will hopefully bear fruit. I must go off to bed and read up on William Wilberforce, my other much delayed current WP project! Slp1 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Such a drag when the stuff that we have to do always interferes with the stuff that we want to do. I seem to do more of the former lately :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Noting removed COI notice, just to have everything in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

Someone mentioned on #wikipedia that you were knowledgeable about evolutionary psychology. To my amazement you also turned up in the history of banned user Sadi Carnot [7]. I wonder if you might chime in here: [8] Thanks, Keith Henson (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my gosh, please tell whoever said that that they're wrong. No knowledge at all, but I can peek over there to see if I can lend a hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That one is way over my head; not a topic I have ever encountered, and I really know very little about psychology. I'm more interested in neurology/psychiatry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: No surprise

"Controversy article for a Democrat resoundingly removed; controversy article for a Republic kept. I could have told you that and saved you the trouble. Gee, shouldn't the result have been the same for the same reasons? Not on Wiki ..."

Yes, the result definitely should have been the same. But the admins were right to close them as they did, given the 'votes' (Giuliani: delete-or-redir-after-merge 18, keep 13, confused/unsure 3; Gore: delete-or-redir-after-merge 13, keep 4, confused/unsure 2). I can think of other explanations — natural variance due to small sample size, or variance due to AfD not framing the issue very well in the first place (it was not being proposed to delete controversial material from WP!) — but your explanation may indeed be the correct one, and if so it really makes WP look bad. If you have influence on any Higher Powers, maybe you can get them to intervene at a project-wide level and enforce a consistent posture. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anti-stuttering devices

Hi Sandy, I came across the COI when the article came up for peer review and added the COI tag to the user in question's talk page then. I also listed it at WP:COI/N, but it was archived fairly quickly with no comments (if you want I can dig to find the listing). I have little COI/N experience and even less with stuttering / these devices, so I made a few edits to trim some of the most egregious material and mark a few questionable images, then have not done much with the article since. I have the article on my watchlist, but I think some changes have slipped in under my radar - i.e some very dodgy refs I deleted are now back in. I have been working on improving an article for an FAC I did not plan to be in (another editor nominated an article that was good, but not really ready, then has done almost nothing since), so I apologize it took me until now to reply. I had thought of relisting this at COI/N, putting the whole article up for RfC, or just asking Athaenara, who is my COI guru (and now is "enhanced, with new super admin cleaning power!")(she also did some cleanup on the article back then). I would be glad to trudge back into this mess, but would appreciate any advice you might have. Thanks for bringing this back up (and thank you for all the work you do around here, please accept this WikiThanks from me as a token of my respect and gratitude), Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

What a very nice message :-) If you're willing to help out (I don't know much about COI either), can you read two sections up on my talk page (User talk:SandyGeorgia#Stuttering) and read the Stuttering FAR? Slp1 is knowledgeable in this area, and able to highlight the issues well. If Athaenara is able to help, that's great. Which FAC are you working on (I've fallen behind on FAC)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look over the FAR later today - I see Mr. Kehoe is making some edits to the article now, removing some of the advertisement-like material. I will also give Athaenara a heads up once I have looked at the FAR. The FAC is Presque Isle State Park. Dincher, Dtbohrer and I have made a few edits to it since it went up for FAC (diff)(only one edit since it became an FAC is by the nominator, fixing a problem the oppose vote did not mention). Sigh. I still need to work on the Recreation section, but it is much better and nearly done now, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll look at it if/when I find a free moment to catch up at FAC. I've been busy with Shut up Chávez. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, any feedback is greatly appreciated. We also need to expand the lead to three paragraphs now that the rest of the article has been expanded, but are waiting to do that until last (after all other parts are expanded). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Thanks for your support on Presque Isle. I have asked Athaenara and she has replied on her Talk Page, suggesting we list User:Tdkehoe at the WP:COI/N noticeboard as a single purpose account with COI problems, trying to be as succinct as possible. I will do this today, thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think of it, will you post me a link? I'm up to my eyeballs in other stuff, and may not get to look at it until tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It will take me some time to post to COI/N (unfamiliarity and wanting to get it right, plus real world activity), but I will leave links for you, Slp1, Tdkehoe, and anyone else I can think of - will look at the FAR again for users. Here is the link to the section of Athaenara's talk page User_talk:Athaenara#Advice_sought if you are interested. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to look at the FAR, since it was basically Slp and me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Parâkramabâhu I

Hello. We have put the above mentioned article into a FAC for the 2nd time and it is still running. Meanwhile, we would appreciate it if you can show us your exceptional reviewing and bug hunting skills again in that article. Happy editing! --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

DIY conversion kit

I know you're busy but I've done a sortable list of common words requiring transmogrification into other English spelling variants. It covers about 80% of the variants I've encountered so far. The idea is to de-mystify EngVar conversion, as I'm sure fear of the unknown is the root cause of many disputes. It's here. Could you please take a look and add, delete or comment? Many thanks,--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Roger, that's not a strength of mine; did you check with Tony1 (talk · contribs) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I did already. I asked you for input you might have on the technical/presentation side ... your opinion is valued. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

ah, ha, I've got one for you ... celiac disease or ceoliac disease. In fact, you might want to check with Jfdwolff (talk · contribs) or WP:MED about other medical uses. I'm not sure I can add much more, but I'm really glad you've put that together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ever so much for that :) I'll start a separate medical/scientific table I think. I will contact Jfdwolff (talk · contribs). Thanks again, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

hi

Hi Sandy,
Thanks for the flower earlier this week. You asked me to let you know the next time I submitted my article to FAC... so I'm letting you know, and in not quite as cryptic a way as I did on Ceoil's page. :) –Outriggr § 01:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I missed Ceoil's page on Friday; I was dealing with the Wiki criminal charge of COI :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

FARs 2

Well, the page rapidly jumped back above 35 as of yesterday, after being below 30 not long ago. I think we have a good chance of five or six more saves by the end of the month. Mariah Carey and Privilege of Peerage both have keep comments. Edward Teller does as well, but there's still some uncited material. Sociocultural evolution is an orphan at the bottom but is clearly in remove territory.

In other notes, I checked again and currently 233 of 309, or 75%, of removals have come from the list since June last year. That's down from 82% earlier this year but still a remarkably large number of removals are coming from that ever shrinking group, which is good. Twelve of the fifteen in FARC right now are from the list—four-fifths from just 12% of the overall.

Do you know what our oldest FA is? I believe it may be Anno Domini, which was added to the first iteration of the page six years ago. (By Larry Sanger, of course—he was quite busy in December 2001, starting NPOV in the same month.) Marskell (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And Prisoner's dilemma. Marskell (talk) 07:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll check through that list more closely later, but I see ASCII is still there. Checking closer, it had a FAR, and its talk page was deleted and its articlehistory is redlinkged <grrr ... > ... note to Gimme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the FAR link, and moved the pseudo-FAR RBP page to match the current article title. Looks like a RBP with a page move is one case ArticleHistory can't handle, as it looks for a FAC (but not a RBP) to find the old FAC page. Pagrashtak 15:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Pagrashtak! (Gosh, I can't type lately.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'd suggest changing ArticleHistory to trigger the error category if the FAC page is red linked. This should be possible with the #ifexist parser function. Pagrashtak 15:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Feature Historian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

From first iteration, to check for oldest FA:

• Current FAR
  • Anno Domini
• NO FAR
  • Comet
  • Prisoner's dilemma
  • Rudyard Kipling
• Passed FAR
  • ASCII Passed FAR December 2005
  • Greek Mythology Passed FAR November 2006
  • Punk rock Passed FAR January 2007
  • Byzantine Empire Passed FAR July 2007

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool Sandy. I wasn't expecting you to manually go through everything prior RBP! Just curious. Those that have passed FAR this year can expect to remain an FA for quite a while. Marskell (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really, manually go through all of them; I popped the list into Excel, alphabeticized it, compared it to the category of WP:FFA to remove a lot of them, and only had to go through about 50 of them. I was curious, too :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Cillian Murphy

There are extenuating circumstances - the fair use images. How anybody approced this thing with those FU images without any critical commentary is beyong me. There is currently an edit war, which makes it not stable. How do I find the FA discussion, anyway? Corvus cornix_talk 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you consider there are extenuating circumstances, the process for handling that is to discuss it at the talk page of FAR. Please do not continue disrupting WP:FAR; there is very long-standing precedent in this area, and I can assure the article is not likely to come to FAR unless you make a very good case at the FAR talk page, and stop edit warring. FAR does not second guess FAc, and is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I took it to WP:FUR, but don't expect this to be over. The fair use images have to come off the article, or there is no need for fair use rationales for anything, since any screenshot can be used for any actor article, based on the claims for fair use in this article. Corvus cornix_talk 22:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to disrupt FAR, by an stretch of the imagination. I made a nomination, you removed it because it wasn't in the proper format, I followed the instructions to put it in the proper format and you removed it again saying it hadn't been long enough since the original discussion. So I've stopped using the FAR process. I don't generally follow that process, and the only reason I even know that the article is considered a featured article because of a mention on a Talk page. It floored me that an article with such an egregious problem of copyright violation had been made an FA, and so I though I would address it at what I thought was the proper forum. I've gone to the FAR talk page as you have suggested, and as I said, I've gone to FUR. Corvus cornix_talk 23:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Melty girl isn't interested in working anything out. But you're out of the process now, so I'll just have to use other channels. Corvus cornix_talk 23:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I though your comments to me were rather brusque, and I was trying to follow the rules. Corvus cornix_talk 23:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The first time you removed the nomination, you had not told me anything yet. I only knew that it had been done because I looked at my contributions and saw that my edit to the page was not the last one, so I went to see what somebody had said, and saw that you had archived the discussion with a cryptic edit summary about not following procedure. So I went back to the nomination page and saw some instructions about putting a template on the article Talk page and then clicking on a link to create the nomination page, so I did that, and then, only after I had done what I thought was the correct process the second time, did you tell me that there was a rule about having to wait. Corvus cornix_talk 23:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, this looks like a big miscommunication. The first time you archived it, I thought you were being overbureaucratic because I hadn't put everything into the exact proper format, I had no idea that there was a policy problem, and I was trying to do my best to fix what I thought was a bad format. I didn't think there was anything I needed to talk to you about. Corvus cornix_talk 00:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary, the only thing I had to go on the first time, said moved to archive, please read instructions at WP:FAR. Corvus cornix_talk 00:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That will work. Thanks. Corvus cornix_talk 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there seems to be a major revolution going on concering fair use images that is only being addressed by about five people. I'm going to mention it at the Village Pump. Corvus cornix_talk 00:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Remind me in a week or so, hopefully this will have died down then and sense will be restored. Corvus cornix_talk 00:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What is going on? This morning, Corvus cornix removed two FU images from Cillian Murphy for supposedly violating fair use and I reverted once with this message: "this is fair use critical commentary; both performances are discussed by critics in this article; the images have not undergone official review and ongoing discussion has no consensus for removal". Whatever Corvus may say, the two roles pictured are discussed by critics in the article (The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Village Voice and The New Yorker are quoted) as per "critical commentary", and the discussion is ongoing at Non-free talk and the review of a third image. I have participated in good faith in all of the above (there is no consensus as of yet). Why am I being accused of being a problem for this? Also, the images were ratified at FAC three weeks ago. Why would there be an FAR over three fair use images? What has happened while I was away from the computer? This is all very confusing. Thanks, Melty girl (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Melty girl. It's no longer at FAR, so don't worry about that; you can see all of the discussion on Corvus's talk page. As to the Fair Use issues, FAC is notoriously lax at reviewing for Fair Use, and Fair Use issues are getting tighter all the time, so the fact that it just passed FAC doesn't mean a lot with respect to Fair use. Fair Use is a big deal on Wiki, I don't fully understand it, but I recommend you let those who do understand sort it out, and not become alarmed in the meantime. Every one should just calm down and see what comes out of the image people. Copyright matters are important to the foundation, and there's not much the rest of us can do about that. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The fair use stuff is confusing. More confusing: for some reason, people take the clause about "critical commentary" to mean that only film, TV show and fictional character articles can contain fair use screenshots, when it doesn't actually say that. There are oodles of fictional character articles without any critical commentary where these editors don't remove the images, even while saying that discussion of those fictional characters and the performances behind them at actor articles somehow isn't critical commentary. It's very odd. But anyway, I agree with you about letting the process play itself out. Yet Corvus says I'm intransigent for wanting for the processes underway to be resolved before removing images from the article. Ay ay ay. --Melty girl (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. The images were not even brought up during that FAC discussion, so I wouldn't considered it "ratified". I would have questioned them. There is precedent for screencaps of actors "in character", but this generally means the character is clear in the image. Typically this means unusual costume or makeup. Characters in regular street clothes don't add much to an article on the actor. For comparison, the Angelina Jolie FA doesn't have any fair-use images, although at least a couple characters could probably be justified. Gimmetrow 03:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't you call full drag unusual costume and makeup? --Melty girl (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but it doesn't look very unusual in that picture. Let's just let the image specialists sort it out. Gimmetrow 03:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You know, on second thought, I'm not sure your "street clothes" argument really makes sense. The fair use rules talk about critical commentary, not "street clothes". If a role is crucial to an actor's career, and there's critical commentary in the article and the image is well chosen, I don't think costume really comes into it. And the Red Eye photo, if that's the one you're talking about, shows a moment of intense villainy that I don't think you'd find the real Cillian Murphy engaging in, and it relates to the text about his performance in this role. Furthermore, even if you did use your argument, it would fall down, albeit in a way that shows the fallacy of the argument: Cillian Murphy doesn't dress like the Red Eye character on the street--even though many men do wear suits, he doesn't--and he has never worn his hair like that on the street or for any other role. But isn't that a silly argument to get into? I think you have to stick to illustrating the text in the article, whatever the character dresses like. About Angelina Jolie, I think it would definitely benefit from a few key character shots. --Melty girl (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is that I can't tell from the Red Eye photo what's notable about what the actor did in that film. Please note I said "Typically this means unusual costume or makeup." If it's a particularly crucial scene, and the scene is described in a way that I can see why it's crucial, that works too. Like a stunt in an action film. Gimmetrow 03:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Visuals are open to interpretation. To me, Murphy looks nothing like himself, remarkably transformed in the Breakfast on Pluto drag queen shot, and it tells you a lot about the role to see him as the character, which is discussed amply in the text, but you feel the photo just isn't that unusual. To me, you see an intense moment of coercion and violence in the Red Eye shot -- there's a reason the photo is the most famous one from the movie -- and the intensity of his performance as a villain is discussed in the text but to you, the specific scene itself must be described. Parsing all this stuff all over WP in the last couple of days has seemed very weird. Sometimes it just seems to go down wormholes over overinterpretation, or worse, ignoring the text of the article, rationales and FU rules. There's critical commentary in the text, and the photos show the actor, who is a visual artist, in action, yet people try to say that the article only says "he's in the movie" and they say that a drag photo of him merely depicts him as a person and is therefore replaceable. Strange.

There's just one thing I want to say to the two of you, Sandy and Gimme, before wrapping up this discussion, because you're such respected and dedicated editors, and I have your ear at the moment. I think sometimes everyone here gets lost in policy and forgets the bigger picture... We're writing an encyclopedia. One of the articles is about a well-known actor (Cillian Murphy, Angelina Jolie, whoever). The article discusses in depth the actor's most famous, most acclaimed role to date, and the movie is realist, so the actor basically looks as s/he did at that time in her/his life. Regardless of copyright for the moment, isn't it crucial to our encyclopedia's aim to be comprehensive and informative to include a well-chosen screenshot from that film of the character? I think so. Do images of visual art enhance encyclopedia articles about them? Of course they do. Sometimes I can't believe that this question has to be asked! (Some people almost seem against all images, as if text is somehow purer.) Now, back to policy, do fair use rules support use of that image? Currently, yes, when they relate to critical commentary, and no free images of them in that movie can possibly exist. Anyway, just wanted to say that, because sometimes, in the midst of all the policy scrutiny, I think we forget what our purpose is here. An encyclopedia without images of visual art is just not as effective or complete. Anyway, Sandy and Gimme, thanks for reading. I'll return to the other ongoing forums about this now. --Melty girl (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have stuck my head in the sand for a long time over Fair Use, and I only use free images on articles I edit. In fact, I'm so afraid to deal with the copyright issues that I have never uploaded an image. What I want is for the image folk to either 1) write someone we can all understand, or 2) get involved at FAC and FAR so we don't have these kinds of surprises three weeks post-FAC. Murphy (and articles with similar concerns) should never have to come to FAR in a dispute, because that's not the venue for resolving this. Other than that, the rest of it, IMO, is for the darn lawyers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:5P. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is free content. These two pillars are in some opposition, and various editors fall in different places trying to balance them. The overall balance seems more to the free content side, though. For instance, although there is some argument still, album covers can pretty much not be used in discography pages, nor in articles on the artist, without specific discussion of the cover art. Understanding WP's fair use policy can be frustrating, and if you want to avoid the frustration, try to use PD and commons images. If you get an image from flickr, make sure the license is compatible with WP. Good luck. Gimmetrow 04:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, darn lawyers indeed! Gimme, wise words about the two conflicting pillars. And yes, I did obtain that Flickr image of Murphy at a premiere, and got all the official assistance to get it licensed properly, etc., so I've been down that road too. But you can't get free images to be part of your discussion of fictional portrayals. Thanks for your comments, Melty girl (talk) 04:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Buttons

Sandy, you may notice some new links in the toolbox when editing. Someone is running a script which overlinks dates. Gimmetrow 03:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two new buttons. They work separately; you have to click on each. The format fixer was grabbed from part of the AndyZ's review script; it just removes some spaces. The date delinker works for the most part, though it will miss some things. Gimmetrow 03:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Still playing. I've split the part which is a subset of AndyZ's PR script into User:Gimmetrow/MOS.js; no need to duplicate it for people with both. Is there anything in the MOS regarding links like January 2005? Date prefs don't seem to switch this to 2005 January, so it should be only a context issue. Gimmetrow 23:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, nowhere does MOS suggest linking month-year combos. It only mentions month-day because of user preferences: "Full dates, and days and months, are normally autoformatted, by inserting double square-brackets, as for linking." WP:MOSDATE. Also, WP:MOSLINK#Dates and numbers and WP:OVERLINK#Dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Cop

Going over your edit history, I've realized you truly are a wiki cop, in the good sense. You know, someone who does all the dirty job for the rest of us... ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's a good thing <smile>, but thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

¿Por qué no te callas?

No, that's not a foreign-language personal attack.

Will do, no problem—I'll see if I can get to it tonight. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

So, I've watched the segment and, from what I can make out (European Portuguese—like asking a New Yorker to watch Full Frontal and get the jokes) there's not enough to cite the second half of the sentence. Apparently, Quintela says that the show "annoys so many people" that the station didn't want them airing that week, "however, we're back, because no one can shut us up" (nós voltamos, porque a nós ninguém nos cala). What I just did alone is crossing the OR line, and the video is of course a primary source. I'd remove "a reference to [...]"—too problematic, while probably accurate—and use the video on RTP's website to source the remainder of the statement, but it would then be pretty much meaningless. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's no news source that mentions the whole thing, maybe it's better just deleted. Since you know the keywords to search on, did you try news.google.com? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Nothing on them since early February. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

gosh, then I feel awful that you had the watch the whole thing. I'm going to ask others on that page if they agree we should delete it then; we don't need a WP:TRIVIA section of every time someone says "Why don't you shut up" on TV, and everything else in the article is sourced to a news outlet, making the other mentions notable. Thank you so much for doing that :-) and now, back to my turkey, guests due any minute Happy day! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel awful, it was hilarious (the parts I could understand anyway :) Sorry I couldn't be of more help, and happy day yourself—I hope you and yours have plenty to be thankful for. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Unsure what you mean by "double punctuation". Tony (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I slept through grammar classes too, because they comprised traditional word parsing within narrowly idealised sentences (John kicked the ball), and I sensed that it helped my writing zilch. The double question mark issue is difficult. Two in a row looks strange, and I'd be inclined to reword so that the item is not at the end of the sentence.

On another issue, there appears to be a culture of ownership at the Naming conventions MOS/policy page, in which the owners are resisting even the most obvious copy-edits and regard my insertion of the copyedit tag as "holding the page hostage". I don't mind not having the tag, but when people want to retain:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

rather than my change to "prefer what most readers would most easily ...", a certain bloody-mindedness starts to show. All I get is "Disagree", "straw-man argument".

And guess who's weighed in now: our old friend Anderson. See also the bottom of talk. Tony (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 3

I've gone through the plot section and cleaned up and clarified a bit of the story. However, I think it should boil down to whether you, as someone who hasn't played Halo, can understand it (keeping in mind that the game springboards off Halo 2's plot, and unless we threw in a "Previously, on Halo" paragraph we couldn't sit there and introduce every character and situation). David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

David, when these kids told me the article was off, and complained about Wikipedia, I explained to them that it wasn't featured, showed them Halo 2 which was featured; they said Halo 2 was great, but that Halo 3 completely misses the essence of Halo. Whatever that means. I can't say more because it's Greek to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, I won't worry about it. I was just wondering if they had concrete actionable suggestions. I play Halo, and I have no idea what they're saying. :P David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If I can get some specifics, I'll get back to you ... but I'll just be passing along the info, so don't shoot! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the comments (there are ten levels, but one is just a intro cinematic, so at Talk:Halo 3 we decided to ignore it.) David Fuchs ^(talk) 16:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

CITE/CITES

So have you proposed a merger? Would there be resistance to copy-editing? Tony (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it's such a wreck I threw up my hands and buried my head in the sand. I hate working on guideline/policy pages. I don't think there would be resistance, but on the other hand, the way PMA pops up wherever you go, I guess there could be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Explanation please..

Please explain why you deleted Tony Belcastro from the list of people with high-functioning autism? How much verification do you need? Letters from his doctor? His social security records? Is he any less worthy of anyone else on that list? Are you questioning his diagnosis? If so, please explain.. I am sure his doctors would love to hear it. Indichik

yes I'm

...busy working on the d-thing. Am investigating using Perl or Python to extract the tons of data I have... ..If you'd read User:Ling.Nut/V-challenged, I'd be sincerely grateful. Feel free to edit. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Year links -v- Piped year links

I noticed earlier that an editor (Lightmouse) removed various [[1601 in literature|1601]] links from the Hamlet article: diff here. I asked why on their talk page and was given a very strange reply. Can you take a quick look (as you're much more familiar with policy and so forth than I am) and let me know what you think please? It seems very close to disruptive editing to me. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Lighthouse is making the generic argument about piped and Easter egg links; since most editors don't know if the year link is to a generic year article that says nothing about Hamlet, or to an article that actually says something relevant to Hamlet, they probably won't click on it anyway. My personal preference/opinion is that year links are almost never useful; if one of the "year in literature" articles gives specific and useful context for that year, needed to understand the context of Hamlet, perhaps that can be worked into the text in a way that readers are more likely to know it's a useful link. Some people believe in these piped links (for example on baseball articles), but I rarely find them useful. Lighthouse is saying, also, that people aren't likely to click on them, and I suspect that's probably true as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sandy. I've never used them myself, and probably never will, but it seems odd actively removing them though. Ah, well, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard notification

I am notifying all interested parties that I have listed the articles Anti-stuttering devices and Stuttering at the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard, as well as Tdkehoe's conflict of interest in editing these. Please participate in the process there. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• PS Thank you for making the seriousness of this case clearer at COI/N - I was trying to keep it brief and seem to have omitted too much. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Cats

Is there a written policy that categories should be in any sort of order? I know alpha is preferred though. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I came across something about that eons ago, when I was new to Wiki, but it disappeared into the bowels of Wiki, and I've never been able to locate it again. In other words, I'm not sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Radiohead

Hi, I've put the Radiohead article up for a peer review, and would welcome your opinions on it. Thanks. Atlantik (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

facts

DEar Sandy,

I recently edited porque no que callas, because it is full of factual errors. I just corrected one. explicitly the King rebuke to chavez DID not win him the aplause of the general audience. What happend is the pes Zapatero kept speaking. no one applauded. Please keep the fact strait. Bejamin Munoz UIUC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.13.174 (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Email

I just sent you an important email. Raul654 (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Going to look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a problem with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/archiving. Since it's linked from {{fac}}, it's no longer around when it's needed ;) Gimmetrow 07:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was one of my more brilliant moments. Can we hope they read it before the FAC closed? (No.) How about if we see how it goes, and if it continues to be a problem, we'll have to ask Raul if he considers it worthwhile to link it to the main FA template? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I added them to {{FAC-instructions}}; do you think that will do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Delegation Raul654 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

More FARs

Hello, I see a few more FAs which are not FA standard and I created FARs for them. But I did not put the FARs on the main FAR page or do the notifying because Macintosh is still on FAR and Premier League is on FARC. When can I put the new FARs on the main FAR page? After Macintosh moves to FARC or after Macintosh and Premier League finish FARC? I think I can try to shephard three FARs at one time. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

When the FAR page gets up around three dozen, it becomes hard for reviewers to give quality attention to each article. It's at 37 now, and I see Marskell added a backlog template. Another thing to consider is the topic area of the article, so you don't overextend the same group of editors who might want to restore the articles. If there are other noms in the same topic area, it's better to hold off. I have run three at a time at times when FAR was very slow (under 28 or so) and when the articles were in different topic areas, not already present at FAR, and after I had given prior notification on those article talk pages. I suggest waiting until the other two are well into FARC to see if there are attempts at improving them, in which case you may have to do more "shepharding". Have you left a list on the article's talk pages, detailing issues that should be addressed, to see if editors will begin the work without a FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

	<font=3> Thanks for your comments and support - Presque Isle State Park made featured article today! Take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi Sandy. Thanks for checking over the article and the support. I was fortunate to have fussy and demanding partners, Awadewit and Qp10qp, on the content part. And it was watching the comments from you and others on FAR that taught me about the MoS. Hopefully, I will be back again with another article. --RelHistBuff (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Accolade

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For excellent Copy- editing KnowledgeHegemony 17:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Good news

For me at least. Hi Sandy,

I and others, have managed to get Hepatitis B virus up to GA status and I am waiting now for someone to pick Rotavirus from the list. Thanks for all your help, guidance and understanding. GrahamColm^Talk 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Graham, good luck; I can't offer to help, because I don't do GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dear Sandy, you have already done more than enough, I will keep you posted: (as we say in England) :-) GrahamColm^Talk 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Query about Yomangani

I just wanted to know the reason why Yomangani left the wikipedia. Was there some kind of dispute or so? I was following his archives, but couldn't find any reason. Perhaps you know it, so I am asking you. DSachan (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have my ideas, only my personal hunches, no confirmation. Whatever, it's just sad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

He said he didn't like the arguing, etc. Who can blame him? qp10qp (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hugh Blair

We don't seem to have an article on him. We have one on Uta Frith, who co-authored a book on him. I daresay that the reason we haven't got an article is that to write it, one would need to read that particular, single book on him. That page is a bit dreadful, isn't it? qp10qp (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the criterion was fame (most famous literary writer in New Zealand after Mansfield) and speculation about possible autism (in this case, in a medical journal), in which case, Frame would qualify. Anyhow, I'm not bothered. What's one name, more or less? It's true, I suppose, that Frame is little known outside new Zealand and the literary community, though she was touted for the Nobel prize. Her prose is startlingly good: she was no normal novelist. Perhaps leaving her off the list shows her more respect. :) qp10qp (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Preuss School Edits

Hey. Not sure if you watched the talk page or not, so in case you didn't I figured I would drop in to thank you for your help with MOS in regards to The Preuss School UCSD. It was pretty through and very good work. I should be able to get it done soon. At that point, I will probably ask you to look at it again. At any rates, thanks a lot. SorryGuy 07:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem; please do ping me when it's ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

WPCITE Mozilla add-on generates footnote reference code

We have created a Firefox add-on that automatically generates footnote reference code for whatever web page you are looking at. All you have to do is right click on the web page and select WPCITE. This can save a lot of time when citing sources. The add-on, wpcite.xpi, is now available for download from Mozdev. SandyGeorgia, I hereby dedicate this tool to you, for all the great work you have done. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

oh my gosh, that is amazing!! We have something similar for PMID references in medical articles (Diberri's tool) and I've always wanted something for general refs. I look forward to trying it out and will get back to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

uh, oh, Firefox? Mozilla? I only speak IE? techno-dummie here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, very interesting. May I? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm dying to see a sample. I 'spose one day I'm going to have to bite the bullet, get new computers, and get Foxified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[9] → two clicks →

<ref>

{{cite web

|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/health/27docs.html

|title=Dr. Michael E. DeBakey and Dr. Denton A. Cooley - Heart Surgeons - New York Times

|publisher=www.nytimes.com

|accessdate=2007-11-27

|last=

|first=

}}

</ref>

:) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

• Cite news, not cite web
• Missed the author
• Missed the date of publication
• Added NYT to the title, when it doesn't belong there
• May have missed the title, too, was it published under "The Feud"?

More work needed :-) I would have to manually clean that footnote :-) Can you run a few more, for example, on a press release to see if they generate cite press release ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course you'd have to manually clean that footnote. But this is an automated (semi-automated...) filler. This is already a major improvement, although I (personally) don't even use Wouterstomp's bookmarklet for Diberri's tool (which I think can also generate cite web). I believe it will only generate {{cite web}}, but you'll want to direct such questions at the gentleman who started the section :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a little more than just cleaning. I don't mean to sound rude, but if I were using it on that page, I'd have to replace the title and publisher, add last, first, and date, and switch Cite web to Cite news. As it stands, the only fields populated without the need for manual addition or cleaning are url and accessdate—the two simplest fields. Now, if someone were to create an extension that knew where to find the title, author, and date for a number of highly-used reference sites, as I mentioned below, that would be a real timesaver. Pagrashtak 20:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem would be that most people wouldn't manually complete the citation, and would think they had a working citation. But on a newspaper article, if you don't have the correct article title, publication date, and author, you don't have the basics you need to find that article in a library. The only typing this would save me is the accessdate. I'm not sure it's possible for a script to pull out author and pub. date of websites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in here—I use Firefox and this sounds interesting. It looks like this extension uses the contents of the title bar for the title, which is almost never what I need. Is there the possibility of adding site-specific code to determine the correct title and possibly even the author and date for some highly-used sites such as nytimes? Also, it would be nice if the publisher was The New York Times instead of www.nytimes.com, which would also need to be site-specific coding as far as I can tell. Pagrashtak 19:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How does it automatically tell who the author is? By getting it out of some hidden HTML field? Raul654 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Swedish language

I noticed your reply to me in Wikipedia talk:Featured articles and your comments in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources and was wondering if you could take a look at the Swedish language article. I have been working on the references for the article, and pointed out in the talk page that the article needs more references and general reference fixing. There is another editor, User:Peter Isotalo, who has been generally opposed to changes to the article, as can be seen in the talk page, partly because it is a Featured Article. So it would be helpful if you could intervene and let me know if my comments are off-base or not. Thanks! –panda (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind just checking if my comments about how referencing should be done are relevant (in the talk page)? User:Peter Isotalo is a Swedish editor and AFAIK the Swedish reference system is different from the English versions. So I just wanted to double check that my comments aren't off-base with someone who is familiar with English reference systems. If you know of a a forum in WP where I could ask for another editor about referencing, that would also be helpful. –panda (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi SandyGeorgia. I don't think you remember me. But you really helped me a lot during the FAC nomination for Ahmedabad. I remember that you were really good at checking the references. I have nominated Satellite Instructional Television Experiment for FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Satellite Instructional Television Experiment. The article is a short one and has only 20 refs. But I now have 2 oppose votes saying that the number of refs are not enough (only 1 ref/paragraph, etc.) My view is that counting just the number of references is not a good way to judge an article. My primary source for the article has been a 60-70 page UN report on the experiment. There are not many sources on the internet and elsewhere for the topic. The experiment was conducted back in 1975 when there wasn't even TV in India and hence the lack of refs. But the UN report is really good and comprehensive. I feel that the article is comprehensive and adequately referenced. Can you take a look at the article and make any suggestions? Thanks a lot for your time. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC

The only potential danger I see would be if you allowed yourself to overidentify with the process—or, more precisely, allowed others to overidentify you with the process and therefore hold you to blame for its faults. Oddly, one way to avoid this might be just to accept FAC's faults and get along with them, as Raul does. Everyone knows that substandard articles are regularly passed, and I know you've sometimes complained about that yourself. But I suspect, and I think Raul has worked this out, that this is a lesser evil than becoming too rigorous. The latter would tend to put editors off from bothering to improve articles, which is the last thing we want. So what I'm getting at is that I think you would need to decisively shift your role from reviewer to closer; for example, I know you are a stickler for good refs but if a review has a majority of supports despite dodgy refs, maybe it will be wiser to hold your nose and wave it through. It's the same for all the criteria, really, because, actually, few successful candidates meet all the criteria, if we're being honest. Raul is a smooth operator, in this respect. Very cleverly, he avoids saying much about anything, unless really pushed. He lets people get on with arguing, without feeling the need to put his five pence worth, and thereby he avoids becoming the target. Even when people specifically petition him or ask him to explain himself, he remains fairly brief and emotionally uninvolved yet manages to be inoffensive. This is probably wise practice, and I expect you might have to adopt a portion of the same. Or people will turn you into the mother of the whole process and nag you to distraction: in that position, you could never win. Anyway, best of luck! qp10qp (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

GMTA; this is exactly what is dawning on me in the last 24 hours. It makes me sad, because I so enjoy helping bring a troubled article to standard or watching a brilliant article sail through FAC, and I take such pleasure in the ones that really turn out finely polished, but I completely agree with your observation. Right above you, a request for help; I so enjoy doing that, can hardly resist digging in, but I'll have to shift roles. It's scary how well you analyze me, and I agree with how well Raul has managed that tightrope. Thanks :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, working on articles is the best thing on Wikipedia, of course; but look at it this way, this will give you more opportunity to work on articles away from the FA process. It's just as rewarding (and beneficial for the encyclopedia) to simply create a good article for its own sake.

Also, you can still show an interest in FA-writing editors and oil the wheels. I noticed Raul doing that with Amandajm, for example (and I've seen you do it). I think he saw her potential for writing lots of FAs and acted to make sure she wouldn't be put off by the teething troubles she experienced with the FA process. qp10qp (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll make the transition, but it's abrupt; only two days since Raul proposed it to me. It's uncanny how well you laid out the roadmap for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Take your time. Raul654 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The best thing is I can count on some truly extraordinary Wikifriends who are honest, have the best scruples and intent, keep me on track, and won't let me mess up :-) I'll get there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the FA-closing job/role. A difficult path lies ahead but you will be able to overcome any difficulties. I know I have not been very active recently on Wikipedia but do not hesitate to contact me via email if you need any help. Joelito (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mumia

Sorry to intrude on your and Raul's well-deserved positions but we have to show this user that all his edits will be reversed or he will never stop. The article is improving steadily and once I've cleaned the final three sections, I think it may well be FA standard and a suitable candidate, if nominated by an established user. DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, advise

Since you have helped the Jayne Mansfield article to become what it is today, I'd like to draw your attention to another article split off from the main one - Jayne Mansfield in popular culture. It has been nominated for deletion a second time here, and the supports so far are three way - "Delete", "Keep" and "Merge" - with a few comments thrown in (mostly by the nominator and I). Would you take a look at the debate and the article? Even if you stay away from voicing your view on the debate page, you can advise me on my talk page (may be lend a hand, too). I hope I am not canvassing :P. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Honored by the Puerto Rican Senate

Dear Sandy,

I would like to share with you that today, November 28, 2007, I was honored by the Senate of Puerto Rico with the "Resolution of the Senate Number 3603" in appreciation for my work in Wikipedia regarding Puerto Rican military related articles. I was given the resolution on behalf of the Senate by the President of the Puerto Rican Senate, the honorable Kenneth McClintock. It was a total surprise which I did not expect and that is why I want to share this news with you are my friend. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Sandy, thank you for the knid words. I don't know if the recognition makes me notable or not, but I was totally surprised that the government of Puerto Rico bestowed upon me the highest recognition that can be bestowed upon a civilian.

I didn't expect it. I recieved an e-mail from the Senate informing me that Senator McClintock was going to be in Phoenix and that he wanted to meet me. I thought that it was a casual meeting and I went by myself. When I arrived at the hotel there was a convention of Congressman and I was greeted by numerous people who to my surprise knew about me. I was taken to a special room set aside for the event and was introduced to various senators and people representing the different political parties of Puerto Rico. Then Senator McClintock arrived we hugged and shock hands and suddenly I was presented with the high honor. I could not believe it and I even said "Are you sure you're talking about me?". Then the camaras started flashing.

They kept it a total secret and wanted to surprise me, that is why it isn't on any link yet, since it was yesterday. I wish that I would have known, I would have taken my family. Anyway, they all took a vote and agreed to invite me to Puerto Rico this coming Memorial Day (expenses paid) and McClintock told ne that I will be part of a "Think Tank" that he will create.

Finally, I was introduced to various U.S. Congressman and so on. What a day! You can imagine how happy my fanmily was when I returned home with the resolution. Well Sandy, here I am taking up your space and sharing my adventure. Take care, Tony the Marine (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hola Sandy.. I need some help with this article please, needs some expansion on the current crisis.. and more from the other side of the story.. Colombia-Venezuela relations, Saludos.--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 09:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the story really well, F3; I've stopped following the situation closely as it's so hopeless, but I'll pop over there later today or tomorrow and see what I can add. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Isn't it hard to be depressed when you're looking at a little baby? Anybody's baby!

Thank you, Sandy. I'm honestly touched that you noticed. I had that Pound poem up about dying of alcohol for a few days—a kind of dark humour for myself. Dark humour has its uses, but it seemed stupid when I woke up this morning, so I replaced with a (still gloomy) poem from Leonard Cohen. Where would I be without the poets? Gosh, I'd have traded in my chips long ago. And where would any of us be without flowers? No life without flowers! With love, Marskell (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The poetry might not work for you, but the flowers obviously do. I have my "analytical, synthesizing" side, as you'll have noticed. My first instinct in talks of this sort, is always toward armchair evolutionary psychology. Why do we all like flowers? (We don't actually eat them, generally, so it doesn't make sense.) Why does a picture of little babies—not just your baby, but anybody's baby!—cheer everbody up :)? I spent part of my day looking at pictures of my little nephew. That made it hard to be depressed.

Time, yes. That it heals all is a stupid idea (we all die wounded, in one way or another) but only time offers any real healing. I just wish it would stop passing so quickly. Marskell (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My father died because of my father. In that sense, there's no bitterness directed anywhere else, which is perhaps different from where you're sitting, or have sat. The bitterness, rather, is directed at him: he should have held my little nephew, but didn't live long enough to do so. He finished himself before he could become a grandfather. Ah. I (we) don't need to discuss this on-site. But I do thank you, Marskell (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC/FAQ

I was thinking of reframing it in questions.

1. Why is my discussion no longer listed on FAC?

   It was moved to featured log or archives.

3. A stupid bot judges my article? [10]

   No, it just carries out the details.

5. My article is at archives; what do I do?

   Nothing. Wait for the bot.

7. My article is at featured log; what do I do?

   Add the star and wait for the bot.

And oh yeah, this edit was annoying. Since the bot resolves redirects, the bot found a discussion that was supposed to have been closed back on Nov 18, and would have closed it again when processing a couple days ago. Gimmetrow —Preceding comment was added at 03:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What can we do about those? Did that person revert because s/he didn't understand it was closed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That discussion was closed with only one comment, an oppose, after 5 days. Editor probably didn't understand what the bot does and felt it must be a mistake. Relisted a couple hours after Raul had removed it. So far, not a problem, except for the NPA on the bot ;) Redirecting the /archive1 page was the problem, but it shouldn't happen often. Gimmetrow 04:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I just caught up on it; found out the same thing you just told me :-) Usually I catch those as they occur, but I had guests then and missed it that time. Since there was only one Oppose, and it's gone so many days again, I'm inclined towards leaving it alone at this point, but you know I'll usually keep a closer eye on situations like that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

And I noticed that my favorite bot was called "stupid"; even I don't insult Sinebot; I just say, "go away Sinebot" :) But I think this misunderstanding is best left alone, since it's gone for so many days now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Done. I have moved the comments to the article's talk page -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 04:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

re:Signpost, featured content

In the past what would happen was I would look at the page history for WP:FA and find the edit where Raul654 added the new FAs. I usually do this, but someone else doing it this week. But, there is no interaction between me and Raul to get the F&A done. It merely involves looking through the page history. And soon there will be a bot that gets most of the information together and I just proofread it. Does this answer all you r questions? The Placebo Effect 18:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats Sandy, I remember when you gave a very strict review for the article we were working on and feel you are the bset candidate for the job. On a related note, we made a brief mention of this on the latest Wikipedia Weekly Podcast at the end. The Placebo Effect 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Goings-on archival bot

Unfortunately, no one else volunteered to fulfill the request, which was archived. — TKD::Talk 18:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)