User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch32

Question

This - The Drapier's Letters, PR, AR, or Restart? Ottava Rima (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an ARchive. Gimmetrow 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note - the archiving didn't happen until a while afterwards, hence the question. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all explained in the {{fac}} template used to submit FAC nominations, particularly in the link to WP:FAC/ar. But Gimmetrow and I get asked the question several times a week :-) Raul has joked about making instructions blink so people will see them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't that, Sandy. It was that the bot didn't respond yet so I hadn't a clue what happened to it. It just vanished for a while into "when will the bot kick on" land. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hence the wording at WP:FAC/ar, "Some time later ... " Vauge, but the best we can do :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to note that FAC for The General in His Labryinth no longer has any "oppose" and that it now has 6 "supports". Ottava Rima (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New question - How long should I wait until resubmitting into an FA? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

When previous opposers agree that issues have been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The previous opposes were mostly vague, unwilling to provide specifics, and mostly reactionary in a personal manner, so I don't think that will be possible. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I sent an important email to your box. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll go read it now, but I can tell you before I even know what it says that I am not going to transact FAC business in private e-mail. Transparency, so please do not expect a response via e-mail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Read, acknowledged. Been around Wiki a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects and guidelines

Is there any current discussion going on wrt this issue? Dorftrottel (canvass) 08:39, April 15, 2008

No; it got so acrimonious that everyone backed off. I'll dig up some archive links for you later today. Geometry guy started a new WikiProject where discussion could/should happen, but I don't remember the name, and I'll find the old threads at WT:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The old discussion first began in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 95, here and here, continued through Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 96, and led to the creation of WP:MOSCO, which hasn't gotten traction beyond a few editors. The verbosity on all of these MoS pages is a huge deterrent; it can be very hard to sort through all of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, conversion from {{GA}} to {{ArticleHistory}} is done for now. Gimmetrow 17:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I've checked those archive links and see what you mean. I guess at some point sooner rather than later there will have to be another big debate about this. Maybe even including, egad, polls. Dorftrottel (complain) 22:49, April 16, 2008

Come on now

I'm all for a war on overlinking, but surely you don't oppose linking the first instance of a journal title? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But, that's not what I said, is it?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, thanks for your clarification here. I definitely agree that it's not necessary to link a source when it occurs multiple times (although I've probably done this, just not really thinking about it) and I am very much opposed to bots or editors going through adding these links in every instance. Apologies if it seemed like I was endorsing that -- I think you and I are very much on the same page here. --JayHenry (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem; funny thing, though, same thing happened twice today (people pouncing on, distorting and misinterpreting my words as that other fellow did), so I should be more careful about where I post, since I don't always have time to follow up. I thought I was pretty clearly answering the notion that Diberri's tool should be altered to link all citations, which would be overlinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If you should be more careful so should I. More likely it's just an inevitable consequence of threaded discussions. I was responding to the idea that highly reliable Academic Journals should be de facto "notable", and didn't even consider that it appeared I was also endorsing Diberri's tool always linking to these sources. Oops! All clear now, sorry about that. Definitely never, never, never intended to pounce or distort. --JayHenry (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, wasn't you at all; that other fellow, though, actually put a misquoted distortion of my post on his userpage (never encountered him before, can't remember his name). <shrug> Have three similar situations to deal with today; am thinking about just ignoring the other two :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:FAR Removed

Sorry, I didn't know about that rule. — Wackymacs (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Me, me, me

I'm only back temporarily, sadly. Horrible stuff going on IRL. --Dweller (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry Dweller; I will be thinking of you. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note on The Orange Box following it's failed FA

Following on from our brief discussion once The Orange Box failed it's FA, I've organised a peer review and contacted the original editors that reviewed the article. For your information the discussion can be found here. It is hoped that once this peer review is complete that the article will be resubmitted for consideration as a featured article. Many thanks for your time, advice and valuable input. --Gazimoff (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Portraits and inclination of eyes/heads

You remember I originally did the one-month summary on 3 April, back exactly a month? So the March summary still includes a change made on 3 April. I think this was the only change between 1–31 March and 3 March to 3 April, and didn't bother to re-do it. Here's the diff. Does it really matter? Problem is, I chose that image to illustrate that and another point together, so I'd have to ditch the image and start again. [1] Tony (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn it. OK, that will have to come out. But I can't work out how to get access to the text now that Sam has done this transclusion thing. Tony (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, still a mystery. I can't see what is between any curly brackets, except for things such as /January. That goes nowhere. I just don't get it. Tony (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing KD

Thanks Sandy. Good points. Colin°^Talk 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Polymath

I see your ever-widening areas of expertise now extend to Antarctic exploration. Check the edit summary. Yomangani^talk 00:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does; I developed my expertise while I was down there researching penguins and Rodney Marks (astrophysicist) It gets better; google "me". There's one in Russia and there's one with a myspace page ... Yikes, not very original on the name, nothing as good as Yo-mangani. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So Brianboulton may be a socketpuppet of Sandy's? Or was this text a collaboration on IRC? Gosh! –Outriggr § 01:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The collaboration was on an iceberg; yea, IRC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Little birdie

Eh? Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not guilty of anything, m'lady, & don't honestly know what this is about, but I am notoriously slow on the uptake so guess I'll figure it out - in 2011. Brianboulton (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Got it!!! South G. Is nothing secure? Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ty Cobb FAC

What did I do wrong? Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 00:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

MFC, it appears that it was a drive-by nomination, which means that you nominate it without any significant work and without the major contributor's permission. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I requested a peer review. I was going to request one, but I decided to let the FAC go, and take care of comments as they are given. It was however, 22 edits; not 5. Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that you did make some constructive edits to the article, but it was still over a period of only a couple hours. That is usually disliked in FAC. PR is a good idea, and when you take care of the issues in there, and make a bunch more good edits over a period of several days, it should be good for FAC. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I cleaned that article up about a year ago; a number of poorly formatted non-reliable sources have been added over the last few days, and WP:FAC suggestion to contact principle editors (Roswell native) weren't followed. It will take some time now to undo the damage done by introducing non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm...I just nommed J. R. Richard for FAC again. The web sources used meet the reliable sources policy and are used in almost every baseball article on Wikipedia. Anyway, back on topic... I have noticed MFC's FAC issues (in fact, I "reprimanded" him once for nominating/supporting articles that weren't FA quality). If he wants a mentor, I'll gladly fill that role. I'll see what he has to say. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 01:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a volunteer-driven-type "Wiki", user input data source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this before and I still think that some of these websites like Retrosheet, BaseballLibrary, Baseball-Reference and TheBaseballCube are authoritative sources that meet WP:RS. These websites may seem like a wiki, but given the amount of time spent and the amount of time proofreading, I think it's shot-on accurate. Furthermore, we're using this website to source numbers, rather than text (which is why the reliable source policy was created for in the place, I would think). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Cricinfo was volunteer-based at one point as well. It's used as much for cricket articles as Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference are used for baseball articles. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Ty Cobb and Lou Gehrig are using dubious websources to cite more than numbers; hopefully, you can mentor MFC to slow down, understand Wiki standards, and learn reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't already seen, Ealdgyth struck Baseball Library and Retrosheet as resolved; see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard. That should take care of any issues with those sites, although I'm not sure about the other sites mentioned there (or those used in the Cobb article, for that matter). Giants2008 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Musicals

Hi. I haven't stopped by in a while, so I thought I'd say hey. You'll be happy to know that the musicals project is making fairly steady progress now. A few random people have added some better plot summaries and background info to some of the major musicals, and a few of us are working on Hair (musical). With any luck, it will be headed your way in a month or two. Hope all is well! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Has the problem disappeared? By the way, I hope you all have learned to write citations correctly; repeatedly cleaning them up used to make me crazy :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thriller

I took your advise and went for a peer review, wasnt aware you couldn't have more than one at a time. Realist2 (talk) 02:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your advise i have already asked someone ;-) I would even appreciate for input on their articles. Ive resolved all issues on the michael jackson one so im really looking forward to getting more feedback there. Realist2 (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

J. R. Richard

Can people oppose FACs for a lack of images? I'm asking because there are no images of the subject at J. R. Richard. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 03:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen different discussions at FAC and FAR, all over the map. WP:WIAFA says:

It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

FCDW

The "oops" got lopped off when I adapted the point about the image non-compliance. It was lovely when a dual problem, but now, of course, the left–right issue can't be used, so it's down to the final period, which is a little trivial. I guess I could go back to the drawing board and choose another example; does the oops make it work again? The idea is that the image is non-compliant. Tony (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Emery

Thanks for putting Emery Molyneux through. I'm so pleased for User:Jacklee, who seems to be on a wikibreak at the moment. I'll nudge him to deal with the remaining comments, which I'm sure he will. qp10qp (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about images

In HMS Cardiff (D108) one of the images (the second sea dart one about wear and tear) overlaps the section header, distorting it. Is that allowed per WP:MOS#Images? I ask as I have been fiddling all day with the images for the A-Class review to try and get them to stack properly and fit in for all browsers and resolutions. I remember reading somewhere that this was discouraged though there is nothing explicit in WP:MOS#Images. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I'm getting is the first image, which sandwiches text between the image and the infobox. I can check later on my laptop. It's hard to keep up with the daily battles and changes at MoS, but I thought there was something about stacking? I will check other computer later, but I'm not seeing the problem, although I'd move the first image lower. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been fiddling with resolutions and browsers and it only occurs on high res screens, it is only on 1280 x 800 screens at the moment. See Image:Cardiff distort 3.jpg So, for the majority of people it shouldn't be an issue. I think we will just have a complete rejig of all images now, for once there is actually an excess of available images. Woody (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one: USS Comfort (AH-3). Due to the length of the infobox, it takes up 2/3 of the page. As such it would be hard to fit in images anywhere else. This goes against the "sandwiching" text in the MOS though. Do you consider the images on this to be acceptable? Woody (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Going now to look on my laptop screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

That is one killer infobox :-) And what's with all the name changes on that poor boat? Anyway, both of these articles now look good on my regular computer and my laptop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Woody, why is the quote in italics ? See WP:ITALICS and WP:MOS#Quotations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What quote in italics, are you sure you don't want to look again? ;)) Thanks on the images. I went down to 800x600 and your image move worked for me. Yep, the ship infobox can take a rather large number of fields now!!! Who would have thought that there was a superstition amongst mariners that it is bad-luck to change the name of a ship!! Thanks again. Woody (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Merciful release

I've requested at the FAR for Action potential that you all reach a consensus decision on the article by tomorrow night and vote the article up or down. I hope that wasn't overly forward of me. :P Either decision would be welcome to me, and I hope that our fellow editors will offer new ideas for improving the article. Willow (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

AAAT

Isn't an acronym. It's a speed rating, like a grade. Originally there were D, C, B, A and AA. then the speeds increased enough to add AAA on top of the AA. then the speeds increased enough that they added TOP AAA on top of the AAA, or AAAT. Then when the speeds increased again, they scraped the entire letter system and went with numbers that are based off the record times recorded on each race track over hte previous three years, (which calculation makes calculus look like child's play). I can type this all in the article if you REALLY want, or I can just watch you editing more and see you solved my problem. (grins) I hate slow hotel internet... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I fixed it; revert anything you don't like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It all worked. You can keep going if you like (grins) I know my strengths, and brilliant prose isn't one of them... nor is it MOS issuses. Do the formats on the refs look good? I don't think they have a cite template for a sire's get record (or record of his offspring) so that one was fun to figure out. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Haven't gotten to the refs yet. Linear thinker here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we'll go grab a sandwich. (grins) I already dropped a note on Elcobbola's page to double check on the fair use image. I think it's okay, but better to double check. Haven't lost any money yet! (of course, I haven't gambled either... been busy looking at absolutely gorgeous horses instead.) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good ! I saw a few minor prose issues that Casliber might be able to smooth out (I can't wordnerd anything),[2] and I'm not a fan of split Notes and References, but others are, so I think they're fine. Have fun over there !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Foal crops are a year's worth of foals (grins) I'll explain that in a bit. (Tuna salad, yum!) Ealdgyth - Talk 04:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

changed foal crops to "foals in 25 years of breeding" and muddy mess to "muddy quagmire". I just cut the Jet smooth stuff, I've never figured out a good way to work that in. It's odd that Merrick (who really bred a LOT of great racehorses) thought that JS was better looking that EJ, but ... it's nice but I can't figure out how to work it in. So it can go, as being not needed. I also put in "highest grade awarded" in the AAAT thing because lots of horses qualified AAAT, don't want to give the impression he was the only one to reach it. Those work? Ealdgyth - Talk 04:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, it looks like you have another candidate for taking on your pet article (yes, a year later, and I'm still trying to wriggle out of it). Yomangani^talk 00:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, brilliant (reaching for my tonic; what was I thinking? ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(squints at ya'll) What are you trying to trick me into? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well ... after Laika, I somehow got a promise out of Yomangani that he would FA Barbaro. Can't remember who owes what to whom or how the promise came about, but ... now you're on ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

ARGH! I don't do modern Thoroughbreds! (tries to wiggle out) I don't think I owe Yomangani anything.. what am I offered here? Anyway, we're off to Bellagio, to eat, shop, and gawk. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you bail Yomangani out, he's guaranteed to give you miles of smiles with his clever twist of a phrase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Quarter Horse/Thoroughbred, what's the difference? They all like a sugar lump. Yomangani^talk 12:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Guatemala/Mexico ... oh, never mind :-) Off to the dentist; Y, please whip MVLl into shape while I'm undergoing medieval torture! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Question (2)

First off, apologies for my bad attitude at WT:FAC, let's say I was a little annoyed when I seen the FAC had failed! ;)

Anyway, now that I've taken the 1995 Japanese Grand Prix to peer review, should I contact one or two editors located here to see if they wouldn't mind commenting on the article. D.M.N. (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

D.M.N., I recommend a multi-pronged approach. Contact and leave a link to the peer review at the relevant WikiProject, all editors who commented on the previous FAC, any editors who have featured articles on racing (check the article milestones on the article talk pages to find nominators of similar articles), and any one on the WP:PRV list who may be able to help. Give them a direct link to the PR, so they're more likely to weigh in. Good luck; this usually does the trick, and result in a clean FAC the next time through ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've asked several people who have got FA's on racing on their talkpages. I'll ask some people on the volunteering list tomorrow. Also, I've informed WP:F1 that they can indeed comment on their FAC's see, here. Feel free to comment on any of their points. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, D.M.N.; I replied there, since there still seems to be some misunderstanding about the FAC process. Hope that clears it up. Good luck with the PR! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd keep WT:F1 on your watchlist for the time being as you'll probably have to hop over to comment on other points from others in the next few hours. D.M.N. (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if 1995 Japan does get back to FAC in the future, I seriously doubt anyone from WP:F1 will support it even if they do leave comments at the PR which is a damn shame. Anyway, is there any essay's/guidelines on this subject. I might be up for creating one as it seems to be a "black hole" area... D.M.N. (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there isn't an essay, nor do I think there should be one. FAC is not a vote and how to sort out contributor and Project supports from other declarations is not a formula; each case is individual, depending on the article and the issues, and there's nothing that could be summarized into an essay that's not already in the WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. BTW, I followed your guidelines regarding the Peer review. ;) D.M.N. (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't enter declarations on FAC, I took a look at the article's progress. It will be critical to sort out the unresolved sourcing issues raised by Ealdgyth. There are easily spotted MoS errors (Epbr123 (talk · contribs) is good at that and may help), and I recommend you find and work closely with someone outside of the field who can help you smooth out the prose and give it a thorough copyedit. The article isn't yet FAC ready; there is generally always a reason when editors hesitate to Support, but I think you can bring this one over the hump by working with a new set of fresh eyes for several weeks. This is where it's helpful to build a network; if you help with someone else's article, they're often more willing to help with yours, and they can see things that you don't see, as you're close to the topic. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To do with the sourcing issues, Guroadrunner actually made a long comment at the FAC to show how the sources are reliable, but I don't think there were any comments off the back of that, as the FAC was closed. As for the article itself, one of the problems is how it appeals to the outside world, not just motor racing fans. Peanut4 (talk · contribs) has pointed several things out to me in the PR which has helped me improve the article from the comments he has raised. D.M.N. (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Peanut4 would be a good one to help with the prose, but I looked at it in the last few hours, and it still had rough patches. I've noticed often that editors "reply" to Ealdgyth's sourcing issues without "responding" to the concerns that need to be addressed with respect to the policy of WP:V. If Ealdgyth leaves something uncapped, it's not resolved. Pls do ask Epbr123 to do a MoS check, as he's usually fast and thorough, and you can learn some MoS basics from his edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

sometimes I'll leave something unstruck/unhidden when it's borderline and i'll leave it out so others can judge for themselves. I usually say so though, so that folks know I think it's borderline. (I'm a little frightened that I'm becoming the "RS" expert here... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I understand. ;)) D.M.N. (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks, and a heads up

Hi Sandy, sorry that we have caused you extra work at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black Moshannon State Park‎ and thank you for your fixes. I did not know about the interrupted thread template.

I also wanted to let you know that Carl is working on getting VeblenBot to archive peer reviews. When it does, it will check FAC and FLC every hour and automatically archive peer reviews that are also listed there. I think this will take a while before it kicks in, but wanted to let you know the problem is being worked on. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem; when I read through again, if she's changed to support, I need a sig there to keep it all straight, so it was easiest to add the sig now. I learned about {{interrupted}} from someone else on another long FAC. I'm glad peer review archival will happen automatically; I check every FAC talk page to make sure everything is in place so GimmeBot won't stall when he runs at closing. That will be one less thing for me to deal with ! Slowly but surely, all of the automated issues are getting easier and easier :-) All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :-)

Thank you so much for all the work you put into The General in His Labyrinth! We really would not have been able to reach FA status without you. I know it was annoying at times because we're such newbies but I hope it wasn't too frustrating. Thanks again! It's very much appreciated! I think we've learned a bit about MOS. Eshiu (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree more with Eshiu! Thank you very much! Carlaty (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of multiple sclerosis

Hi SG, Hope things are going well with you in life, the universe and everything! I have somehow got myself embroiled on the talkpage of this FA, specifically regarding a table of treatment studies results which various people, including myself, is/was inappropriate for reasons of WP:SYNT etc. Anyway, the most recent proposal has been to reinclude the table with a "warning" such as this [3], which I can't believe is appropriate in an article, but don't know if it is written down anywhere. I thought you might know, being an oracle of this sort of thing! --Slp1 (talk) 13:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Slp, how are you? Lots of issues there. First, it's hard to get involved with medicine articles because there are precious few medical editors who are knowledgeable and helpful and those few are stretched very thin. The Medicine Project runs hot and cold, and often you're left alone trying to sort something out that (amazingly) another WP Medicine editor comes along and mangles right after you put a lot of work into it. I've seen your name pop up at Medicine, but haven't had a chance to follow; have you gotten any help there ? Second, the MS article and articles have been in poor shape for a long time, and it's possible everyone else just gave up; there is a lot of problematic editing on those articles, and IIRC the same editors are introducing similar issues in other articles as well. Third, absolutely not, we don't include warnings like that, and the fact that someone feels that it's needed shows that there are serious problems with the article. I think we address this somewhere in WP:MEDMOS (the fact that we simply don't give medical info, and the Wiki disclaimer covers any medical disclaimer needed). Let me catch up with where you are vis-a-vis the Medicine Project, but since so few of them engage, I hesitate to wade in unless someone who knows the medicine is involved. The simplest answer are 1) if info is presented in a synthesized form that doesn't come from a reliable peer-reviewed article, it doesn't belong in the article, and 2) we don't put medical warnings on articles; we report what reliable sources say, and the general Wiki disclaimer covers it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, SG. You are right, not much reaction from Medicine and Pharm projects, in part probably because of some of the things you have been referring to. DrCash did drop by and said exactly what you (and I) also said. Don't feel obliged to get involved, I was really just wanting to clarify the medical warning thing: though it would be nice to have it written in stone somewhere. It is frustrating that those with the medical and pharma know-how don't have the time and energy to be involved with a FA, no less... but frankly I don't even see it as requiring that much insight into the subject itself: there are clear policy issues here.Slp1 (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My frustration with the Medicine Project on FAs runs long and deep (and encompasses my trip to ArbCom, where I've had to deal with the POV across the autism articles with the assistance of very few medical editors); you don't see me here, do you? As a layperson, there's only so much I can do; in this case, I can recognize a problematic article, but don't have the medical background to enter a reasoned oppose, and it's frustrating that so few of the docs weigh in. Yes, the policy issue of adding that warning should be addressed. I just don't have time anymore to follow the article closely, but if it sticks, pls ping me, as I will get involved. If need be, we should take this up at the talk page of WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Will let you know if need be.Slp1 (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Gracias

Understood, Sandy, and thanks! Still, I'm willing to accept a belated b-day present whenever it comes my way. :) María (habla conmigo) 17:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a tough call; during its stint at GAN I put him under the "Geography" category because it includes explorers. With the PR I did the same, thinking it would be similar, but of course FAs have to be more complicated, eh? "Culture and society" makes sense, so whatever you think is best. María (habla conmigo) 18:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Thanks for all that you do. María (habla conmigo) 23:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

MVLL edit

Is this what you're looking for? Mike Christie (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Bingo ! So someone needs to ask him the page no ... did you add the diff to the article talk page? Thanks (I was going diff by diff). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson sources

Yes regarding the sources, there was a lot of miscommunication, i might have got confused about something as english isnt my first language. The source checker placed the resolved issues tag up only for another editer to notice that some unreliable sources were indeed still inplace. It appears there was a source that had its template changed but the new, reliable URL was not added. That issue is long resolved, the editer who picked up on it seems to agree that all sources are now reliable. The source checker hasnt been around in a while and its quite important he or another source checker clarifies that all sources are indeed good. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 20:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The source checker (who is a she) is going to look over the sources again in a bit. After I get over the bad taste of horse show politics in my mouth. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no hurry; enjoy your vacation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That hope went south when horse show politics reared its head and bit a friend. (grins). Right now we're resting and the spousal unit is snoring during a nap. (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish someone would invent a spousal unit without a snoring machine (if you ever wonder why I'm on the computer in the middle of the night ... <sigh> ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Most everything is resolved, just a few niggles. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Which i have swiftly taken care of. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 23:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

All done. The page is off my watchlist! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob Chappuis FAC

You can close this one since it seems to not be getting support and its week is up. I am going to renominate Jack Kemp momentarily in its place.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 23:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony, FAC is not for cycling articles through like peer review; I've already done today's promoting/archiving, I don't know if I have any for tomorrow, and there is no such limit as "a week". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the heads up, I'll work on adapting it and working on an FLC version later this week. That's actually the first complaint about a closure (that I know about) that we've had in months, but it would be a good idea to have such a page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism sections

Hi Sandy, how's digs? Remember that pie crust recipe I sent you months back? I used it again this weekend to make a heavenly mixed-berry pie. It was awesome. All should worship this pie crust.

On a wikipedia-related matter, I was looking for the section in the MOS or GTL where it says criticisms sections aren't really a good idea, and should be better integrated in the appropriate section. Can't find it on MOS or MEDMOS! Has it been expunged recently? I figure if anyone'll know it's you. Am I mis-remembering? WLU (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, what you're thinking of is only an essay, at WP:Criticism. In terms of policy pages, the matter is dealt with beginning at Wikipedia:NPOV#Article structure and also at the guideline, WP:POVFORK. (Nobody's pie crust is as good as my mother's :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong, this pie crust is clearly superior in every way except being made by your mother (and if your mother knew about it, she would instantly admit it was superior). There's vodka involved. Vodka is Russian. Russia produced Tchaikovsky, Swan Lake, Stravinsky, Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov and the name Nikolai. The angry adolescents of classical music. Ergo, vodka pie crust > any other. Sorry, it's a fact. I don't make up these facts, I just report them. Ahem.

Thanks, those were the links and sections I was looking for. See, this is why I keep bothering you...

Ever your devoted fan, WLU (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting! I'm an advocate that quesillo (similar to what is known as flan in some countries and crème caramel in others) is unpassable without a healthy pinch of fine scotch (cuts the egg flavor, makes the final product smoother), but I've never heard of vodka in the pie crust! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Either you didn't read my recipe :( or the article that accompanied it wasn't free. The vodka gives it more liquid, making it easier to roll out, but does not interact with the gluten like water. Essentially it gives you extra moisture without turning the crust into a leathery mess. The alcohol all boils off during the baking and doesn't affect the flavour at all. The guys who published the recipe (America's Test Kitchen) keep a food scientist or two on staff for consultation. Apparently they baked 200 pie crusts until they got one that was good. I've also made a pork roast from their recipe that was so moist you'd think it was raw, but no dysentery, huzzah! If you're interested, I'll re-mail it to ya (after months of trying I finally figured out how to send out the free version). I avoid editing the ATK page 'cause I'd be accused of COI and NPOV within minutes. I'd gush, it'd be embarassing. Thanks again for the links to the wiki stuff, your expertise is always a huge source of envy :) WLU (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me butting in here — there's a section at Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure which gives some arguments against consolidating controversial matters into a single section. That would seem to argue against a "criticism" section as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Josiah (any good recipes? Seems that WLU is a cook :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, my cooking skills are fairly basic. I make a pretty good omelet, though... —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sticking my nose in where it doesn't need to be, but... any chance of getting that pie crust recipe? :-) - Philippe 00:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to dial WLU: anything beyond opening the box of cold cereal is over my head :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Except pie of course, because this is foolproof! Philippe, I've e-mailed you the link, let me know if it doesn't work. Josiah, I did find that WTA section already, but I'm glad to see someone else read it the same way as me. WLU (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, WLU! - Philippe 01:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Question 3

Hey Sandy!

The Preity Zinta peer review is quite inactive. Do you if I can close it somehow, or whom I have to turn to in order to do that? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I've finally learned how to do that (there are gobs of instructions at the top of that page, but it's in there); do you want me to close it for you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be great if you could. Perhaps it could be relisted for FA asap? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll close the PR now; but it doesnt' get officially closed/removed from the PR page until a bot runs (usually within the hour). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh great thanks! Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I already nominate it? Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the PR bot will remove it from the PR page soon enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The FAC has started, I'm so excited! :) Tell me please, what is FA-team? Is it a separate nomination? Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team is a new group of editors, working to help Projects increase FA production. It's not a nomination; they choose what they're going to get involved with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WOW that sounds impressive? Are they all experienced writers or so? And does it mean they will help with the Zinta article? Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Like most of Wiki, just about anyone can join; I'm not yet clear on what their mission will be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ref formatting question

Is it now customary to link reference publishers every time they appear, as opposed to just their first use? I ask because TonyTheTiger told me so at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Kemp. I thought they were supposed to be linked only on first use. If I'm wrong, please let me know. Giants2008 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking every publisher would be WP:OVERLINKing; not necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'll go back to the FAC and tell him this. Giants2008 (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note

FYI. I won't be online much if at all from about (UTC) 20:00, April 24 to about (UTC) 20:00, April 27, so please plan FA closings around that. Gimmetrow 00:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There's another link in the FAC toolbox. If you regularly cut-and-paste that info, there's yet another counter which might be easier to work with.[4] Gimmetrow 05:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The article counter that was there was inaccurate (and got me into trouble the other day with bad info); I use the one in the userbox on my userpage, and am afraid to trust the other ones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

How was it wrong? Some use cached data, but the one currently in the toolbox appears to be at most a couple minutes behind. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to send a page automatically to the one you have linked, but for the one above and the other I know how. Gimmetrow

It's here; I used the tool in the FAC at the time, and it said five edits. I withdrew the nom. After the editor pointed out it was 22, I checked the counter on my userpage, and it said 22. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Cached data then. It says 22 now. I just checked all three for the last page I edited and they all have the same counts. So what would you like to do? Gimmetrow 06:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Give me a second. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I checked. Why was the other tool returning cached data to me when I hadn't used that tool before and he made many of those edits the day before? The 5 was really old data. It was more than a few minutes behind. (You don't have to take the time to explain; old dog, new tricks :-) What to do? Whatever you put in the tools is fine with me; but if I'm going to withdraw a nom and it's a close call, I'll probably doublecheck with the tool on my user page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. These tools are just tools; they can make mistakes just like people ;) Gimmetrow 06:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Article Review Request

Hi SandyGeorgia, I have recently posted an article about headgear worn in soccer. If you have the chance to look it over, I would greatly appreciate any feedback. You can find the article here. Association football headgear Thanks! Swanyk (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

HRC FAC

Sandy, this is a drive-by nom, possibly sincere, possibly insincere, I don't know. I am not prepared, and do not wish, for it to go to FAC at this time, so please withdraw. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you say that when Quirky raised it on talk? We put something in place for exactly that reason; I don't want to encourage article ownership when Quirky complied with the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no discussion or justification for the idea given on the talk page, and it wasn't clear to me either that that out-of-left-field question from an account name I am not familiar with at all was a sincere suggestion. It's not a matter of ownership, Sandy, it's a matter of who has taken responsibility for trying to maintain the integrity of the article, and whether we and the article are prepared to go through another FAC at this time. I find it hard to believe that someone who has not edited the article is going to now take responsibility for going over it in the manner needed for the FA process - and I am concerned that it not become another political battleground and destroy the hard work that has gone into keeping it in relatively good shape, in the guise of FA. Tvoz |talk 02:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that Quirky was actually going to nominate it, and I wasn't aware that it was the obligation of the major contributors to say "No" at that point (I know, ignorance of the law is no excuse). I briefly looked at Quirky's contribs (scattered, mostly talk page, edits across several years, always suspicious) and figured (possibly wrongly, I don't know) that the whole thing was troll bait. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand both of your reasons and concerns, but after all the talk page discussion that went into rewriting our instructions to prevent and avoid precipitous noms (usually by new editors), specifically asking that the talk page and principle editors be notified, removing the nom wouldn't be correct. If you both feel strongly that it's not ready, you can oppose and explain your reasons and what work remains to be done: as principle editors, your "votes" will carry weight. But I must AGF when the nominator complied with our new instructions, put in place for precisely such situations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand your position and your sensitivity about article ownership, and I'm sorry I messed my part of this up. One question: who has the responsibility/obligation for responding to FAC comments at this point, Quirky or the existing major contributors? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Quirky nommed; it's Quirky's responsibility. You can oppose and not look back, if you really feel it's not ready. But I can't imagine it will be easy for you to sit by with your arms crossed. I'm sorry you became the test case for our new instructions :-(( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

C'est la vie ;-) The article isn't in bad shape per se; I try to keep it in an "FAC-able" state in general. I'll do some fixups on recent cites and the like. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, But it feels like a set-up to me. (I don't mean by you, Sandy.) I do think that notification to the principles should be more than an offhand comment on the talk page - how about a note on our user talk pages, for example? - and if there's no real response from major editors, the nominator ought to make it clearer that it's moving to a real nomination. This was very clearly not that. I was not aware of your new instructions, and did not know that a response was required or that it would move on without our agreement - I've worked on other FACs and FARs, even recent ones, but how would we know about new rules? I agree the article is in pretty good shape, but I don;t want to see this used as a way to get material in or out for political reasons, and I don't think we'd have nominated it right now. But I guess we'll see what happens. Tvoz |talk 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I sympathize and understand, but I can't ignore AGF when the nominator complied with FAC instructions. If the article is not quite ready for FAC, you and WTR can Oppose; you don't have to go through FAC if the article isn't ready. As the principle editors, your concerns carry weight; if it's not ready, you can oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I understand. I suggest you tweak the instructions, though, to require some followup to a casual mention. Tvoz |talk 05:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You can raise it in a new subthread here (which will probably automatically archive tonight); if consensus changes, we can adjust. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tvoz was right, the FAC opened up an attack on the article's method of dealing with minor controversies (Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Trivia in notes) that's been quite successful in keeping the article stable. Meanwhile the nominator hasn't been heard from again. Oh well. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Was this edit meant to be serious or sardonic? QuirkyAndSuch hasn't done much of anything on this FAC, despite my request. No matter now, since a lot of others are helping out, but just wanted to clarify if needed. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy Jet photo

yes, it is and old black and white. They scan better, honestly. Think I should say that? I don't know the date on the photo. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. The small fair use size does tend to make seeing if it is color kinda difficult.

Question 4

Just a question out of curiosity (im not aware of the procedure). When or how exactly does an FA review end, is there such a thing as a time limit, how strong a consensus must there be (either way), what if i person writes oppose yet you resolve their issues, does that vote still count? I would appreciate a reply at my talk page. Yours Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 04:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find the instructions about the process at {{FAC-instructions}}. On timing:

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegate, SandyGeorgia—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

• actionable objections have not been resolved; or
• consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
• insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

When or how exactly does an FA review end,

When consensus is reached per the instructions above.

is there such a thing as a time limit,

Sometimes.

how strong a consensus must there be (either way),

Strong enough for the director or his delegates to determine if there is consensus that criteria are met or are not likely to be met during the FAC timeframe.

what if i person writes oppose yet you resolve their issues,

An oppose is resolved when the opposer strikes or caps; if an opposer is not revisiting after several days, you can note that on the FAC. Reviewers are busy, and should be allowed time to revisit.

does that vote still count?

FAC is not a vote; each comment is evaluated and weighed relative to the criteria and with respect to the article.

I would appreciate a reply at my talk page.

See the note at the top of my talk page; I prefer to keep discussions together and I respond here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: FAC declarations

Oh, I'm sorry about that. I didn't know it made a difference, but I'll remember to do it the right way. Ugh, I try to help review some articles and I can't even do it right. :( Well, I'm sorry if I caused an inconvenience to you. :/ Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good to know. :) Again, thanks for the heads up. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

TOC

Be glad to. It'll probably take a few days for it to sink in that I need to, I might miss a few for the first few days until the new routine sets in. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

MOS

I am surprised that you, of all editors, doesn't know how very many FA-class and GA articles have large lead images. It makes sense stylistically, and it's already a general convention. I started up a thread at MOS talk to discuss. VanTucky 03:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Question 5

Are "letters to the editor" published in peer-reviewed journals considered reliable sources on Wikipedia? Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

They are reliable only to the extent that they are an indication of what the author believes or stated; they aren't reliable, vetted, peer-reviewed statements. They are opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To jump in on this... They aren't peer-reviewed, but they are "vetted" in so far as the journal editor(s) has accepted them for publication. In those journals with which I'm familiar that include such letters (and very few do; I'm thinking for instance of the Publications of the Modern Language Association), they are an important forum for criticism and discussion of the journal's articles. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear if all journals vet them to the same extent, or if some journals are less persnickity about what they will print. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am wandering whether this one is "vetted"... because I'm using it as a source of criticism in the article "Paleolithic diet". This letter does cite sources for all it's claims, sources which I added in the article on top of the letter to the editor to support the criticisms. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

TimVickers (talk · contribs) or Eubulides (talk · contribs) would probably know, or you could ask at WP:MED. Even if they agree it's "vetted", you might want to be sure to directly attribute the text to the author in the body of the article, to make it clear that it's someone's opinion. (By the way, do you have time to look at Colin's Ketogenic diet?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. The Ketogenic diet looks interesting. I'll take a look at it. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

ap

Are you going to be busy on Action potential for a while? I have some minor fussing to do... it can certainly wait. –Outriggr § 01:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope; footnote placement was all over the place, and one image was giving me text squeeze, so I corrected them, but otherwise, my offers to help weren't acted upon <shrug> ... I guess WillowW preferred to go it alone ... and not using Diberri isn't an effective use of time. It's all yours ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Third of May 1808

Now this is FA should I put it back on the Main page Requests - it has enough points to bump another off. Or is that not necessary? Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ugh, tough call ... Yes, I suppose the system is designed so that you can bump someone, so I guess that's what you should do. Goofy system. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, one less plea for Raul to worry about, perhaps. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FLC

Yes, but not massively. As an editor, I prefer working on FAs (see User:Dweller/Featured). Not sure I'm an electable candidate, although I certainly know the ropes. --Dweller (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're very sweet, you know? --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You should read my full talk page and take that up with some of the other posters :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol! You shouldn't have made this page look so much like a bridge. --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I keep hearing that; can't help my nature :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you you think it would it be possible for me to take on more of a delegate role in the process and assist with the process, rather than being an actual director? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm thinking that with two directors, there wouldn't necessarily be room for another delegate, and the load is lessened. Think like FAR, where Marskell does most of the closings, but Joelr31 is there when needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. I like working at WP:FLC but I don't really want the position because I don't want to be tied down to anything. Maybe I could be more of an assistant and just help keep things organized. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see; yes, there has always been a lot of "background" work at FAC. I used to do the invisible sort of "stuff" to keep things moving for Raul, and now several other people are helping do that. Is that what you're thinking? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking. But, I'm not going to reject the nomination for now because I want to see who is going for it first. If Colin decides he is interested, then I will probably withdraw because I think him and Rambling Man are the best choices. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent; keep your name in there until you see who else accepts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, failing anything from Red Sox Nation could cost you big-time !!!!!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I also kept the Arsenal players list, so that will score big with the British voters.

What would the FLR process stand in all this? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking, maybe we should do this more formally and start a new page because everything seems a little chaotic at the moment. Things seem to be really crazy right now, perhaps we should stop the voting, and wait a few days for candidates. After we have all of them, then we should start the voting. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's going very well, smooth, very Wiki-like; and it seems to me that the process is stable enough now that you could move it to a sub-page. I just thought keeping it there for a while would draw more attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the column is working as well as I had hoped it would, so perhaps we should postpone and wait for the director discussion to finish, then write about that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, wait and see what Woody says, but I think writing about the director in a week or so is a better idea. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Canada

Would Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Canada be considered an FAC that "has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed"...? Gary King (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, mind if I move Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Candidates to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates/Candidates? Some of the people who have watchlisted the page are getting kind of groggy. Gary King (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't understand the first question, would prefer you leave the move to Scorpion, Dweller, or Rambling Man. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to post another FAC soon and was wondering if the first one is in the clear now. There are no more concerns that need to be addressed, so I haven't edited it in a day or two. Gary King (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Butting in: didn't Sandy already promote Flag of Canada? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hot damn, I guess she did. Must've been recent because I only watchlist the FAC page and it hasn't been updated by the bot yet. Oh goodie! Gary King (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nomination

Does a person have to be nominated by someone else to be considered for the FLC job, or is it open for self-nom? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Selfnoms are open. Gary King (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, there have been several self-noms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I added myself into the mix -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Images

Hi Sandy. Per WP:WIAFA, does an article for it to become featured have images - is it an absolute must in articles (you probably can guess which article I'm talking about here)? D.M.N. (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have seen discussions go either way at FAC and FAR; it sometimes comes down to whether you have turned over every possible stone in the quest to get a free image. The answer is: depends. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. D.M.N. (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FACs

I'm glad we seem to be on the same page with regard to stability, but it is surprising (okay, I admit I do get too easily surprised :) to see many good editors with a different point of view.

See here (and notice how no one paid attention :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Probably some of the "surprising" good editor opinions on stability come from those editors not having the experience of working both ends of the equation (FAC and FAR) and understanding the results if their conclusions are extended to FAR. Defeaturing otherwise good articles because tendentious editors destabilize them starts down a slippery slope. I've seen similar when I've asked for certain things at FAC that would be very helpful if the article appears at FAR years after the editor is gone: not always understood. Until you've tried to track down cites for an uncited article or info challenged in a dead link, you might not understand what appear to be trivial FAC requests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, a separate issue, Emile Lemoine. Following several requests from Ling, I did finally review it, but by the time I gathered my thoughts the FAC was closed as promote, somewhat to my embarrassment, because I was considering opposing. It seems to me that all of the discussion about getting the dashes, the French and the sources in order did not address the issue that this article is neither comprehensive nor compelling. I've left some examples on the article talk page. From a personal point of view, I'm happy to drop the issue, as I have plenty on my plate. But I'm embarrassed because you may have misread my comment on the reliability of the sources, as "come on, quit complaining and promote". When I compare this article to Mario Vargas Llosa, they are simply not in the same league. But I'm embarrassed again, because my review of content (I stress I am not a content expert: it is like an expert on Chaucer reviewing Vargas Llosa) came too late. It seems to me that articles like this, where very few reviewers understand the content, get off lightly at FAC: there's a lot of focus (too much) on really minor issues, but no focus on the content.

When a nomination has been open that long, has only garnered support, has no opposes, and a Geometry guy reviews it and doesn't oppose, I have to respect consensus, even when I disagree with the conclusion. I hope you see that we need more reviewers at FAC, and that the process suffers when good reviewers are drained off elsewhere or don't join the process (reference my other comments elsewhere :-). No matter how little any reviewer can contribute, every little bit helps; even more so in the specialty areas. I take every comment into account, even when it's not a Support or Oppose declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure this kind of thing has happened before, and you probably know what to do. This article would not pass mathematics A-Class review at the moment: Homotopy groups of spheres didn't, and that is much better. I don't think this one is FA standard. Geometry guy 23:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What to do? For now, I hope you'll raise your concerns on article talk; if they're not addressed within three or four months, you can bring it to FAR. Perhaps you can convince a few people to dive in and help address the deficiencies (Marskell and I have had to do that many times). The article had consensus to promote several days ago; I raised concerns that were unaddressed or dismissed. After that, I have to respect consensus and let the pendelum naturally swing back to its midpoint. When editors see articles being promoted that they don't believe are up to snuff, or that downgrade their own hard-earned stars, hopefully they will be more encouraged to dig in and review. Please, please do; we can use you on those articles and many others. And if you intend to come back to a review and add more later when you have more time, say so; I do read every comment :-)

Now, where does my request for first class airfare stand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I spend less time on Wikipedia, I might be able to afford first class; otherwise, it has to be business :-)

I'll raise this article at the maths project, and see if others agree with my feeling about the article. Silence is, unfortunately quite a likely response, unless I can subtly tap into antagonisms... hmmm... maybe I should focus on saving up for that airfare. Geometry guy 23:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you spoke up and clarified; the commentary from The Geometry Guy figured in the promote decision. I hope a FAR can be avoided, and I'm relieved that we seem to share a view that our featured bios should be more than what we can find on a google search. On the airfare; well you could skimp on the first class, but then I'll need a full day at the spa after each trip. It's a long ways to and from the Land of Oz, and if I must fly Business, a good massage and facial will do the trick. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we do, and it appears in this case the sourcing hasn't gone much deeper than an online search. As you know, I try not to wave my credentials online (they aren't verifiable and I think it is much better to contribute anonymously). I also try to avoid subtext when commenting on review pages. So I was simply commenting on the reliability of MacTutor (and to a lesser extent Weisstein) and providing evidence to support that. It was just my first reaction, not a complete review, but FAC moves faster than I realised. The fact that the article does not go beyond the online sources to the printed ones which they refer to is a serious failing, which hope will be addressed. As for the spa, well as long as you are feeling Romantic, you are coming to the right place, as I'm sure you know, but I'm glad to see you putting Wikipedia's interests ahead of creature comforts :-) Geometry guy 00:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I Would Never Put Wiki Ahead Of A Day At The Spa :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL :-D. I'll remember that next time I want an article at FAC promoted ;) Geometry guy 00:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A Day At The Spa Will Not Get A FAC Promoted; for that, you need chocolate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a special chocalate spa designed to cater precisely for your needs. Good luck dealing with the ownership/neutrality/stability disputes at HRC. Been there, done that, twice. It isn't going to be fun. I'll try to help if I can, but I think you're gonna need that spa visit, and plenty of chocolate... Geometry guy 01:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Monthly updates of styleguide

Congratulations and thanks to you and the 'others' mentioned in the Signpost. A wonderful step forward towards sanity. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm glad you like it: Tony1 (talk · contribs) gets all the credit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I have just archived three keeps. I don't mind doing the work if you remind me how to take care of the review page itself.

I want to get the damn page back below 30. With a couple of extra declarations at the bottom, I can move some more off. Marskell (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kicking off discussion: WT:FAR#The state of FAR and the citations problems list. Marskell (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is one remove that was added as well... Marskell (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hit you with four when Gimmebot is down. But it's my off day and I was determined to tame the page some. I want to get the page closer to where it should be: 20 reviews. Next time I remove, I'll botify it myself. This will leave us some room to nominate from the problems list ourselves. Marskell (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. What could others have done to make manually archiving easier? Marskell (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get it. PMA is the only person regularly beating up on the process but he'd be doing that regardless of the length of the review; his comments are passive-aggressive trolling. The other people who pop up to snipe over particular articles would, again, be doing so regardless of the length.

If we move back to the shorter process our keep % will decline—simple as that. If I really believed that the work that gets done would get done in the absence of the FAR spotlight (in anticipation of a future FAC) I might support the shorter process. But I don't believe that. I believe that when you move it off FARC the most likely outcome is the article getting forgotten about. And I don't see a sense of entitlement. I see a (small) culture that wants to save articles, which is great. And because of people like DrK and Ceoil (and you and me, to be fair) we are saving articles. Marskell (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with passive-aggressiveness is always fun :-) How many of us are left, after all the beating up? You, less of me than before because I'm just worn out and tired of being bashed, Ceoil and DrK? Here are my thoughts, and I'll weigh in on the FAR talk page after I recover from a morning of being a bot :-) I think the standard month as originally designed is good, but the FAR/FARC period needs to be re-allocated. One week for discussion, three weeks at FARC. Too many of the FARS languish during the entire time they're in the review phase, with no one doing anything until they move to FARC and see that they're going to get "voted off". That has happened on almost every one of the extra-long FARs. Look at action potential; work didn't even start until it was time to "vote if off the island". And on the removes, no matter how long they had, work didn't happen. I'm not saying to shorten the period: just go back to respecting the month, but give editors a kick to get moving sooner. It has always been exhausting work, and if we're getting passively-aggressively beaten up for it, it's just not fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We're discussing this in three places, so I'll keep it short here: that the work starts late is less important than whether the work gets done. If I give myself credit for anything, it's patience. I am sure articles have received work for the simple reason that I haven't closed their reviews. In any case, let's discuss restructuring at WT:FAR. We could, indeed, shorten the first period. Marskell (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made it back over to WT:FAR yet today. These Dispatches are killing me, and I really need for everyone to start using the talkpage at WP:FCDW to coordinate that work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Gardens of Versailles

Do you mind if I go ahead and withdraw WP:Featured article candidates/Gardens of Versailles? The nominator is a very new wikipedian who has never worked on the article, and I can't see any evidence that he notified the main contributor of the article about the nom? I left a note on the FAC yesterday asking if he had notified anyone, but he hasn't been back since then. Karanacs (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC) (PS I just archived Michael Jackson too after the nominator tried to do it himself.) Karanacs (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I left it there so ElCobbola or you could get practice with removing and archiving; please do :-) With GimmeBot away, I've got to go manually process four FAR closings (ouch !) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Make that five; I've got to manually process Jackson as well. Good morning to me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All done! Thanks for the practice opportunity. Karanacs (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Karanacs; my morning watchlist is turning out to be a killer. Could be one of those days :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC LONDON

Nom is an anon IP. Shall I just withdraw it? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Roger, after a killer morning, I don't have time to look in detail right now, but ... generally speaking, withdrawing a nom only because it's an IP nominator Would Not Be A Good Thing :-) It's OK for an IP to nominate, and again, we have to be ultra-careful about article ownership issues. I know there has been a recent push to improve that article; not sure what shape it's in or what the talkpage discussion has been (that should be checked). Also, run the stats and see who the principle editors are and see what they say? In other words, I trust your judgment, but look at and weigh everything, and don't withdraw only because it's an IP nom. Thanks so much, Roger ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I've started the ball rolling ... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Roger; also, don't forget, it could just be that someone failed to log in and hasn't yet realized. You see one of everything after a while at FAC :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That occurred to me too :) It turns out to be a very agreeable die-hard anon user. Anyhow, I've done the necessary. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep; see WP:WBFAN, I'm pretty sure IPs have written FAs. Thanks again, Roger ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Pleasure. And thanks for the eagle-eyed bit! Much appreciated, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FAC question

How many Supports does a FAC need to be promoted? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 23:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How long is a piece of string? How many Opposes does an article need to be failed? It's not a vote. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Malleus :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to be seen to be even-handed in supporting both the FA and GA processes. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

<whack with a wet noodle>  :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer, I have seen an article fail with 25 Supports and 8 Opposes, and I have seen an article promoted with 2 Supports. It's not a vote: see the blurb at the top of WP:FAC about resolving actionable opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry!

How can I avoid wasting your time like this? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 23:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a waste of time; it's just the way I "do my job" :-) I like to follow every conversation and know who said what. But, when threading gets really convuluted (Ottava Rima outdented in the middle of that, so I couldn't tell who was on first), you could go in and add the {{interrupted}} template for me :-) The problem is, since you were part of the conversation, it's probably hard for you to see what I'm not able to see, so you probably can't decipher where I might have a problem. I couldn't sort out you from Qp from Ottava from Awadewit. Don't worry about it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 00:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, SandyGeorgia. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Yours, Awadewit (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you believe my concerns are illegitimate and I have no right to voice them? If so, I shall strike them. If not, then I will not change them. You and Raul run the FA reviewing process, and you and Raul have the ultimate ability to decide if supports or opposes are correct or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Everyone has a right to voice their concerns civilly and respectfully, and you sometimes raise points that generate good discussion and highlight important issues. I noted and appreciated when you removed your oppose on Vargas Llosa, so I don't believe you are intransigent. I'd rather not comment on now two ongoing FACs where editors have disputes, but it may be helpful to remember that guidelines are only guidelines, always subject to consensus, and there's no need for fights to erupt over FAC nominations (points can be made, editors can agree or disagree, and Raul or I will interpret). In my reviewing days, I left many Strong opposes that went against consensus that Raul chose to overlook in favor of consensus: I accepted that many other editors didn't share my concerns, and that is how Wiki works. I registered my points, accepted the conclusion, moved along. Part of getting along on Wiki is accepting that not all "rules" are hard and fast, and being able to let go when you find many editors in disagreement with your positions. I hope this helps; I don't want to see anyone involved in any part of the FA process unhappy with each other or losing time in disputes that could be better spent in writing beautiful articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I originally had my issue stated as a "comment", because there were multiple sentences referring to dates, opinions, mindsets, and the rest, that I felt may be problematic later on. One of them did turn out to not be referenced by another citation. How could one actually tell either way? I think that is an important concern, especially with the fact that these pages change over time and new people add things. "Ibid" isn't used for this reason, right? I changed my "comment" to an "oppose" based on the revelation that one of them wasn't actually sourced, so I could no longer trust in the other sentences provided. I don't remember "faith in the original editor" being part of verifiability, but it seems like many people hold this as an opinion. If thats what they believe, they should change the guidelines, no? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The tricky part, Ottava, is that even in discussions of policy, different editors will have different interpretations, so we still have to bend in order to enjoy time editing on Wiki, where consensus is always changing. Extreme brevity on FACs, with specific actionable points, is helpful. For example, on Vargas Llosa, you were correct that policy clearly stated that direct quotes needed to have the original (Spanish) wording in the footnote. No one else had picked that up. But that simple point may have been lost in a lot of verbiage and arm waving and hollering that wouldn't help anyone or the article. If you find yourself constantly at odds with other editors on FACs, it may help to think about where the disconnect is happening: it could be something different in each case, or it could be a pattern. For now, I'll only comment on Vargas Llosa, because it's a closed FAC, and it wouldn't be fair for me to comment on the ongoing FACs. If I see a clear policy issue—as you highlighted in Vargas Llosa, and where I agreed—or an unactionable oppose, I'll state that in an ongoing FAC, as I did on the Spanish quote. But on differences over interpretations of guidelines, it's better to state your case, clearly, briefly, rest your case, see which way consensus goes, and then move along. If you're not able to do that, Wiki will be a very stressful place for you, and you'll spend more time at AN/I than writing great articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you have to worry about the stress on me. The most that they could do is block me or ban me, which would actually remove the stress. Its you who the stress would actually burden. You are here for the long haul, slave to Wikipedia. I don't want to burden you with even more problems. Feel free to give me a nudge during a review if I need to remove something, and I shall. Its more important if a little concern slips by to ensure that the overall process can be managed in an efficient and non-stressful way for those running it. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be right for me to nudge anyone in any direction during a nomination :-) I can quote what policy says, though. I understand this is a stressful situation for all involved; remember that FACs are open for many days, and not everything has to be settled right away. Sometimes things look better—or different—in the light of a new day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Badge of Honor

Yes, this definition of a badge of honor definitely makes sense. Fortunately I never encountered Sadi Carnot. But there's a few others out there ... I lost two days on the HRC FAC dealing with the current denizen of ANI discussions, for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch

Textual criticism, please give me a hand to help move to FAC. Thanks for spotting this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you online now, Jossi? This will be tricky because there is a previous FAC and some missing pieces; I may need some admin help. Can you hang on a bit, while I do as much as I can, and then I'll get right back to you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm around if you need it, just about to go on a CSD binge. Woody (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Woody; we sorted that, but Jossi decided not to nom after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ANI#User:Ottava_Rima

Your input at this thread would be very welcome. I have proposed a partial restriction on this editor's participation at WP:FAC. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 05:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the late notice; I would greatly appreciate it if you consult with Raul first next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk archives, and astonishment therein

Hi,

Regarding the summary to this edit:

astounding that someone would alter and split archives with no prior discussion, when the archives were set up around discrete periods in this article's history

Where the "altering" consisted of "making them link to each other, and splitting contiguous pages for the sake of reading length", I'm not sure why you would consider this to be a controversial edit. I can understand rolling back the change to an automatic archiving box (and I'm sorry for doing that without discussion), but in future if you feel that my edits astound you in some way I'd appreciate it if you dropped me a note rather than expressing it in edit summaries. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'd appreciate it if you would alert the regular editors in the future when you plan to alter archives; your changes were extensive enough that I don't have time to begin to decipher what you've done, but the archives were originally set up around specific periods in the article history, and I hope I can find things now in the future, since I no longer know how they're structured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I split the first half of Archive 2 into Archive 1 (which had for some reason been speedily deleted last year) and split the second half of Archive 6 into Archive 7 because it was giving a "please consider splitting this archive" comment. They're still in the exact order they were before. As I say, if there's any confusion then just drop me a note. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; that helps. I just didn't have time to sort it out, and always worry if a piece is dropped or if I can't find something later. I think 6 and 7 were together for a logical reason, but I'm not going to sweat it. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/1995 Japanese Grand Prix/archive2

Could you possibly comment back on the sources at the PR. All the other issues left by others as far as I'm concerned are resolved, my only problem is the unresolved "unreliable" sources thing left by you. I'd prefer a comment back ASAP as I want to nominate it for FAC again in the morning. IMO, I personally all the sources (possibly barring F1DB) are OK. :)) D.M.N. (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left comments back if you wish to take a look. D.M.N. (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There's still nothing there establishing reliability: there seems to be a fundamental breakdown in understanding of Wiki's policies at WP:V, WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB and guideline WP:RS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a fundemental breakdown. The sources at the article are reliable, and a lot of information on the website (ChicaneF1 and Gale Force F1) can be cross-checked with a lot of other websites, as well as that years AUTOCOURSE book. D.M.N. (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I also see absolutely no need for this. The sources question, yes, I think it's only fair that that articles also goes through the sources check like all the rest on FAC, or is it "different circumstances" thing? Like you with F1, I have no clue about horse racing, those sources could of been totally unreliable. As for the cats, I remember reading someone here on Wikipedia that they had to be 0-9; A-Z and I've been following that method with most of the articles I work on here. I was thinking about choosing FA's at random, looking at the sources and questioning them on the talkpage (just like what Ealdygth's doing at FAC), as to whether they are reliable or not. Of course, I'd inform the person that nominated the article in the first place, but if I did do that, knowing my luck, everyone would be hounding over me, asking just why I'm doing this. D.M.N. (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, even though we have different opinions on this, there is no need to ignore the above. D.M.N. (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

D.M.N., whenever I notice an invalid oppose is entered on a FAC, I will clarify so others won't be confused in the future. Your oppose was wholly invalid: there is no requirement for categories to be alphabetical, there is no requirement to use citation templates, you confused external links with sources, and the sources had already been reviewed by several others. It's important that you, as well as future readers of the FAC, are aware of WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. D.M.N. (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I can't help myself ;) and Sandy's been swamped. It's always great to have other reviewers worried about reliable sources, and some of the older existing FAs need help! External links, though, are not sources and consensus on FAC so far at least has been that they don't need as great a scrutiny. Obviously unreliable sources like blogs and forums are generally pointed out, but specialist websites are usually permitted. Self-published sources are also permitted more often in the external links because they are often affiliated with the subject of the article. I think it's fine to question external links, but it shouldn't just be on the basis of RS - they can be either an external RS or a primary/self-published link that is related to the subject. Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/AIDS

I'm not sure how to manage these things better. I'm not much of an expert in AIDS, and I was hoping other editors would get on board. I guess I should try some copy editing.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well ... hate to break the bad news to 'ya, but the Medicine Project has *never* helped restore an FA (this caused a lot of hurt on the action potential FAR, as I don't think WillowW realized how little content help she would get). Unless you are prepared to do it yourself ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Only one thing to say. Sigh. I think I'll see what I can do. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me for eavesdropping, I feel guilty about not fixing it myself, but it is such a lot to take on. I have some free time, (from my original research in real life), around 1 May (my birthday BTW), and I will see what I can do. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 20:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

oh, goodie, a birthday !! Graham, any one or two editors can't fix that. My beef is that silly weekly (or whatever) collaboration on the Medicine project, while FAs lose their stars. Why can't they make a FAR their weekly collaboration every now and then, instead of letting stars go and letting WillowW's burn out after doing all the work? What have those weekly or monthly collaborations every produced ? The people who work on medical FAs are simply: Colin, Eubulides, Fvasconcellos, GrahamColm, TimVickers, Casliber sometimes and used to be me. And most of the editors on that list aren't physicians. That's it. Makes me mad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What's particularly sad is that an article of this importance should take our full attention. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim Vickers is joining in to edit the article.  ::) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

FAR

I don't understand what you mean, "three at once"? Can the FAR process not handle more than 2 FARs at once?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian has two FARs already running: nominators are expected to follow the process, and three at once is a lot for even an experienced reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he wasn't the first to bring the issues of the Buffy article to light. If you check the archive, you'll see that I did the same thing months ago and instead of responding they simply archived the page. I would/will certainly back/take-over Collector's nomination for review of that article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I left you a message there. If you want to submit, revert the page, resubmit over your sig, and re-add to the article talk page and the FAR page. But please do the notifications etc. as well, since FAR reviewers are overwhelmed when nominators don't do the "bookkeeping". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just working on the notifications. :) Any good number to send out? I used the page statistics and sent notifications to the top 5 contributors. Any other way you know of, other than notifications on article talk pages?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The articlestats usually have sort of a "normal" cutoff where you can tell who the most active are ... also, sometimes there's a very active contributor in recent talk page history ... and don't forget the WikiProjects listed on talk. Also, if you want to revert all of our discussion about the submission from the actual FAR page, that's fine with me (keeps it cleaner). Did you re-add to the article talk page? FAR is so overwhelmed lately, and we're really trying to get nominators to do more of the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted all that you took away (putting the FAR tag on the article talk page, putting the article back into WP:FAR. I have notified six editors, the top 5 contributors to the main page article and another editor whom I know has worked tirelessly on several of the individual character articles. The talk page shows little active discussions, so there doesn't appear to be anyone to contact from that list. Is there something else I should do to make the process easier for others?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just follow the FAR closely, ping people when responses are needed, things like that. Thanks !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny business at MOS

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:DavidPaulHamilton and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tony1. Yes, Tony is being accused of sockpuppetry... You might want to keep an eye on it, I'm off now. Woody (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

oh, for gosh sakes. Thanks, Woody, but that for sure is gonna be one wild goose chase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I think so. They seem to be trying to drive him off MOS which would be frankly, a calamity. Woody (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good thing Tony's probably asleep right now. On the other hand, I'm looking forward to seeing the language he uses to address this when he comes to :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

It's that time again, we'll be heading out Wed afternoon for a horse show/photo shoot/renaissance faire. We'll be gone through the 11th, but I'm hoping to be able to at least stay current on stuff this time. We'll see how it goes. Show shouldn't be that busy, and with the photography, we're limited in time on shooting times, so hopefully we'll have enough time to check in with wikipedia. Just wanted to warn you so you'd know that I'd be around a bit less, and won't be able to get much done beyond FAC and any GAN's that get reviewed while I'm gone. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's days like this with edits like this that make me glad I'm going out of town. At least HRC finally shaped up. And yes, I'm keeping notes on all the questioned but determined to be reliable sites, so that I can refer back to them later. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You are doing a great job and your work is dramatically improving the credibility of our FAs. So there. Have a great trip. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of The Naked Brothers Band episodes#SEASON 2

Dear SandyGeorgia,

If you don't mind.
Could you please take a look at The Naked Brothers Band episode list's discussion page.
To help settle a debate. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Annie ! I looked in there, and don't really understand the lingo or the issue, but I'll ask other people to look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear SandyGeorgia,
Why don't you also have a look at the article too, not just the talk page.
As well as, the article's history page.
Maybe that will help.
Basically we can't agree on what to put on the article based on what you have read on the discussion page. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a slow edit war over some numbers that I don't understand (and I wonder if they're worth worrying about?) Annie, be sure to take care with WP:3RR; I didn't look carefully, but you may not have run into that rule before, so be sure you don't revert the other editor's changes beyond 3RR. Sometimes, in that kind of issue, it helps just to let it die down and come back to it in a month; it's not like someone is inserting faulty info into one of the Wolffs' bios, which is something that has to be dealt with right away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I just read, WP:3RR and understand. But, I thought for Wikipedians it's there jobs to make things as accurate as possible. That's why I think it's good to find reliable sources for these not-so-big problems. And for now not mess around with the article, until we agree or compromise on a decision. I don't mean using WP:3RR, but to discuss the matter and post reliable sources. AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Annie, if you can find a reliable source, then I can weigh in on the dispute, but without sources and without understanding the numbers, I really don't know how to help (and I'm not sure it's worth worrying about ... I try to watch over the boys' articles because those are WP:BLPs and I don't want to see minors affected, but I'm not sure it's worth the time to sort out how many episodes are in a series). If you find a source, I'll help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Episodes question

I took a look, but I'm not sure I understand it either. Sorry. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll get on this tonight

[5] ;) Durova^Charge! 03:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Restart

Never had something restarted before at WP:FAC. Would it be appropriate to re-notify relevant WikiProjects of this? Cirt (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, notifications are not inappropriate, as long as they stay within the WP:CANVASS guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay thank you, I will simply leave a note that the nom was restarted. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to triple-check, this is an appropriate way to notify/update, correct? Cirt (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Cirt (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry about that. On a personal note, looking at the notice above, I hope this whole thing hasn't affected you too much. I hope you come back refreshed and are able to put this in some sort of perspective. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

J. R. Richard FAC

Just a heads-up, I'm a bit busy for the next few days so I might not get a chance to address all the concerns at [[6]] in a timely manner. TonyTheTiger said he would continue reviewing after I address these concerns. I would like to cover these and then ask him to resume his review. So, I ask you to please be patient with closing the FAC. Thanks, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No reply needed until you're back to full form. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 02:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(jaw drop)

108 in April? GAH! I need to get a real life (in reality, we're packing up the car, computer goes in in about half an hour (grins)). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Keywords: delegation, training, increase your footprint :-) Have a great trip !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal

Hi. I'm undecided about the overall proposal, but your comments there make me think that you think the whole GA process is fundamentally flawed. I don't know too much about GA (never nominated anything for it, never supported or opposed, haven't even read the criteria) but if you're that unhappy with them, I think you need to do something more than just opposing this proposal. --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There are only 24 hours in a day :-) And, there are good editors involved at GA, who can solve the issues, if they'll only acknowledge them. So far, I suspect they just really aren't aware of how pervasive it is, and how easy it will be to identify the problem areas. I've got a spreadsheet on FAC declarations that is crystal clear; they'd only have to do it once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Spreadsheet on declarations? Sorry, you've lost me! --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For two months, at the end of the month, I've gone through the FAC archives and evaluated who rolls up their sleeves and digs in and does the work to help decide closings, and taken note of unactionable opposes as well as premature supports on nominations of articles that eventually were found by other reviewers to have significant deficiencies and were not promoted. GA needs to do some kind of basic assessment like that. By simply looking at the FAC archives of GAs that weren't promoted FA because of unreliable sources, they can see the problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Cor. Do you ever eat? You clearly don't sleep. --Dweller (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Autism rights

Hi Sandy! Glad to see you're back, I hope the break was to savour your accomplishments and not gather your energies. Or both. Or neither. I hope you're doing well, there : )

Could I drop a problem in your lap? [7] - don't know about the source or subject, I've popped a note on Eub's talk page, but sadly it's languished. Because it's sourced I'm reluctant to remove it out of hand, but I don't know how it'll fit with the rest of the article. Any advice? I probably won't be able to get to it today as I'll have to read the whole page to figure what to do with it. Thanks, as always your devoted fanboy. WLU (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's on my list, but I'm going to be out all afternoon, and I haven't caught up from yesterday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And it's such a long list too. It's a race! Let's see who gets there first, the lazy (me!) or absurdly busy (you) WLU (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey pooter

Saw your talk page yesterday, and I think I'm so much blissfully happier not know wtf that was all about. Just checking in to see you're doing super as usual and you haven't beaten anything to a sick, bloody ooze because of this inconsequential website. (Hmmm. When I create a new section, I am unable to practice my art of creative edit summaries...) --Moni3 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wednesday is really spa day (yesterday was FAC spreadsheet day :-), so I'll summarize it for you before I get out the door: Wiki needs to solve a lot of serious problems "in here" that led to the creation of problems "out there" that ultimately costed us, and one of our finest, dearly, while the problems "in here" go unaddressed by our "leadership". A very sad and disheartening situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Aaah. Yes, this is why I write and expand articles that I think are important that have wasted to nothing, or haven't been created. People are predisposed to poltical bands in any society, and enjoy the factions they create, maintain, and the conflicts that arise because of them. If people can't see the futility of this kind of behavior, at least I can refuse to particpate in it. Although I don't know what tune I might be whistling when scores of perverts decide to attack one of my articles... --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you withdraw WP:FAC/New York State Route 28

I'm not gonna have time to fix everything, and its apparent that it won't pass. It would be a lot easier to just get rid of it for now.^Mitch32^contribs 22:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I know Sandy's busy so if you just post "Withdraw" and sign it on the nomination page, I can do the rest. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably archive that one, roger, since it has significant comments. I'll get to it with tonight's batch. But generally, yes, if the noms will put a bold Withdraw, that will save my busy talk page :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I see :) You are treating this one as an early "not promoted" rather than a "withdrawn". --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Roger; I was in the middle of archiving (brain stretched with so many tabs open at once :-) so I got it. Although it's not at all clear to me that it wasn't going to make it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I hate hundreds of tabs. They always seem to be such a good idea in principle, don't they :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Would you consider Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare stable enough to allow me to nominate another article? Gary King (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

With one oppose that it's not comprehensive, and another strong oppose alleging POV, I'm surprised you ask. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to those issues and am just awaiting a reply. Gary King (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, looks like a few more things cropped up. I'll deal with those first before anything else. Gary King (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)