User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch34

RfA

Hey Sandy, I just saw your !vote over on Peter's RfA, and it reminded me of how much I value your input over there. When I see your support, I know that the candidate has won the respect of a person I highly respect. I know that you have absolutely zero interest in becoming an admin, but I was wondering if you knew of any qualified people who might be interested in becoming an admin? I don't think nominating people for RfA's are your thing so if you have any ideas, let me know and I'll vet them.Balloonman (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I always have a ton of ideas, but the folks I usually think of usually aren't interested (for all the right reasons :-) ... while the folks who are engaged in aggressive admin coaching and engaging the GAN and FAC processes on their climb towards RfA always seem to appear there a bit too soon. I'll give you a list later tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks.Balloonman (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I will surely forget someone, but that's the risk you take. I previously suggested a long list (months ago) to TimVickers, but most of them declined: Colin, Qp10qp, Dr pda, Ling.nut, Outriggr, lots of others, so I won't suggest them again. I believe Epbr123 should be an admin, but he was mauled in his last RfA, so it's probably too soon and I wouldn't blame him if he never went anywhere near the place again. Others include Elcobbola, Laser brain, GrahamColm (should be a co-nom with TimVickers), Karanacs, Kablammo, Mike Searson, RelHistBuff, Ealdgyth, Maralia, BuddingJournalist, and Jbmurray. I would co-nom any of these people, but most of them are likely to decline. Any one of them would be superior candidates to the rush of admin-coached and prepped RfAs that have been cropping up lately, and which frankly give me great pause for the future viability of this Project. Forgot Happyme22, Tvoz and Wasted Time R, will think of more. BrianBoulton (not sure how long he's been on board though). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC) <red-faced again> ... forgot Moni3 !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As an admin coach, I agree with your comment about many coachees being rushed... I hope you don't feel that way about mine... most of them take at least 2-3 months of coaching before I'll nominate them! I want to get them exposure to several areas of the project.Balloonman (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, it would be interesting to get your input on WT:RFA... a lot of people who frequent the RfA process are clamoring for more candidates.Balloonman (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

ah, if I knew you were an admin coach, I'd have held my tongue :-) But now that I have your audience ... I'm not sure which are yours, since I didn't know you were a coach, but I absolutely cringe at what is going on at RfA, as do most of the editors I most respect. No point in opposing, since they mostly come with enough fan support to pass anyway (often the same buddies passing each other's GAs). And why exactly are they clamoring for more candidates? The more unprepared candidates they rush through, the more problems Wiki has to deal with, the more new admins we need to deal with the problems created by abusive, power-hungry, immature and unknowledgeable admins. Vicious cycle. Wouldn't more problems be solved by having a higher proportion of mature editors who don't crave adminship and actually <gasp> contribute content rather than playing social power games on a website? There's one up now who's been on Wiki for four months, and it will go through. I've been on Wiki for more than two years, and I'm astonished daily at how much I don't know; I'd really like to know how someone who's been here for four months can use the tools wisely. Interestingly, I see the same crowd supporting most of these candidates, and it doesn't bode well for Wiki's future, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On that point at least we are agreed Sandy. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps what they are looking for is a different type of candidate, Sandy. Perhaps the RfA regulars are starting to notice the same thing that others of us have spotted. The RfA trend changes from time to time; perhaps the pendulum is swinging back? Risker (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hope it's swinging back, I hope this entire notion of admin coaching will STOP (you either have the qualities or you don't, and being told to accumulate a bunch of GAs, DYKs, push through a FAC, dabble a bit here and there in vandal fighting and XfD, doesn't confer admin character) and I hope we aren't going to be dealing with the problems from the recent crops of admins for a very long time. <Red-faced> Add Risker to my list; darn, I knew I'd forget some! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, someone went through last month who blatantly dissed and attacked Yomangani once on my talk page, and since I couldn't find the post, I didn't oppose. <shudder> I am certain that person doesn't have the right character even if he has a gazillion GAs, DYKs and an FA. Now, when someone disses a respected editor, I'm saving the diff to my hard drive, unless they apologize, so I can find it when I need it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Ooohhh, who was that? I must add them to my enemies list. Yomangani^talk 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I told 'ya I'd have to kill 'ya :-)) It was during your absence. Let me put it this way: not worth losing a minute of sleep over :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, Sandy, and thank you very much for the compliment! :-) I have to say, I look at the "qualifications" some people set up and just shudder. What ever happened to good old common sense? Risker (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Risker, if you are interested, I would be happy to take a look at your contributions. A recommendation from Sandy carries a lot of weight in my book.Balloonman (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded Risker; I would very much like to see you take the plunge...we need more content people getting the tools, and using them for the purposes of content (rather than the professional cops seen all too often at RfA). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• blushes* Aww, thanks guys! I've responded to Balloonman on his talk page. Your willingness to consider me for candidacy is incredibly appreciated. Risker (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy; for your watchlist: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Risker. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

See below for an example of one of our fine new crop of admins leaving a personal attack on a talk page over a GA review (within months of gaining the tools). Honestly, something needs to be done about what is going on over at RfA; more eyes are certainly needed on that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow... I can only say that was before I became active in the RfA process (January/February are my busy seasons at work, and I was uninvolved then.) I do, however, think your input into the process would be interesting, because the talk on WT:RFA is that the process has become too difficult. I'm of the opinion, that the bar has been lowered and those who should be admin's aren't running because they don't participate in "the right areas." I want to see more candidates like Risker/Peter/CapitalR. People who have gained the trust of the communities where they work, regardless of how many XfD's/CSD's they have. Balloonman (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm with you here. Admin coaching stinks of mandarin careerism. And it's function smells more like social networking of the patron-client variety than anything else. I would prefer if the good "coaches" hunted down and nominated highly experienced users who have built their experience in content contributing rather than user talk pages, private emailing and ircing, whose main qualification is their ambition to gain the mop. Promotions of the latter have had a detrimental effect on wikipedia. I really wish some of those guys understood this, as they wouldn't do it so much and they'd think beyond "hey my mandarin mate is voting for/opposing this guy....support/oppose". It's frankly appalling some of the users who get through this (and some of those in line too...so tempted to mention names here), while great users like Malleus who offer their service don't, and a bunch of the rest are so estranged and contemptful of it that they don't even bother. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And the detrimental effect has trickled down to GA and FAC, as these "admin coached" types are encouraged to engage those processes, are passing and reviewing GAs with little qualification, digging up someone else's work and putting in a few edits to bring an unprepared article to FAC, causing work for reviewers where we're already stretched thin ... when they have little experience or reason to be engaging those processes ... and the mentality over at RfA these days seems to be, support everyone so they'll support me when it's my turn. Very very bad for the Project. Balloonman, one thing you (and others) could do is take down those checklists; I found those yesterday, and admin character can't be created via checklist. I have no clue about XfD or a whole lot of things on those lists, but I'm fairly certain few people think I would abuse the tools if I had them. Now I understand why the path from GA to FAC to RfA is so easily predicted ... pass a bunch of buddies' GAs to accumulate goodwill, do a trial run through FAC (leaving a lot of Supports to garner good will and a wake that has to be corrected by other serious reviewers), and then head for RfA ... they're going down the checklists. Much more alarming is that, whenever I read some of these recent RfAs, I'm not seeing the names of many of the editors I respect; have people given up and left the page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely think that you're right in surmising that the RfA checklist has contributed to a significant number of very poor GA reviews by admin wannabees. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a new hobby: lurking on SandyGeorgia's talk page, and discovering new things I never knew existed. For instance, yesterday I linked through a bunch of comments to get to the Essjay controversy that I never knew happened, but did not surprise me. One of the criticisms in that article is that the administrators' lack of oversight, of questioning the way things are. Wikipedia is fascinating as a study of group dynamics and how people behave. And as someone who detests politic of any sort, yet recognizes they are inevitable once more than two people communicate, it's becoming clear just by reading this talk page that admins are an insular group that have created their own sub-culture (the t-shirts and mops as symbols, for example), that separates them from normal users like li'l ol' me. The admin process, as I understand it (that's dubious, you know), requires users to work for the reward of number of votes whenver the opportunity arises for RfA. On one hand, that imposes civility, but on the other, it silences questioning of why things are the way they are. Once people are accepted into an exclusive group, they become cheerleaders for its maintenance and are less inclined to upset the people who have accepted them into the group. Why do people spend so much time writing these articles when they get no reward other than the self-knowledge that they wrote a damn good article and thousands of people are reading it? Should admin come with any different reward? What if there were non-admins who had access and input into the process, people who just asked, "Why are you doing this?" Or what if admins where required to do that? --Moni3 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Oh my gosh, red-faced again! I forgot Moni3 on my list above !!! Please accept my humble plea for forgiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Moni, if you are interested, I would be honored to check you out on Sandy's recommendation as a possible candidate. (I can't say that I would nom you---I generally spend 2-5 hours checking out people I don't know before noming them. You can see my past noms on my talk page.)Balloonman (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, darlin' - you can check me out all you want! I don't know how successful any of that would be, though. As I stated, I despise politics and bureaucracy, and the admin system seems to cherish it. I would get opposed on SNOWBALL alone. I spent my lunch hour thinking of this. Would it be fruitful to point out to a group of folks their own patterns of behavior? Or are people destined to participate in groupthink no matter what? I don't know. I do know that I can no longer afford to be involved in systems like these, and I would say so right up front. Plus, I think my computer hacking skillz are kinda low. --Moni3 (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I recommend that Balloonman check you out just so he can read your edit summaries; he'll find it the best three hours he ever spent :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect this comment will get me canned pretty quick. Well, if I'm good for anything, it's entertainment... --Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, gosh, I must show that one to Ceoil :-) Is that the worse dirt we can find on you? When I was a complete newbie, somewhere I gave myself a GA. Didn't even know what GA was, but it sounded good :-) Then when I figured out what it was, couldn't find where I'd done it so I could un-do it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that and some "brisk" comments on James I of England's talk page and the Gay talk page. Kee kee...gay talk page... I suppose I'm lucky in that I'm too dorkus to figure anything out, so I ask people what am I doing?? But the snowball is my almost complete lack of experience in dramatic froofaws. I just don't like them and I enjoy the majesty of putting the computer down and walking away to look at the trees in my backyard. I can only imagine trying to get into some arbitration to say something like, "Y'all are fighting over what now? wtf?" And I like writing articles. --Moni3 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Er... um.... yeah... I guess you would be an interesting challenging different candidate... but nothing is impossible! I take if you're not interested ;-) Balloonman (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Strikethroughs say so much more than a Hallmark Card ever could... I would consider the nomination process an interesting intellectual exercise, and am interested in it if only to be able to challenge any prevailing opinions of what makes a good admin. I do not expect to, err, "win" anything, and will not attempt to persuade anyone that I am a good candidate for the position. I think that's where the harm begins. Rather, I would be honest about who I am and what I do, and if they don't want such a person as part of their organization, who am I to judge that? It's their club. I'll still be writing articles anyway. You decide if it would be worth it. I think at the least I can offer SandyGeorgia a snort or two, and if that's how I can pay her back for all the crap she puts up with I think that's more than fair. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What matters to me at RfA: is the person trustworthy, civil, an AGFer, do they add to the Project (not only content areas, but that helps), do they handle stress and conflict well, have they been around long enough to demonstrate these qualities and maturity, and will they abuse the tools. In short, do I know enough about them to know I can trust them. I don't think I've supported one yet that later embarrassed me. I don't care about all those other checklists that candidates who aren't any of those things are completing to get through RfA. And I'd much rather snort at Moni's edit summaries than read the pontifications of the admin postulates who are completing a checklist so they can gain the tools so they can flex their admin muscles to feel like a big cool dude on the 'net. Moni would be a good admin even if she pooped on a bot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

BOINK! Ok let me axe you a question. I'm not entirely sure what the conversations refer to in these references to the "latest batch of admins". Can you point me to what their transgressions have been? Also, clearly I'm a content editor who's in her own tiny little world sometimes while doing the article thing. What can a content editor do as an admin that would help their project? I don't even know. I've asked admins to protect the Harper Lee article, and that's pretty much the extent of my requests. (One pooter decided it wasn't a good idea after I spent 2 hours reverting vandalism from the same IP address). He hath caused me to rend my garment. --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the reason why I asked Sandy for her recommendations. There are tons of qualified people out there, but they are overlooked because they don't fit the "mold." I think the type of admin that has been passing over the past month or two is different than the type that passed even 3-4 months ago. 3-4 months ago, there was a lot of focus on XfD's and ant-vandalism. If you weren't involved there, you might not as well apply. Right now, there is more of a push for civility and trust among the community. (Dihydrogen, myself, and a few others have been noming some atypical candidates lately that are passing with flying colors, while the anti-vandal candidates are facing stiffer opposition.)Balloonman (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people used to have a 1 FA criterion for adminship. That would have sunk me. I'm as guilty as anyone for not watching RfA. I tend to support the people I know, and know will make good admins, when they come up, and only oppose those I think I need to oppose (ie. if the nomination is not already failing). The others I just let slide on the assumption that they can learn on the job. Probably a dangerous assumption, actually, but not many people have the time to hang around RfA. BTW, I came here from the "joke oppose" thread on AN. My RfA had one of those: see here. It did make me realise what effect even a joke oppose can have, and this one was edited in as an already struck-out one! It also made me realise that RfA is too much of a popularity contest, but that is a story for another day. Carcharoth (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm up for this, too, if anyone else thinks it's worthwhile. Not that I'm entirely sure which admin tools I'd use. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't really have to use any. Even if you only use the them once a year thats still a net gain for the project. You should definetly run, with your editing record you shoulnd't have any trouble Acer (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jbmurray, I recently had a chance to observe how you handle conflict, and I'd be glad to co-nom, although I don't really know how to put a nom together very well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, here is my essay How to Nominate Somebody for RfA. It has my observations on what, IMHO, makes a successful effective nomination.Balloonman (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI I just created a nom for Jb.Balloonman (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my, just saw another one I missed: Slp1 (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slp1 if you wanted to conom...Balloonman (talk) 07:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, look what I found! Sandy, I really appreciate the compliment above, and think I might try, though the prospect of running makes me pretty darn nervous. If you were willing to co-nom I would be honoured. But there is time for plenty of coffee: I am busy in my real life for the next day or two and probably won't be able to answer the questions etc till Friday.--Slp1 (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey! No worries at all. Funnily enough I am feeling under the weather myself, and not in a fit state to do much myself in any case. Get better soon! --Slp1 (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are feeling better? Thanks very much for the endorsement! No matter what happens from here on, it is nice to hear positive things from somebody whose work here I respect so much! I will be trying to write up the answers to the questions today. If you feel like looking in and giving any advice, don't be shy! --Slp1 (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Red-faced again: I also forgot Eubulides (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at a RfA some months ago and I saw some poor soul facing the "Spanish Inquisition", having to answer questions like "how do you explain this edit?" and so forth. I thought why would anyone want to suffer this? I saw my name on Sandy's list and I took this as a compliment. But I have to ask myself would it make me a better editor/reviewer? Of this I'm not convinced. GrahamColm^Talk 05:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

link delete

I didn't mention this on those other pages, because I don't want other to hear this and start snooping around. I'm gay (openly) but on that myspace page of mine I want it deleted because I have a lot of gay friends that aren't out of the closet. I am but they aren't, and I don't want people looking around at them. Although I am considered about people sending me messages (a valid privacy reason) that's secondary. I want the link deleted. I've seen other pages that have permanently been unviewable, and I would like that to happen to all pages that have that link after it is deleted. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't delete pages, and since you have that page linked on your own userpage, I doubt you would convince anyone to oversight that post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want it out there in general discussion. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Also - I never thought it would be a noticed much before when I first added it because I was barely ever editing before. And I happen to be aditing a lot lately which is unusual for me (check my contributor pages and you'll see) I've done more in the last week or so than I tend to do in a year. I didn't think my user page would ever get as much attention as it has lately. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want it out there, it shouldn't be on your userpage; I'm sorry, but this is not something within the realm that I can fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I found this on wikimedia, and it referes to wikimedia projects (including wikipedia) and contributors:

Personal information and its removal Main article: Privacy policy Definition: "Personal information" typically includes, but is not limited to, name, address, telephone number, precise date of birth, instant messenger contact details, photograph, appearance, food tastes, personal views, and similar details of an individual person.

Two policies govern personal information. Individuals in their role as editors, contributors and readers of Wikimedia projects, should refer to the privacy policy. Information on individuals forming part of an encyclopedia article, are subject to the policy on biographies of living people. "Right to vanish" relates specifically to the former.

The Wikimedia projects will delete personal information about editors and contributors (most likely on user and user talk pages) at their request, provided it is not needed for administrative reasons (which are generally limited to dealing with site misuse issues). Personal information related to encyclopedia articles and persons mentioned therein are not covered by "Right to Vanish". Instead, please see the relevant editorial policy on biographical articles, which contains full details of editorial directives, and actions to take if dissatisfied. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Quirky, I think you're misunderstanding. First, I'm not an admin and I can't take the decision to delete someone else's post unless there is a policy reason. Second, your privacy was not violated: you posted the information, so I don't see where this policy applies unless you exercise the right to vanish and ask that you be expunged from Wiki (and I'm not sure what an Oversighter would do in this case). I could start a thread at the Administrator's noticeboard to ask how this can be handled, but doing so will only draw more attention to the personal information that you posted and you now want withdrawn. Please let me know if you want me to do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted to Blnguyen (talk · contribs), who is better able to address this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Blnguyen, can you advise on this thread relative to the Hillary Clinton FAC and QuirkyAndSuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? The editor had his personal myspace account posted to his user page since March 2006, it was raised on the FAC, he removed his myspace link on May 11, 2008 (two years later) and he now wants the link removed from the FAC. My understanding is that policy doesn't allow me to do that, and that the only way that info can be expunged is if he exercises RTV, but I don't know policy in this area, and I don't want to do something that risks destabilizing the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh I would be willing to bend the rules and oversight if another oversighter would agree with it. I'm not too worried about the compromising of the FAC, although you might think differently. A lot of FACs have ethnic bloc votes and I wouldn't really care whether the guy has a blog or a userpage with strong opinions on ethnic matters since even with most street-smart guys who don't declare their ideology, it still affects their dispute/poll positions anyway. A guy might not even know that he is biased but I have seen way biased people with no soapboxing on their userpages. But I think talking to the guy who raised his website and asking them to refactor is ok. And then oversighting. Raul can oversight as well. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up and a goofy idea

Hi Sandy, just a heads up that PeerReviewBot has been approved for a one week trial archiving Peer Review, including those already at FAC and FLC. Thanks go to Carl for writing and operating the bot. There will be a test for a week. Assuming it gets approved, the directions for PR and FAC might have to be tweaked.

I have a goofy idea I was wondering what you thought about - what if there were two Peer Reviews and one of them was some sort of "Featured Peer Review" similar to WP:PPR. The idea would be that before going to FAC or FLC, articles would be nominated there and could be nominated to FAC or FLC if enough editors thought it was ready. Perhaps this could also be a way to qualify articles for WP:LOCE. If the only problem was a copyedit, that would put it in line for a copyedit, and then FAC. There would also be regular peer review for articles that just wanted to improve, and get ready for GAN. The other advantage would be that splitting peer review would avoid size issues we now face at PR, and allow reviews on FPR to run longer if needed. What do you think? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Lost long answer to ec, will try again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So, on the first, if I see a FAC that has an open peer review, I should check back later? This is really going to throw me off, since I check every FAC when it first appears, to make sure the talk page is prepped for GimmeBot, so this will force me check twice (which I may forget, so GimmeBot may get stalled).

Anything to let peer reviews run longer would be good, but I think the current problem there is the amount of overhead taken up in the new automated system. I don't even go to PR anymore because I can't/won't wait to load the page (takes too long). I'm still unsure why all those templates and busy-ness are needed, and wonder if the page couldn't get back to a reasonable load time with longer PRs if the overhead and excess templates within templates were dropped. I noticed from WP:FAS that the volume at peer review has remain pretty much unchanged for several years, while everything else has increased, so the shortened PR time to allow for extra automated overhead still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. We need longer/stronger peer review, and I don't see that all that automation overhead is solving a problem.

On LOCE, that's a dead issue; nothing is happening there, we removed it from the FAC instructions because it's dead and no longer a viable option. No one is managing the lists there, and we haven't gotten a FAC copyedited from anyone there for as long as I can remember. (It worked when Gzkn was around, but he left.)

The general idea of a pre-FAC peer review or check has been discussed many times at WT:FAC and always defeated, because the fundamental problem across all content review areas is a severe lack of reviewers. Adding another step to the process won't increase the reviewer pool, and won't assure the rigorous review that articles (should) get at FAC; it will just be another content review stop that needs to be "staffed". What we need is for peer review and GAN to really have better defined niches in terms of steps along the path; they both can be hit-and-miss, so a lot of the work needed on articles isn't even mentioned until an article shows up at FAC ... which then becomes glorified peer review for unprepared articles (sigh). I still believe the solutions are in lengthening (back to the month we used to have) and strengthening the role of PR, and better defining the role of GAN and subjecting it to some sort of quality controls. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry for the ec and thanks for your thoughtful repsonse. I would ask Carl what to do about FACs that are still listed at PR. I know the current plan is to run the bot once a day by hand (for the test). I have been archiving by hand once every day or two. VeblenBot, which does the current PR work, runs once an hour.

• I believe the reason PR is so large now is that there has been a commitment that every PR request gets a review and I have not archived a PR request made since Feb 22 without a response. In contrast a PR request that got no feedback took very little space. I just looked at Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2007 and it had 233 PR requests, with over 50 (53 if I counted right, which I doubt) with no (ZERO) responses. A similar number got very minimal responses (I did not count these exactly). So close to a quarter had zero replies and close to half had no or very minimal repsonses. Now every review gets something substantial and all that transcluded code makes things much bigger.

• I have said this before and you can ask Allen3 who used to do the PR archiving, but we are back to the same time to archive as always - two weeks with no response and two days with no response if the PR is over a month old (this is also what the bot will use to archive). I do think there is a problem with people going to PR and then right to FAC - Civil Air Patrol was in PR one week and now is at FAC. I am doing 60 or more PRs a month and do not have a lot of time to particiapte in FAC - sorry - but I do not think it is ready. I did not know LOCE was dead - I will stop refering to it. Pity. Thanks again for your reply and all you do, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• It sounds like you're single-handedly running PR, which is worrisome and must be exhausting and you will surely burn out (do you ever get barnstarred by anyone? :-). I've been referring people all over the place to WP:PRV and WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008; is that helping? I sometimes wonder if people really are bypassing PR and going straight to FAC and using FAC for peer review, where they'll get a solid review. Something to think about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I experimented once with the idea of highlighting prematurely closed (by the nom) peer reviews at FAC, but it was too much work for me. I'm generally still the person doing a lot of the prep/maintenance work on FACs, which is a job I did before I was also promoting/closing, so time is short, but yes, I generally notice when nominators close a scanty review after only a few days and come straight to FAC. The only thing I can do, is when noms want to come back too soon, is remind nominators of the tips at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 for locating peer reviewers and inviting them to the PR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I have been kind of running PR, but figured that was better than no one running it. Once the bot is up and running it will make my PR tasks much easier - archiving and semi-transcluding large PRs and doing the semi-automated peer reviews as AZPR all take time. I can sympathize on prep/maintenance work - just had some open a second PR while the first was still running.
  As for burnout, I do worry about that. For a while The Rambling Man and I did the bulk of the no response PRs, things have been a little more hectic since he moved on to codirect FLC, but lately several other editors have stepped up and started doing more of the orphan PRs. I do believe that the PRV list has helped a lot - I just deal with the ones that get no responses. Moni3 gave me a barnstar for PR just today, which was quite nice of her. I also saw on her page that you are not feeling well and wish you a speedy recovery. I will send CArl (CBM) this way to try and answer your questions, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC urgents

I wouldn't say I paid attention regularly (and at the moment I have extremely limited editing time) but on those occasions when I could contribute, I went to the FAC urgents first. There might be others with the same approach, so it might be worth maintaining. Mike Christie (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(Sound of large, angry crowd murmuring) --Laser brain (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Murmur, murmur. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I’ll maintain it if it’s something a non-director/delegate is able to do and, if so, you’re willing to train me in (i.e. explain what makes one urgent) . Since Gimmebot stole my main tag gig, I need something to fill the void (guns and religion only do so much…) Hope you feel better, by the way. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking; I feel awful and can't shake it (whatever it is). Dizzy, headache, weak, head spinning, never had something like this before, can sort of post but afraid to promote (maybe my brain really did explode yesterday). Anyway, no point in maintaining a list when only a handful are doing all the work. I just read through FAC and, dizziness aside, there are only a few articles I can move because there's no feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

аплодисменты --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what's an urgent? According to me ... Anything that's been up for a week but the director/delegate don't have enough info to determine consensus or close. That's the whole list lately, so I don't know whether to keep putting them all up (the list was running up to 16), or just put up the oldest five. Either way I did it, seemed to make no difference, except for the regular handful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(To you as well for looking that up!) Well, if more folks pop up wanting it back, you can always give me a proverbial ring. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 01:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Date formats

I would like to explain why I wikilinked the dates in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-12/Dispatches which you subsequently reverted. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Autoformatting and linking (same as WP:MOSDATE and WP:DATE), dates should be wikilinked so that each user sees dates in the date format specified in their preferences. (Note: The comma in the date is optional; it is automatically added if needed for the date format preference.) Many articles follow this convention, including WP:MOSDATE itself. I dislike edit wars; would you please reconsider your edits. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Notice the wording in MOSDATE: "A combination of a day number and a month can be autoformatted by adding square brackets ... " Can you please show me where you found the word should? Tony1 (talk · contribs), who edited that Dispatch article, also helped craft the wording at MOSDATE, and he intentionally chooses not to link dates as he believes they are WP:OVERLINKing. As long as the date formats are consistent within the article, that's within guidelines. But it would be best if you took it up with Tony, since he stays on top of the guidelines daily, while I only catch up every few weeks. Perhaps the guideline has changed recently, but I doubt that Tony would miss that; if you can show me where in MOSDATE it says that dates should be linked, I'll revert back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A little thank you

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship, and for your support in advance of it as well. I’ve learned a great deal from the way you conduct yourself on Wikipedia, and hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawal

My FAC reviewers have suggested I withdraw my nomination and seek a peer review. Can you help with the withdrawal of Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Marriott_School_of_Management? Thank you. --Eustress (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have a look in a bit: by the way, see WP:FAC/ar on archiving instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ec; not feeling well, so that helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about the archiving instructions. Hope you feel better. --Laser brain (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it if you like. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on Slp1 talk page

Hi SandyGeorgia, your comment "here" I want to clarify a bit. First, I have the utmost respect for this editor Eubulides (talk · contribs), he tries so hard to be fair and listen to everyone. As for being involved, not exactly. I watch the chiropractic page to help me understand this practice for RL since a member of my family is using a chiropractor. I am not involved in this article. I don't think I have ever edited on the article itself and the postings that I do have were to try to calm things down when things got really heated, which didn't help but I don't think my attempts hurt anything. My last contribution was the Rfa which requested opinions from outsiders about the 'big change' in the article that got the article recently blocked. I stated I was for the change because as someone who is 'learning' about the practice, I found the changes made it easier for a non-medical person to find the information and understand more. I have to say now, I'm sorry I even responded because of the problems that has occurred since, with revert wars and attacks. I went to Slp1 because he/she was the only one on a board who answered questions about the article and I thought he/she might be interested in giving input to the talk page. I did this with hopes that maybe another outsider making comments about all the disputes would prevent the escalation that has happened.

I don't know if what I am saying is clear, sorry if it's not, not feeling well myself (saw you were under the weather too lately, hope you are feeling better.) I want you to know so I am open about things that I am not in the medical field at all. If you have any questions for me please do not hesitate to tell me at my talk page, or here (please put Crohnie in the comment section so I catch it.) My plans in regards to this article are to be an outside observer. I do not plan on making anymore comments since the Rfa seemed to be ignored or some kind of problem which to be honest, I still don't understand why asking the community for input got ignored like it was. I don't like controversy like this and avoid it when it gets too much for me. Again, I hope I make sense here but if I don't please accept my apologies because my medications make it hard for me most of the time and I have to work real hard to edit. I am an editor here to help me with focusing and using the brain cells I have left. ;) I try to enjoy being an editor and usually, mostly I do. I also hope that the little bit of editing I do help the project that I am working on. I hope you are feeling better and have a wonderful weekend. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, CG; thanks for writing! I haven't followed the article either; I was only alerting Slp1 (because I saw that on her talk page when I was there about something else) that the mediation warrants an experienced mediator or a change of venue. It's a complex topic, MEDCAB is all volunteer, and anyone can take a case; I suggest this case warrants someone with experience. (Sorry for the short response; still not feeling well.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I agree with what you say above. Sorry you still are not feeling well. I know how hard it is to do things, anything and everything, when not feeling well so I can definitely sympathise. Take the time if you can to get lots of rest and take care of you , that's what I'm getting ready to do. I hope you are feeling better real soon. Take care,--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion requested

If you have a moment, could you comment on my last query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team#King Arthur article? Many thanks. qp10qp (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll get over there in a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have just noticed above that you aren't well. Please get well soon and get to this when you are better. I wish I could give you a bunch of bluebells and yellow tulips from my garden. qp10qp (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel better; may be full steam by tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Now is the time for sharing

I'm thinking, which may take overnight or more.

In the meantime, I had to share that I have this sitting in my living room. I can't shake the idea that he looks like Dr. Bunsen Honeydew. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In the logic that random comments that border on bizarre lighten your day, I shall try to balance a non-sequitur for each WTF are you doing?? you seem to get. Here's two: I just spilled a burrito on my desk, and the featured picture of the white-faced capuchin monkey on the front page is the same monkey that I dreamed about several nights ago. He was sitting on the roof of the house across the street, with like 19 cats, and corn feed was spread all over the roof. Somehow the monkey had taken corn feed from the carport of the house up to the roof. And he was sitting there like all the cats were in his harem. Did I somehow predict what was going to be the featured image of the day? I don't watch that page. Is this a sign? What does it all mean? --Moni3 (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it means you should stop going to Taco Bell :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

*hissss* Blasphemer! It was Chipotle. --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't do this, but it made me laugh out loud and get tears in my eyes. The next time you're feeling overwhelmed with all of life's problems and the horrible things people do to each other, remember that there is a cat who manages a train station in Japan. The cat gets a train station hat. And a promotion to "super stationmanager". Kind of gives your life meaning and perspective, doesn't it? --Moni3 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am shipping one of the many extra raccoons I have wandering about my house to Brianboulton to familiarize him with their characteristics and habits. I was going to send you a link to a lolcat that made me laugh, but I found something else instead. Per this site, I need to make you a graph referring to the correlation between the number of posts someone leaves while you're sleeping and the probability of someone being a dink.

FAC workload

I just wanted to let you know - if you're feeling overworked on FAC, please let me know, and we can go about bringing in a third person to help share the work. Raul654 (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Overworked? Most of the time, I'm twiddling my thumbs, biding my time, bored as an oyster, unable to close anything for lack of reviews. And I thought giving out reviewer awards would help stimulate more reviews :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to TRY to get a few reviews in tomorrow. Cross your fingers for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no you don't :-) You're already working too hard !! I 'spose I could be more aggressive about closing the older reviews, if reviewers feel overworked, but I try to leave them up as long as they still have a chance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes I do! (sticks her tongue out at Mama Sandy) I'm still in a holding pattern about the next one to bring to FAC, can't decide! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see that I'm not the only one who see you as a wiki mother-figure, Sandy. You provide lots of good advice, and you do an excellent job of nagging us like a parent when we need it ;) Karanacs (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For you

Have a nice day. . --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Realist2; you, too ! (See, I remembered to use 2 too.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, well remembered, sorry for being suck a d*ck a few months ago. --Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 03:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No need (but I may not remember the 2 next time; with me, 'ya never know about the memory :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tally

Hey Sandy, One thing, when you update the tally on RfA's it is nice to put the count in the summary rather than the word "tally". For example, this. That way people who see the edit in their watch list can see what the current count is.Balloonman (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you tell me :-)) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Military Brat

Hey Sandy, I don't think the military brat article is of FA quality anymore and have nom'ed it for FAR. Could you confirm that I nomed it for FAR correctly?Balloonman (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

:-(( Are there any WikiProjects to notify (example, MilHist)? Can we save it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll add a note there... unfortunately, I think it would take a major effort to fix it as there has been a lot of 'creep' into the article that I didn't notice over the past year plus. There are things that I read where I said, no that is not what the original source said. Without restoring it to the original version (eg getting rid of up to a years worth of edits) I don't think we could get it back to where it should be... and even then, while I liked the article, I was never fully convinced that it should have passed in the first place. *MY* writing skills are not strong enough to write FA articles. My skills exist elsewhere.Balloonman (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We can talk about that on the FAR, but would a FAR-supported revert to after mainpage day resolve the new problems? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I think so... while I personally was not convinced that it should have passed, it did pass. I would have no problem with it being restored to that state. As is, it definitely isn't FA quality IMHO.Balloonman (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh Classic FAC

Please review the citations of this article again. They should be fixed now. Thanks for your help. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

barnstar of nomination thanks

Barnstar of Nomination Thanks

Sandy: Thank you so much for suggesting, encouraging, and nominating my RfA. None of this would have happened, let alone so surprisingly smoothly, without you. Thank you for your thoughtful and careful (and far too generous) nomination, for keeping the tally ticking, and for generally watching over things. And thank you above all for putting your trust in me. I do hope to deserve it. And whenever you need someone with administrative tools for some FA-related task, just shout. Again, thanks so much. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thoughts

Hey Sandy, I'm writing to you specifically because you are the most experienced editor I know. I am asking you to tell me the truth: how do you think I would do in an RfA? Best, Happyme22 (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:SandyGeorgia#RfA. Most importantly, I think you can trust Balloonman's judgment. For you, Tvoz or WTR, it would be harder than the average editor, because the political POV pushers (on one side or the other) would look for a reason to oppose you. Harder for you than them, because Wiki leans overwhelmingly left. No guarantees, but I would trust Balloonman, while knowing there's a chance some will oppose you simply because of the articles you edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy, I'll take a look at you this weekend... I am about to get offline now, but will try to come back this evening. I just asked WTR if he would be interested in making the run because I think it would be helpful to have a politically oriented Admin during the upcoming political season. A nod from Sandy goes a long way.Balloonman (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you for your time. Balloonman, I look forward to your conclusions. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, you might be interested in my analysis on Happy's talk page.Balloonman (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawal

I'd like to withdraw Gilberto Gil from its FAC, at the recommendation of Jbmurray. This is the place to request this sort of thing, right? --Kakofonous (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a very promising start, Kakofonous, and I hope we'll see it back quite soon ! Just add a note to the FAC requesting withdrawal, and I or someone will get to it soon. Take note of WP:FAC/ar in terms of leaving the fac template on the talk page. Good luck with the finishing polishes, and I'm looking forward to it sailing through next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Left the note, and thanks for the encouragement! Here's something for you:

		The Special Barnstar
		You certainly deserve this, for all the work you do to help others on WP. Every time I've come here with a question, you have always given a useful and prompt response. You do this for everyone else that comes here too, as well as contributing insightful commentary to discussions, working incredibly hard on articles, and leading much of the featured content process. Thanks. --Kakofonous (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Kakofonous; that was kind and thoughtful (I usually just get beaten up :-) With Jbmurray, Acer and Fv, I know you'll have an excellent FAC up soon! Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually just get beaten up hahaha, thanks for making me smile before the day even started :D Acer (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway and WP:PUNC

The quote you questioned was discussed within Talk:Natalee Holloway/Archive 3 in the section ""... a pretty, blonde, and white...". We tried to get clarification on how to address the issue, as the punctuation was added by whoever typed the spoken quote (if that makes sense), but never heard back from anyone. It's not a matter of commas or dashes, but where the correct pause in her spoken words actually was. Should we simply leave the punctuation as it appears in the source? - auburnpilot talk 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't do original research, even on punctuation. The original source is clear, and we should always try to stick close to sources: "Danna Walker, a senior journalist with CBS News, told the BBC: "There is criticism that it is only a story because she is a pretty, blonde and white - and it is criticism that journalists are taking to heart and looking elsewhere for other stories." Y'all have added additional punctuation that singles out "white" and is not included in the source; that's original research. Also, the source does not describe Huffington as Conservative; unclear why that was worked in to the article. I left other concerns (which I expect can be easily resolved) on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree it's original research, I have no problem making the change. We discussed it once before, not really sure which way to go, and I'm glad to finally have an answer. I've responded on Talk:Natalee Holloway. - auburnpilot talk 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, stick to the sources: we have a source that gives punctuation. Verifiability, not truth. I know it seems like a minor point, but this is now the third article I'm aware of where I've seen the importance of sticking to sources on punctuation to avoid creating POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there other issues about logical punctuation on quotes that need to be looked at (whether punctuation is inside or outside of quotes); I find several instances that are incorrect, so all should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I made a pass at WP:PUNC to hopefully address some of those concerns. - auburnpilot talk 19:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Snarky comment

Can I change my sig to "Fight the power, printed sources are better than online!"�??? Please Mama Sandy? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Go for it !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

SupportBalloonman (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I'd also support a mandatory change to all sigs to include this slogan!  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—significant decline in new FAs would occur. It's about numbers, right? –Outriggr § 01:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

there are days when I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It would not be a bad thing. Ling.Nut (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Polling is evil

1. Support – Waltham, The Duke of 01:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Votes are evil. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
3. Fruitless exercises are inherently more rewarding than fruitful ones. I totally support that! --Moni3 (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sinestro Corps War FAC

I have responded to your concerns about the article's sources. Thanks for your input! --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's RFArb

Since you were on the receiving end of quite a few of her personal attacks, you might want to weigh in on it here. --130.127.3.249 (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

hehehe

why I did all the mushroom edits.....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ah, come on, give me a hint ! It's bedtime here, and I don't have time to download and watch it before I snooze -- what's the nutshell? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How slow is your connection? Me on a game show. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously ?? OK, now I'll have to figure out how to make it go. I don't do a lot on the 'puter, you know :-) I'll have to ask the youngsters for help tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I had a look at this. You Aussies! Anyway, commiserations: you only lost out by 50 points! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha, figured it out ... that was so cool (not that I figured it out, but that you know everything there is to know about poisonous mushrooms). Nice to "meet" you, Cas :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Tic Code

Dear SandyGeorgia,

I am so sorry about the article.
I messed something up and was previewing it.
Then I got really busy with other stuff and couldn't get back to it. So I saved it in a rush.
I felt guilty about it ever since that edit. Thanx for reverting the edit back that makes it so much easier for me!
AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem, Annie; that sort of thing happens to all of us :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang

Is it safe to ignore Mojska's oppose, pending proper elucidation? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mojska has a colorful history of interesting FAC declarations; I've learned to enjoy reading them (they keep me on my toes :-). I see GrahamColm responded on the FAC, which means FAC is working as it should. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Flagging up...

User talk:Raul654#Donald Bradman and WP:SIZE Hope you're well. --Dweller (talk) 11:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's 57KB—9,850 words—readable prose, according to Dr pda's prose size script (per WP:SIZE). I get uncomfortable between 55 and 60, but my eyes glaze over when readable prose gets above 60, as that's always veering into a book with more than 10,000 words rather than encyclopedia article, IMO. However, consensus has gone against my opinions on size many times, and anything less than 10,000 words usually does fine. You should be prepared to argue that you've used Summary style effectively. Have you considered a structure like Hugo Chávez, Early life of Hugo Chávez and Military career of Hugo Chávez? (I saw some curly quotes that need to be replaced, did a sample, and some hyphens that want to be dashes, and I fixed some footnote placement).) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at all of that advice. One further question - how does one find the errant quote marks? (not sure I can tell the difference very easily) --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

NB Hope you don't mind, but I'll x-post these comments to the PR. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A regular quote mark looks like " while a curly quote is like this: ... on the “comfortable” income ... Someone told me they come from having worked in Word and copied text over from there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it'd be cheeky to ask you to. Is there a keyboard shortcut that generates the wrong and right mark? If so, I can ctrl F my way to redemption. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. They look identical to these tired old eyes. You know me - I like to fix issues that have been raised, but I'm not sure how I can find them. --Dweller (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you want me to fix them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't make ctrl-f work, either. I'll fix them for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Angel. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Superduper angel. Incidentally, I've re-read WP:DASH for umpteenth time. I think the remaining -s are hyphens in correct usage. --Dweller (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

Hi Sandy, I hope you are feeling better. I just wanted to let you know that I've had it with the Roman Catholic Church FAC again and I am going to try to stay away from it. I don't have a lot of wiki time right now and I'd rather spend it doing something not as stressful. I'll leave it to your judgement to decide if my objections have been addressed (good luck reading through the essays the article editors have posted!) Karanacs (talk) 13:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm feeling better for now, but need to discuss options with my physician; thanks for asking. At least the responses at RCC are correctly threaded this time, so there has been improvement :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not sounding so good... (frets). To stay somewhat on topic, I washed my hands of the RCC FAC a while ago. There are limits to how much I'm willing to do, and trying to explain my position wasn't worth it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand reviewer frustration is an issue; I have to gauge consensus vis-a-vis what is written on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty written. We could probably publish a book of all the essays! I don't envy you having to read all of that (probably multiple times). Karanacs (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, could you have a look at some of the recent changes to that FAC, please? I would normally revert any moving of my own comments, but I'd prefer if you could look at it first and tell me if it has your approval... --Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Well, one of the problems with my very busy talk page is that I sometimes miss messages, and if I had noticed this, I would have gotten right on it. Thanks for the notice, Relata. I only saw the moves now as I was trying to run through FAC to pr/ar, and it took me half an hour to reconstruct the FAC. I was coming back to here to comment that no one had let me know this was going on ... and here you are :-) I think I got Humpty Dumpty back together, but others should check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems fine to me now, thank you. Perhaps I should have started a new section here - that usually helps in getting noticed. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Venezuela

Woody, why is Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela being redirected to South America throughout templates? What is behind this and how can I track it down? This isn't right; do we redirect France, Spain and Germany to Europe? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is absurd; I hope there's a good explantion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela is not being redirected to Wikipedia:WikiProject South America, they still exist as separate entities. As far as I can tell, it is a reasonable attempt at template rationalisation and pooling resources. The banner still links to Venezuela, it only uses one template to do so though. Why have three project templates when one will do? Woody (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get it. What do you mean by why have three when one will do? See Talk:Spain; why are South American countries treated differently than European countries? Doing a slow fry here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is so wrong on every level I can't believe what my eyes are seeing. When I go to Talk:Spain, I see a link to the Spain Project. When I go to Talk:Venezuela, I see them rolled into a continent. I simply cannot believe this double standard, can't believe I'm seeing this, and if we're rationalizing templates, then I want to see all 50 U.S. states redirected to the USA, and all European countries redirected to Europe, etc. This is amazing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know and I don't know whether it has been discussed anywhere. It would seem reasonable to do the same thing for the European countries but I expect there would be some opposition and the same can be said for the US ones I suppose. For what its worth, I don't think it is a conspiracy against the South American projects nor is it some subtle form of discrimination, though I can perfectly understand your feelings on this. The milhist project went through a rationalisation phase over the last year and we now have 50 task forces. Perhaps it is a more top-down approach; I don't know, you will have to ask John Carter. Woody (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm struggling to retain my composure :-) This is utterly wrong on every level. And it definitely appears to make South American countries second-class citizens on Wiki. And the same thing certainly hasn't been done to other continents. I need to see a very good explanation for this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I can see the benefits of this I have to admit, perhaps the South American projects were a test case? Again, I don't know, I am only guessing. I would have hoped there will be some discussion somewhere, though frankly, most projects, Europe included simply don't have the interested membership needed to create a coherent discussion on anything meaningful. Woody (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(I hate split discussions :-) Sure there's benefit if it's being applied equally; it looks like it's being applied only to South America. I'd best walk away from the computer for a while. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There you go, split no more! Again, I do understand your frustration and walking away from this crazy place for an hour or two can be beneficial. I haven't seen it happening for other projects I have to admit. We will just have to wait for a comment by John Carter. Woody (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The same thing seems to have been taking place with Wikiproject Christianity swallowing up Wikiproject Catholocism. Can ya'll direct me to where this was resolved? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Amazing what an hour in the garden will do for one's frame of mind; OK, we'll see what comes of the discussion, and hopefully the unfortunate impressions were unintended consequences :-) But there is a very big difference between Argentina and Venezuela, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed that. --Moni3 (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What? The differences between Argentina and Venezuela ? I didn't :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too, I'm ashamed to say. Without your passion, Sandy, this place would be lot duller ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, the moment has passed ... for my husband's sake, let's hope that's not the highpoint of my passion for the day. But, gee, they all speak Spanish so they must all be one big country, right ?  :-))) Do they have cars there, too? (Yes, I've actually been asked that question in real life.) Or, to quote Yomangani, Maybe we can run Buckingham Palace on Bastille Day. We're all Europeans over here after all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Such passion! Sandy, a bulwark of neutrality no more. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold on...don't they speak Portuguese there? Oh wait, that must be the other province, Brazil... Risker (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Brazil who? Is that in South America or Africa, I forget? (Yes, I've been asked that, too :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's all America, isn't it? EyeSerene^talk 18:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, even better ...  :-) Let's consolidate templates for all American countries between the South Pole and the North Pole, and really save some load on the servers! We can do some really good consolidation with Christianity too; roll the Intelligent Design Project right in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! It's the 'consolidations' between Greece and Turkey, Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the USA, and France and... well... anyone, I'm looking forward to :D EyeSerene^talk 19:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the Australian Constitution provides that if New Zealand ever so wishes it can become a state of Australia. :P Orderinchaos 17:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Who says Wikipedia is for anemic geeks whose violins are temporarily in the shop for repair? My arteries are being cleaned out right now by a helpful editor fixing all the problems in Mulholland Dr., and asking pointed questions about my citations and NPOV. I appreciate the health boost, particularly during FAC. It's like a glass of V-8. --Moni3 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, if the projects have not approved of this, it is really wrong, and should be reverted. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is perfectly odd. I've searched every place I know to search, and all I can find is that this random change was applied only to Venezuela and Catholicism. I reverted the change at Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate

Hi Sandy, you might want to keep an eye on this; the nominator has removed the {{FAC}} from the talk page twice now; once after I left a reminder on his/her talk page. Don't want to kill the beloved Gimmebot. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, and thanks for helping ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there is the section in place... I am in a dilemma, as far as the article's talk page is concerned. The "This is the talk page..." template at the top has links to the archives, which are useful and take up little space. However, they don't mention the dates, as does the small archive box a little lower in the page. I dislike the redundancy, but I don't know how important the dates are for just two archives. Any opinions? Waltham, The Duke of 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

From someone who also hates redundancy: |noarchive=yes will hide the archive links in {{Talkheader}}. Maralia (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I can finally do what attracted my attention to the archive box in the first place: fix the dashes in the links. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 05:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

...for restoring the commentary on the Roman Catholic Church FAC page to some sense of its original order. Much appreciated. Majoreditor (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that Relata refero let me know about this some seven hours ago, but I missed the message; I'm really sorry for the delay. I hope others will doublecheck my work, because putting Humpty Dumpty back together was quite a chore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I don't know if there are FAC directions but please know that I was trying to follow what you had done in the last FAC. I was wondering where you were. I thought I was helping you. Sorry if I messed things up instead. NancyHeise (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

name dropping

Those guys need a hobby.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

They've got one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in writing that signpost. Could you give me some more details?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

You would? Mike, that's awesome. To get up to speed, review the thread on Raul's page, consider whether Laser will write with you (he's a very capable writer), define the scope of the article per my three questions on Raul's talk page (consult with Raul), have a look at WP:FCDW particularly the old Dispatches to see samples, and then we just pick a date. If you spend some time going through the workshop and past dispatches, you'll see what we're about. I don't know if Raul thinks we can cover all three points I raised on his talk page, or whether we should focus on individual aspects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and when you actually start writing, you can pour any ole text onto the page, because Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Jbmurray (talk · contribs) will help you tweak and fine tune it before publication. Those guys are magic :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

More: the three possible areas to cover are:

1. Issues that occur on mainpage when we run a company or product (Ernest Emerson, Baby Gender Mentor, Elderly Instruments) that gets accused of advert, what is an advert, how is notability defined, any article that meets notability can become featured and can be on mainpage, etc.
2. What to expect on mainpage day, a la User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article
3. How are mainpage articles chosen, WP:TFA/R SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

   User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts#The main page featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll get started next week!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Slp1 nomination

I just wanted to thank you for your update on the counts and adding the marriage proposal comment. "Marriage proposal here" It caught my attention and I had to take a look, and I had a good laugh. I needed that! :) Hard to explain, guess I am easy to amuse but thanks for bringing it to my attention. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks...

... for all your help with the current dispatch, and for encouraging myself, Karanacs, and (especially) Jbm to get on with it. I have reverted the latest changes. There is more that can be said, but it can't all be said in this dispatch. We have a good focus now and a carefully copyedited text. I'd like to maintain it until it is posted. Geometry guy 22:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I was also uncomfortable with those last changes ... tried to improve rather than revert, but I think you're right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy: I saw one tweak which was a possible improve, but not a compelling one. I've left a message for the user who made the changes. Geometry guy 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Malformed nom

Degu nominated here but not transcluded. Nom has 0 edits to article; article eminently unready (a total of 2 citations). FAC removed by me, nominator notified. {{db-maintenance}} the FAC page? Maralia (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

New editor, I prefer not to maintenance delete since you don't know which way it will go, I moved it to archive, notice the standard terminology I use on a case like that for standardization to Rick Block scripts. Thanks, Maralia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

WTF

hey the naked brothers band are all midgets everyone knows that they are in their 40's —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spagett (talk • contribs) 00:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, and an admin needs to look at all the warnings on your talk page, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh look—one just did. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw that; 'ya know, you should stop breaking the mold like that :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you

I've done a lot of work on the Soundgarden and if you see it's me and User:-5- that's been working hard on it so don't redraw it. --Freedom (song) (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I now list an FAR?

No, not Star Wars but something else. Both films are on removal. Ultra! 15:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The backlog is down, so generally, it should be OK. I don't have time to doublecheck right now, but try not to overload editors in any given area (if there are already FARs running in that content area, it may be better to hold off for a week or so), and make sure your previous noms are under control and progressing well. (And don't forget to do the notifications per instructions :-) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also remember to pay your fees to the Union. No fees, no FARs.

What do you mean "I want to know where the money goes"? You should know better than ask such stupid questions. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 15:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The money goes to the chocolate fund. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What is chocolate fund? Ultra! 18:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey! What did we say about questions? For shame, Ultra. Waltham, The Duke of 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

TFA reform

Hi, I’ve just made a comment on possible reform of the TFA system on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. I’d appreciate if you had a look and perhaps weighed in. Cheers! Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 16:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hard as I try, I fail to discern a proposal there; only confusion between WP:FAC, WP:WIAFA and WP:TFA/R. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent change to Tropical Depression Ten (2007)

Hello there Sandy. I always love the edits you make to my FAC's. However, I am a bit puzzled by this edit. Every single other tropical cyclone article (to my knowledge) has the storm path map at the top left of the storm history, including every other featured hurricane article I have done. Might this be a case where it would be better to go against the MOS for the sake of consistency? Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want, but the text is squeezed on my screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll talk it over with the other project members, thanks. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

fac question

Hey, my fac for Assata Shakur was recently failed despite the fact that the only unresolved objections were a few hours old (I'm busy during the day and couldn't fully respond to/fix them). Was this because it had been on the fac page for too long overall? Or was it your judgement that the standing objections were too severe to be resolved on this nomiation?

Sorry for my lack of familiarity with the current procedures; I somehow had it in my head that objections had to stand a little longer before a nomination was closed. What is the ettiquette on renominating? You can respond here; I'm watchlisting your talk page. Savidan 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Savidan; it's a combination of factors. The article had been up for many days (almost two weeks) without garnering sufficient support, and when the objections include POV, they can be very hard to overcome (in terms of attracting reviewers). I think the article will have a better chance if you take about a week, work on the issues raised, and bring it back for a fresh start; that path usually gives better results than letting a nomination drag in to three weeks. Because you're an experienced editor, I don't think it will take you longer than a week, although we typically expect a couple of weeks between nominations. Good luck (and it's nice to see you around FAC) ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I kind of figured that the article wasn't going to be promoted anytime soon; I just didn't realize it would be removed. Although probably that makes more sense given that the nominations page gets so big that it crashes for a lot of people. I'll try to work things out with the most recent objector on the talk page and bring it back in a few weeks. Thanks for all you do with the FA process. Savidan 21:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Savidan, it might not take you a couple of weeks; bring it back sooner if you get those issues ironed out. Considering the issues raised and the time the article had been up, I just thought the best parth forward would be to work it out off-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Ref. Q

Hi, SG. Long time no type. Quick query: The cite templates usually add a period at the end of the footnote. Is there any way around this? I don't see any reason why footnotes should end with a period, do you? Hope all is well! Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Ss; I can't fix that one for you :-) I hate cite templates; I don't use them. Format your citations consistently and manually, like I did at Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Me too, but ROTFL! That's funny; ya gotta love Wikipedia: I wonder if you can publicize this to the GA reviewers, who often request people to add cite templates in order to pass GA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

<grrrrrr ... > Yes, I've noticed these GA issues, as they often bleed over into FAC, with some editors honestly believing cite templates are required. Well, you might need to remind the GA folk that they are violating just about everything when/if they demand cite templates, which are not required on Wiki by any guideline or policy. See WP:CITE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind dropping a note at the GA project talk page to let them know that it doesn't help with FA reviews? I have seen them say things like, using the templates will help you later when you bring the article up to FA consideration. The project talk page is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Al the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't really do that; I already deal with enough animosity over there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'll do it. I've had the reasons for using cite templates explained to me, but I still can't stand the excessive code they splatter all over the place. I'll be happy to complain to GA folks; should I not mention that it causes headaches at FAC? – Scartol • Tok 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with delivering any message to GA is that there's no "them" "there". Since anyone can pass a GA, you can leave all the messages you want, but they won't necessarily be seen by the people passing GAs. (In fact, it might be more effective to figure out which editors are spreading this notion, and approach them individually with WP:CITE, WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Bolding bot

Did the bot do its thing tonight? I didn't see a message on my watchlist like i usually do.... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know, Ealdgyth, been busy, it busts regularly, anyone can let Schutz know: [1] [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hello Sandy. I don't know why it was not closed back in time, but the Zinta FAC is still on.

I have some important things to tell you

• boxofficeindia.com was proved to be reliable on the noticeboard. Now there is one oppose which does not seem to be longer valid, because major copyediting has been done, and the mentioned source is part of their oppose. They unfortunately did not come to look at it again.
• Another user, as I already told you, opposed with no examples, saying it needs copyediting and one source is unreliable (he probably means BOI too, but he never came back either).
• One editor opposed because of one image which according to him does not add to the understanding of the subject. IMO, it does - it's a very subjective matter, and I explained why it did. But it strikes me as a bit odd that other FAs like Diane Keaton can have so many images, and this one cannot because of unexplained matters. I think there should be a rule/guideline for that.
• Lastly, there is Girolamo's oppose. I consider his comments very valid, and have addressed almost all of them, but there are two, which I did not agree with. I ask you to step in, because it's a bit funny.

I need your comments on the matter. Looking forward to your reply, Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I passed that FAC to Raul on May 11 (User talk:Raul654#FACs for you) because I felt that I had become too close to the article and had a conflict. I will direct him to your post here, and will look in on the FAC later today to see if anything needs sorting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If Tony1 withdraws his oppose, Laser changes his vote to support, and TonyTheTiger (who failed its GAN back in time) supports it as well, I still have some hopes. Shahid • ^Talk2me 06:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rush Street FAC

Sandy,

I went to sleep last night thinking I would request a reboot in the morning because all the responses seem to focus on whether there are too many pictures. Most have either gone from opposed to neutral because they are not sure about the propriety of the extensive use of {{multiple image}}. One or two have not returned to state an opinion on the redesign which eliminated squeezing and clutteredness. User:Tony1 responded this morning with some comments that may change the dynamics of your decision, but a reboot would not be a bad thing given the amount of text I have added and formatting that I have changed since some of the early respondents. I will address User:Tony1's concerns momentarily to the best of my ability.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I will look in on it later, but without having looked, I can tell you that I use restarts very sparingly, and I'm criticized every time I do, so there has to be a compelling reason for a restart. Also, if there are any image concerns, be sure to iron them out and get that cleared with Elcobbola (talk · contribs) (who just put up a note that he's off for the weekend) or Black Kite (talk · contribs), since I'm not well versed in image issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you provide a link to the FAC, I'll get there faster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of hours before I go; I did an initial pass at images (now capped), but I'll double-check since some have been added since. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, ec (and have a good weekend :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Eight hour round trip drives aren't my cup of tea - especially with speed limits, but c'est la vie. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

TFA

Sandy, altough we obviously disagree about which way TFAs should be chosen, I do apreciate all the work you do over at FAC/FAR and your encouragement and guiding of FA writers and reviewers. Also I appreciate how hard and frustating it can be to argue by yourself against multiple people. Maybe we can get someone else who shares your concerns to participate, to get some of the weight off your shoulders? Acer (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably better I should just unwatch the page :-) By engaging in the discussion, it just gets drawn out, and some of the participants really would be better served to regroup and go back and actually read and understand the processes under discussion. At least I can follow your responses, in spite of the edit conflicts :-) Yes, I'll unwatch. I just don't like to see any editor treated as horribly as Laser has been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unwatched; done. Back to business as usual. Thanks for the encouragement, Acer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I might just follow your example :). I agree that what happaned to Laser was unofrtunate (especially the bad faith accusations that he was being paid), but in the end I think we're pretty much powerless to stop it, it's one of the side effects of allowing reader input.. You get all kinds... Acer (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Except that I just realized there's more to this than meets the eye, and the attacks on Laser and Raul over this article apparently aren't an isolated incident. I went back to look at the article talk page, and saw things I hadn't realized before. I'm such an AGFer that I'm always the last to realize what's written right before my eyes ... Lampman has been attacking Raul and me from the beginning, and was the one lobbing and fueling all these charges, and here I go AGFing and not even noticing it's all coming from him, even accusing me of "back-room dealings" after I asked Mike to help write a Dispatch.[3][4] Good grief, if I had realized from the beginning I was dealing with plain vanilla personal attacks, I wouldn't have engaged that discussion at all; discussion with editors who engage in personal attacks is rarely productive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Schedule

FYI - my schedule is going to be particularly busy over the next two weeks (I'll be graduating and driving to Louisiana for my summer job). I will probably not be around very much - especially on the weekends. I'll be queuing up a bunch of main page FAs shortly, and that should carry us into mid-June. Is there anything that needs my attention immediately? If anything comes up while I'm away, I'm sure you can handle it -- I think you've been doing a wonderful job. Raul654 (talk) 23:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations ! I've got travel for a graduation as well, only six days, but I should have enough internet access to log on daily and keep up, I'll never be far from a computer, and there are several other editors now who watch over the routine things (Roger Davies, Elcobbola, Karanacs, Maralia and Ealdgyth). What needs attention before travel is two FACs (Preity Zinta and Clinton), and Roman Catholic Church has been a challenge to keep on topic with reviewers wearing down; you might want to glance at it before you go to see if you feel strongly one way or another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

RCC is difficult to follow, and I've been following it. I recommend rebooting that one. And could I get a heads-up when the next batch of TFAs are scheduled? Gimmetrow 00:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've considering restarting, but past experience shows the page will fill up with more of the same, and little clarity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it's the type that will fill up with all sorts of stuff. But I think all the regulars have commented, so if there's a restart the responses might be brief. Oh, and I'll be away for a while in June also. Gimmetrow 00:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this regular won't be commenting. I'm worn out. It's better than it was, but this FAC is a great example of why we need new eyes, so the regulars don't burn out. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm a bit concerned that a restart will just ... restart more of the same, and cause more work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord, no. Please, no. I might just create a user subpage with my consolidated postings on the subject then. I've already been half-burned out by it. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering some of the past criticism of restarts, and acknowledging the volumes of work reviewers have put into this FAC and the exhaustion and frustration many have expressed, I am pondering a completely novel approach to this FAC (not a restart, but a new intermediate step). I'm hoping Raul will have a look before I decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm against a restart too; I think it will frustrate everyone, including the nominators. At this point, I think the nominators are not planning to respond to any of the further comments, and I doubt any amount of arguing is going to change either their minds or those of the reviewers. From what I can see, there are no major changes planned to the article (or in progress), so....it's in your very capable hands now, Sandy (lucky you!). Whatever you decide to do, I'll just be happy not to have to read more ramblings there anymore. Karanacs (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going back to telling folks that they need to put publishers in their refs. So much safer. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Man. The IP addresses blindly revert me, and I get dissed here. Bah. Maybe make it simple, no more featured articles except storms, obscure 9th-century bishops and highways. Except tollways, since those could be considered commercial. </sarcasm> Gimmetrow 02:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Make it 12th century and we have a deal. I really hate editing in the Anglo-Saxon period, I'm not an expert there at all. Blech. I'm still not sure what the objection to a music store exactly was, and I had no issues with the sources being used, honestly. But, whatever. I'll be glad to see more folks at FAC, if that happens. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Hmmm. Well I'll be working on a few 9th century articles soon, and I might drop you a note. You can do the same if you want some other eyes. Gimmetrow 03:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Gimme, I'm back on June 3; let me know about you so I can pr/ar a bunch before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to become tiresome to Raul and the rest of the FA bunch, but this is exactly the sort of thing that the TFA proposal is meant to deal with. A leadership void in a relatively one-person-centred system. The Director has still not commented on the proposal, and until he does I'll have no choice but to bring up the matter regularly (although I can certainly wait for two weeks). I don't want this to just fade and vanish, as so many other ideas have on Wikipedia. I hope you understand. Waltham, The Duke of 07:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Duke ! Remember that no matter what his real life schedule, Raul has never missed a day scheduling the mainpage in years; the same can't be said for DYK or ITN, and TFA has never faltered. There isn't a void; just FA people coordinating schedules as we should :-) Since your TFA/R proposals have become jumbled by others trying to capitalize on the lack of knowledge about notability of companies and products that led to the mainpage feeding frenzy this week, I suspect any proposals for changing TFA/R will have a better chance at success once that sideshow has died down. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That "hi" looks suspicious... You're not trying to make me leave, are you? :-D

Now, I am not saying that the Director has neglected his duties. However, he is a person just like the rest of us (I assume) and he might want to take a break some time. It might be better for him in some cases not to have to deal with Wikipedia for a few days. Does he not deserve it? The system should work properly at these times as well.

I accept the delay, but be warned that I'll have to start studying for my exams soon. For that to really happen, actually, I'll probably have to ask a sysop to block me, but I'll have to try nonetheless. In a couple of weeks, perhaps. Waltham, The Duke of 19:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

dispatch

I could, but do you mean a straight copy or one set in a broader scope of comments? The latter is undesirable, since the update should be as NPOV as possible. If the former, it begs the question of why the update appears in the Signpost in some months but not others.

However, I can do it if it's necessary. TONY (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Three months is too much—people won't read something that long. Besides, it's not three months since the initial (one-off) three-monther. OK, will do. We really do need to conduct a few interviews around the place to keep up our sleeves for contingencies. TONY (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The 2nd is a bit of a rush, since there's not much point in surveying diffs until the end of the previous month. But I should have time now the deadline's over, phew ... TONY (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bots closing FARC

Is this the norm? I guess I wouldn't mind, only Windows 2000 just got closed and delisted with absolutely no reasoning. Seems a bit unfair considering that I spent at least 50 hours researching and writing the article. Yes, some time ago now and I have retired, but I would think that 5-10 minutes of the delisting editors time to explain their reasoning would be a. respectful, and b. more encouraging and transparent.

10 minutes of their time vs. my 50 hours editing seems pretty fair to my way of thinking. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tbsdy; Marskell (talk · contribs) and Joelr31 (talk · contribs) close FARs, not a bot. The bot only processes the templates on the talk page once they have closed them (see similar instructions for FAC, which I will expand now to include FAR). I see all of the reasoning on the FAR page (five Removes and no requests to hold or Keep declarations) so it appears that the process worked as intended, but Marskell could probably explain further if you want to ask him. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the prose problems, I can't tell why it was removed. I objected, quite fairly I believe, to the referencing objections - the problems were that the references seemed to be slanted towards Microsoft, but I objected stating that it's quite reasonable to have referenced what I did given that the OS was created by them. Given this, what was the reason behind delisting?

Another question is: if I wanted to ask the person who closed the FARC, how precisely am I meant to know who did this? The final decision is edited and signed by a bot! There seems to be a transparency issue here. The issue being a decided lack of it. I'm fine with the article being delisted, I just want to know the reasoning. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, and as stated in the instructions at WP:FAR, FARs are closed by Marskell and Joelr31; they watch each other's talk pages, so you could query either of them. In practice, Marskell closes almost all the FARs, and as I indicated above, you can ask him for his reasoning, although the FAR itself is clear. Diffs showed that issues raised during the FAR weren't being addressed, and there were five Removes (specifying numerous deficiencies) and no Keeps, so it looks like a straightforward, uncontroversial close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I did feel bad for Tbsdy, but indeed, with five removes staring at me and no work on the article it was very hard to justify continuing to leave it open. As for work needed, most of the refs are simply a title with link and no other publisher info. Simply fixing that will take much work. The level of referencing tends to drop off as the article progresses. Marskell (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the reasoning. Fair enough then. Like I say, I don't mind it being defeatured (the article has definitely degraded, and some of my old prose isn't up to scratch), I just wanted to know why. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tbsdy, I just figured out (from trying to sort Marskell's response about feeling bad for you, when I didn't see you had edited the article) what Tbsdy stands for ... <smacks self in forehead> ... I'm sorry for being so slow on the uptake. I didn't really engage that review, and if I had realized you were back and wanted to work on it, I would have helped, but it appeared that no one was working on it. SandyGeorgia 14:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Too many tildes Sandy :-) It's OK, I'm not that concerned. One day I'll have time to work on the prose... - Tbsdy lives (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still feel bad :-) If I had known you were back, I would have offered to help, but I really thought no one was working on it. How's life treating you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

hmmm

OK, I know I'm just giving grist to your mill, but... people want TFA to be more like DYK? Hmmm. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 13:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to, since I unwatched the TFA/R page because the recent discussion has been fueled by an editor who has holdover issues from the Ernest Emerson mainpage, and any worthwhile proposals are being lost in an unproductive debate. Do you really want me to look over there again, knowing how I feel about attacks on any FA writers and reviewers, like Laser brain and Mike Searson ? :-)) Fact is, TFA works, Raul has never faulted, many of the naysayers don't understand policy and processes, DYK and ITN have had glitches that TFA has never had; you know the old saying about "you break it, you own it" :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was perhaps too indirect... nah, look here (linked at the hmmm, above.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Looked briefly, see the point, didn't investigate further, if I don't stay focused on work I need to complete here and around the house, I'm not going to make that plane next week :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

For the kind words in your co-nomination, for keeping and eye on things and for the congratulations! I really do appreciate the confidence, and will do my best to live up to it. Let me know if there is any way I can help you out with the extra buttons: though I think I'll need a bit of time to figure out what they do!!! All a bit scary what ghastly things I could do! Have a great holiday when it comes. --Slp1 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Schizoid personality disorder

An unknown editor placed a "disputed" tag at the beginning of the Schizoid personality disorder page because they believe that "SPD is not a personality disorder". I undid this tag and explained that SPD is in the DSM and ICD. The author has re-placed the same tag. Are you able to help resolve this issue, or call on someone who can assist? Thank you, (from Goddessculture) 121.222.26.16 (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I see Cas the magical mushroom man has been there, and it's resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

ah, on closer examination, I'll have another look at those IPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia; most interesting. Please let me know if there are further issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Important question

I move the message because you may have not noticed. Please remove after you read it:

Sandy I must know what is your opinion of the following case: Girolamo asked to source all of Zinta's Filmfare awards and nominations. I thought it was unnecessary because it's very well sourced in the daughter article List of Preity Zinta's awards and nominations, which I'd worked very hard on. It only adds unnecessary 10KB long text. IMO, the awards article is a part of this very article; it is linked only in Zinta's article. That's why I think references for awards (which also have Wikilinks themselves) are not needed. Please tell me, what do you think? Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the article, it has no size issue, so that's not a concern, and when you're trying to get a difficult FAC through, I don't see a compelling reason to disagree with reviewers like Dwaipayanc and Girolamo on citing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not the size - that's the matter. It is sourced in the daughter article, which is IMO a part of this article. Do you not agree on that point? Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, if two reviewers are asking that specific facts that are included in this article be cited, and size isn't affected, and if your goal is to get the article featured, why resist? When summary style is used to summarize from a daughter article to a main article, the summary may not need citation, depending on the text included in the main article (if it is truly just a summarizing statement, with no hard data or facts likely to be challenged, etc.) Specific data should always be cited in any article in which it occurs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

How do I withdraw an article from LoCE?

While Wayne Gretzky was undergoing its FAR/FARC, I listed it at the League of Copyeditors, not taking into consideration the gridlock at the project. Maralia was kind enough to provide his copy-editing services, and the article retained FA status. My question now is how do I go about removing it from the list of requests? The instructions don't explicitly say how editors who requested help can withdraw that request. Thanks. Giants2008 (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can figure that mystery out, please share it with me :-) So many of Wiki pages are becoming so automated that they defy logic and reason, and I can't sort 'em out anymore. I guess just delete the template from the talk page, and bury your head in the sand ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll just update it as completed via LOCE myself, since I am nominally a LOCE member. And it's she, by the way - yes, a female hockey fan; shocking, I know :) Maralia (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Maralia, I'm stunned. What's all that you were telling me about your chest hair? --Moni3 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I get for not reading Maralia's user page. (although it doesn't give her gender) At least I've figured out that Sandy is female. Thanks again for the help, as I laugh at Moni's comment. :-) Giants2008 (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the whole gender confusion happens because all links are, by default, blue. It gives the impression that the Internet is predominantly male, without it necessarily being so. ;-D Waltham, The Duke of 02:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, Tony would have a field day with this: 'gender bias' and blue links all in one discussion. Incidentally, while marking that article completed at LOCE, I noticed that in 2008 the total number of articles LOCE has copyedited (62) is less than our average monthly FAC promotions (72). Upsetting :/ Maralia (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, Maralia, that's very disturbing news about the LOCE data; it had great promise when Gzkn started it, and now seems to be another content review process gone by the wayside (His Grace was only kidding; he drops by with these gems to cheer me up :-) And speaking of chest hairs, I was "gender confused" on Wiki for a year and a half, which didn't bother me at all, until I goofed and spilled the beans once on Raul's talk page.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care whether people mistakenly assume I'm male - but when someone expresses such 'in print', it feels dishonest not to correct them. I'm weird like that :) Maralia (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If Deckiller ever returns, I'll try to lasso him into reviving this project. Back when I first created my account, we (plus some other editors that have sadly left Wikipedia) were burning through copy-edits left and right; we even managed to clear the "A" articles from the backlog of articles tagged with {{copyedit}}. Sad to see the LoCE basically dead. BuddingJournalist 19:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of lassoing Deckiller, we should organize a campaign or bombard his talk page or something. I offered him my firstborn, or my dog, can't remember, but strangely, he wasn't interested in either. I think he wants my chocolates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Sandy, I saw your comments in the edit history. Just a note, some of your comments were incorrect regarding capitalization within section headings. We capitalize the sacraments that appear in the section headings and Marriage is one of the seven sacraments. Liturgy of the Hours a liturgical practice that is also the name of a book used in the liturgical practice and it also needs to be capitalized. While I lower-cased Middle Ages in Church history, I am not sure that is correct and I am pretty sure that Renaissance is supposed to be capitalized so I left that. If you are a more intelligent person than me on capitalization issues, especially regarding the history section, please feel free to correct me - and I would appreciate your help in the matter very much! NancyHeise (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You misinterpreted; response on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you left messages for me on my talk page or on the FAC instead of the edit summary we would not have such misinterpretations. NancyHeise (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC prematurely closed?

I was wondering if it is completely unreasonable to ask that the Zinta FAC be temporarily re-opened. I was literally in the middle of adding some new comments regarding the article when Raul promoted it. While I don't want to stop this article from being an FA, I also strongly feel that it still has issues (some big, most small) which should be (and likely would have easily been) addressed first - something I imagine would take no more than 2-3 days. Is there anything that can be done? It would be poor form to place it on FAR immediately, but I'd like to at least have the opportunity to finish going over the article first. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you get the same result by working with the editors on the article talk page? Gimmetrow 02:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, as much as I don't want to admit it, I am dubious that much change would have occurred independent of the comments if not for the "reward" of the FA. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Sandy is not handling this particular FAC, I would suggest you to ask Raul about it? She would agree with this too... I suppose?? - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Both Raul and I would give the same answer; the article is promoted. Any minor issues should be worked out on talk; if major issues develop, they can be brought to WP:FAR six months after promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

query

"be sure to link it in at {{FCDW}} and {{FCDW/T}}, and the newsroom". Unsure how to do these three things. TONY (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I am quite unfamiliar with the process, but from the looks of it, {{FCDW/T}} is linked to the workshops, which become redirects to the official pages when the moves take places for the issues to come out. Right? Anyway, the link in the template is already there; all you have to do is add the title. About the other one I am not sure, as it is linked to the official pages. Perhaps it wants a temporary link to the working version, to be changed when the move takes place.

I know, not much help. Waltham, The Duke of 06:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispatches

Apologies for not responding earlier this weekend; I was out of town in an unexpectedly-long trip (I should have been back home two days ago, but alas, Stuff Happens™) and I'm still available to write the dispatch if needed. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Too late; you are fired. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 07:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, to keep you busy while I'm offline—does this post that I made a while ago serve as useful background information? You can flat-out lift stuff from there (it's GFDL'd), and I'll come up with the latest discussions/updates to the scale. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read your edit summary? is that a Freudian slip? Ling.Nut (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Or a really bad typo. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeaaaaah, that's the ticket. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the well wishes, Tito, but I'm already very busty today :-) I must pay my bills, pack, and do a gazillion other things around the house before I catch a plane in the morning, so I hope you can sort this out with Tony1, who has already started writing something else. The deadline was yesterday, so it's a scramble and I just don't have time today to help sort it out; if Tony has something ready, we'll have to go with that. (Yes, Duke, it's just a matter of adding the title to the templates and letting Ral know on the newsroom page that it's ready; Ral315 moves the temp file to the permanant file when he publishes, we only need to add the Title to our templates. Ling.nut, stop watching out for my bustiness; you've got other things to do :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandy's page is full of the best edit summaries. Have a safe and enjoyable trip! Risker (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we are all working in the media here, aren't we? We might as well publish a collection of Sandy's Best 100. It would sell like mad. Waltham, The Duke of 17:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We should. By the way, thinking about it, since there's apparently going to be another round of voting, it would probably be better to push off the 1.0 stuff to next week. Have a nice trip! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mirth & Girth/archive1

You marked this one "not promoted", but I think, if you'll look again, all opposition comments were addressed. --GRuban (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The article was at FAC for two weeks without garnering support or consensus for promotion. The instructions at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 for opening a PR and inviting volunteers and opposers to visit the article may help prepare it for a successful FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This seemed to be the curious case of not enough eyes on the article. I attempted to address most of the concerns (except for making the prose yet more brilliant, which has never been a strong point of mine) but I get the feeling that if I could "force" two or three more opinions on the article from the field, we would be a 100% FA instead of 97%. I looked up and down the page and saw other articles got 6-7 opinions (most as "Oppose") instead of 2-3. —Rob (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The duplicate support on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cogan House Covered Bridge

Sorry for the mishap... Actually my connection was dying out and coming back while writing the comment ...so I had to rewrite my comment for support... and didn't realize that I had commented twice...just now when I received user:Rurfrich message did I come to know about it...please understand it was an embarrasing mishap...- KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand and it's no problem; I'm just generally trying to encourage nominators to keep their FACs more readable by doing that sort of bookkeeping, because it's very time consuming when I have to step back through the diffs to sort it out. I was pretty sure it was a typo, but I spent a lot of time trying to find it, and it would help if nominators would do things like make sure the declarations are in order, bolded, and that {{unsigned}} and {{interrupted}} templates are added as necessary to I can tell who wrote what. It's just my general campaign to encourage nominators to keep their FACs more easily readable, so I don't have to do it all :-) If that is sorted, feel free to just delete it as well as my subsequent query. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. I will use show preview and show changes buttons from now on. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Zinta FA!

Thank you so much for your longstanding help with the aritcle and your support. Thank you!!! Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Girolamo is expressing concerns above; I hope minor issues will be resolved on the talk page, as I don't want to see Preity at FAR six months from now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yo

		The Indian Cinema Barnstar
		Unfortunately there's only tow halves to the darned half barnstar. Not to worry, there's more to have. For the Priety Zinta article, you definitely deserve this and much much more. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck

Have a good trip. I'm in and safe and setting up. Probably won't be fully operational until tomorrow sometime. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Thanks for your kind words and travel safely. There have been some responses and better yet some reviews - have to see how long this lasts. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

CU

Is it resolved now? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sandy, you wrote this on Awadewit's talk page:

I was so excited for this article, that it finally made it after so many FACs and so much work, that I almost added a note of congratulations to the FAC when I closed it. I'm so glad I didn't see this thread sooner, as it deprives me of that little joy of promoting the article, and saddens me that FAC is perceived this way :-( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, I'm so sorry that I made you sad! You do so much hard, valuable work for Wikipedia, so I feel bad that I said/did something that took away the fun and joy. In spite of my frustrations in getting The Wiggles to FA, I do think that editing WP is loads of fun. If I didn't, I'd be gone. The experience has been very valuable to me--my writing has improved and I've learned a great deal.

Please understand, though, that I was simply venting my frustrations. I think that I took on too big a project my first time through the FAC process (which is so typical for me). It's an article about a little-known music group, for a genre of music that isn't accepted in the field, with relatively little written about them. As a result, this article didn't get the same kind of feedback that most other articles seem to get, and I stand by my assertion that it's due to the systemic bias of Wikipedia. I realize that it's not naturally the kind of article that busy people tend to want to focus on. I also stand by my assertion that due to the subject matter of this article, it received more stringent criticism than other articles. To be honest, it frustrated me to have to explain the same points over and over again, to folks who didn't know much about the group.

That doesn't mean that I don't think that the FAC process isn't valuable--it is. I also understand that there aren't enough volunteers to keep up with the demand. The Wiggles suffered from that. It makes me want to become one of those volunteers, or to participate in LoCE. I put in a lot of work to improve this article, but it was worth it. I'm so proud of myself! It makes me want to do more, and I will. I suspect the next time I do this will go easier and smoother.

At any rate, thanks for promoting "my" article. ;) --Figureskatingfan (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations after all your work ... and it would be lovely if you joined in to review articles at WP:FAC. The only way to end the shortage of reviewers is ... to join up! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton FAC

I'm concerned that the Lewis Hamilton FAC is a drive-by nomination. The nominator had not edited the article prior to its nomination, and has only made one edit since, which was unrelated to the FAC. I also didn't see any indication that the primary editors of the article were notified. I'm not an editor for this page, but are my suspicions justified? Giants2008 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to look just now, but will check tomorrow if need be; Roger Davies knows how to evaluate and followup, as does Elcobbola and Karanacs. AGF is first priority, Roger can probably take it from there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a comment on the nominator's talk page. S/he had already left a pseudo-"throw in the towel" comment at the FAC, so I'm hopeful the nominator will opt to withdraw without the need to go down the potentially thorny "drive-by" route. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no real need to do it specifically as a drive-by. Best is simply as a premature nomination? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RFCU

Looks like we were right... Thanks for your help. Rudget (Help?) 10:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The gut's usually right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LSWR N15 class

Hi Sandy, somebody told me that you were on a plane but you seem to be around. Just for info, the nom has struck through my comments at this FAC. I have left a note on their user page asking for the <s> and </s> to be removed. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm at my destination now, and will have more time on Wiki tomorrow. Please ask any uninvolved party to unstrike, sort, and explain to the nom. I don't have a great connection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

With reality? Well, that's not new, is it? ;-) Waltham, The Duke of 17:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Connection with reality. *I* do not malign your sanity... in public... --Moni3 (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(repeatedly bangs head on wall) You have the right to say everything that you think about this and not receive a retort from me. I have obviously gone over the top with regards to bad humour. My deepest apologies for bringing my forum mentality in here, and with such a bad timing; I did not imagine at the time that what I thought was a funny follow-up could be misinterpreted like this, although I certainly should have. It was a lapse in judgement and it will not happen again. I'd have posted this apology much sooner if there weren't problems with my connection—talk about dark irony... Again, really sorry. Waltham, The Duke of 18:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No, need, Your Grace; I'm a bit clueless today :-) I don't travel well anymore, gosh darn jet lag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I read this about jet lag on the BBC website the other day; it might interest you. Waltham, The Duke of 22:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

regarding the Son-Rise undo

Hi --

Hoping to talk about the Son-Rise entry. I have just finished reading the book (reviewing the program with interest as a close relative of an autistic child) and updated the entry as a result, but...

I noticed that you "undid" my entry altogether, with your notes showing "important source text deleted". However, I actually modified the text only slightly and in accordance to the source text itself. I had the book in front of me at time of edit, as I have it again now for this message. Below is a summary for the changes and items found in the book:

The author does not state a hypothesis equivalent to the child choosing to become non-autistic... But rather, the author writes of "motivating" or "inspiring" the child to "seek involvement", "make new connections and open new channels" leading to learning and progressing. The items in quotes are the authors exact words. The only reference to "choice" that I found was in the title of a chapter "Raun's Choice". That in itself does not equal what is written in the Wiki entry: "it hypothesizes that treated children will decide to become non-autistic" (as you reverted the text back to).

The final sentence was restructured and updated to use the word "attributes" rather than "claimed". The restructure and word "attributes" communicates the same message yet does not imply a bias or opinion as the word "claimed" does (since according to guidelines the entries should not do such things).

I have searched the internet and found this full chapter to be available online at: http://www.autismtreatmentcenter.org/contents/resources/son-rise_tmc/index.php Sorry, couldn't find it at Google Books (so no direct way to search the text unless you have another means?).

Please advice. I look forward to your reply. Since Wikipedia is an important source for information for many, it seems appropriate to update these types of inaccuracies.

Thanks! Web researcher365 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC candidates....

Would it be possible for me to go ahead and nom another? I know I have Hubert Walter up right now, but the Equine Wikiproject has Thoroughbred about ready to go, so it'd be a co-nom with at least two others, so it wouldn't be just me that would have to focus on dealing with comments. If you're uneasy, it can wait til Hubbie's done, but he's looking pretty set right now, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, last time I checked Walter was in good shape and isn't draining reviewers :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Draining nominator, but that's to be expected! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying to not be a pest, (knowing you're on the road) but did I get the co-noms listed right for the bot? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK; if it passes, remind me to check Rick Block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Requesting withdrawal of Facebook and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption from WP:FAC

I am requesting the withdrawal of both FACs because I would like to work at my own pace to address the concerns that have been brought up. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Gary, I will get to these tonight or tomorrow, although someone else may move them to archive sooner. (Please be sure to leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until GimmeBot processes, per WP:FAC/ar.) I look forward to seeing them back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I go ahead and archive them myself? I believe the steps required is to remove from WP:FAC, and then add to the archived FACs page? They have been very useful FACs, and I've gotten nothing but useful lessons from those FACs. Gary King (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it; if nominators start doing it, one thing leads to another, and before you know it we've got a mess on our hands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, makes sense, although it would probably be more of an advantage than a disadvantage to the process to allow nominators withdraw their own nominations (that's assuming that they all know how to do it correctly, though!) since then there would be a way to cancel it. Gary King (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, the deal is, if they don't do it correctly, it could stall my favorite bot, and I try to make Gimmetrow's life easy and make sure everything is archived correctly. With Elcobbola, Roger Davies and Karanacs all handling withdraws, I feel like we've got enough people. Anyway, I moved them for you (although I'm on a stinky connection), and look forward to seeing them back soon, anticipating smooth sailing next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I plan on touching base with those who opposed them before resubmitting them; I will probably submit other articles before those, though, because I've been interested in a few other things lately. I'll certainly be aiming for a seal of approval from another copyeditor before submitting them. Gary King (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Natalee Holloway

Just saw you closed this as promoted. Thanks so much for all your help with this, Sandy; I never realize how much work you put into these things. Thanks again, - auburnpilot talk 03:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I try :-) Congratulations on the star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Blimey

Have you seen the Donald Bradman PR? I presume you've little/no knowledge of cricket, so do you mind if I solicit an opinion from you on my talk page about the issue I raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#Is this POV: Bradman is "generally acknowledged as the greatest batsman of all time"?. Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

H2O's criticism

I had to smile at your critique of H2O's supports at FAC... I'm not familiar enough with them to know the veracity of them, but I know that I stopped contributing to FAC because I realized that I wasn't critical enough to be a valued contributor there. My skills/interest lie elsewhere. But it did sound like me.Balloonman (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you had some self-awareness; I've raised the issue before, and so has Tony, so that speaks to maturity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aspiring to be the Sandy/Tony of the RfA process ;-) I'm not sure I do as good of a job as you two do on FA's, but I'm trying. I try to vet my candidates well---but am often surprised by the things that I missed.Balloonman (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm traveling, so don't have time to search it out, but I'm fairly certain I've raised this concern directly with him before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe that you have... I'm saying that I'm surprised by the things that I missed in vetting candidates. I can spend hours reviewing their edits looking for any possible red flags, find nothing, but then somebody else comes along with a doozy that I never saw coming... and sometimes, they are ones that I should have uncovered! I HATE it when I support somebody only to have to retract it... I'd much rather oppose and then retract the oppose. Heaven help me if I ever had to retract a nom due to something I Missed.Balloonman (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, when we goof at FAC, there's always FAR. When a goof happens at RfA, history shows there is little remedy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm tiring of the politics around here. I'm aspiring to be the SandyGeorgia of medical projects, although possibly a bit more bitey. And my first FAR (AIDS) left me a bit sad. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

When you've worked on a medical FAR, you realize how hard it is to save a detiorated medical article; that might help towards understanding why I have such respect for TimVickers, and how I came to be involved in a very unpleasant ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate fixing problems after they've become a problem, I'd prefer to prevent it. How do we keep an FA like AIDS from degrading so much? Or was it made an FA in a different Wiki-era, where it was easier to be FA? Or do people quit watching? I like the idea that we can improve and FA as more data becomes available, but what concerns me is that in allowing the improvement we may also encourage destroying the article. BTW, what ArbCom?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Zeraeph ArbCom; I encountered her when Asperger syndrome came to FAR, and I tried to help clean it up, since it's a condition with some similarity (in terms of Wiki editing, anyway) to Tourette syndrome. I paid a high price. In the case of AIDS, I think it's mostly because involved editors stopped watching; there's nothing we can do when that happens, but I've been long frustrated that the Medicine Project doesn't more actively tend to its FAs. There are others in pretty bad shape (Chagas come to mind), and featured medical articles should never be allowed to lapse on Wiki, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That photograph of an empty room at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine speaks volumes. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

←I strongly concur on your opinion about medical articles. Cruft starts creeping in, and then someone might read the article and think that AIDS is caused by excessive beer drinking. Well, we do what we can.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that medical articles seem particularly frustrating to maintain. They tend to be a magnet for minoritarian/fringe-POV accounts - barely a week goes by that a new account doesn't pop up insisting that our lung cancer article is biased against tobacco, or that mycoplasma are the cause of cancer, or that abortion causes indelible psychic scars, or that secondhand smoke is harmless, or that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I've reached the point where just keeping my watchlist clean is a fulltime job, much as I'd like to get follicular lymphoma up to FA or start an article on radiation pneumonitis. MastCell ^Talk 21:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sad part. When I was a younger, more naive Wiki editor, I was really willing to go to the mat to keep an article featured. After the price I paid at Asperger syndrome, now if a troubled article comes up at FAR, I let it go. Often, we could salvage them if the entire medicine project would get behind them ... why didn't the medicine project try to save AIDS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't speak for my comrades, but I ended up embroiled in other BS as always. Probably at the time it was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Strider12 or the immediately preceding events. There are some very strong content contributors and editors at WP:MED, but everyone's got their own favorite areas (after all, medicine is a huge knowledge base) and it can be hard to rally the troops in a timely fashion. The best bet is to contact User:Jfdwolff - he's the most hardcore and dedicated and the closest the project has to a coordinator. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried. But I'm a bit of an amateur in getting FAC's and FAR's. I'm trying with Alzheimer's disease, so maybe I've learned some lessons.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind being part of your family tree!!!!

LOL. Well, maybe the redheaded cousin? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OM, I posted my evidence to the SlimVirgin/FeloniousMonk ArbCom; I hope we'll still be cousins (even if you don't know how to pick a baseball team :-) I understand your name was involved in all of that, but I sincerely believe that Cla68 was misinterpreted, and may have been targeted as I was. I hope ArbCom will work towards ending these horrific abusive attacks by Wikipedians on fellow Wikipedians, and that we can all collaborate on articles as you and I have. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no clue why they're throwing my name in there. I haven't edited Intelligent design in a long time. I stay away from that area because it ends up being religion vs. science, and that gets boring after a few rounds of "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no you're wrong", "no I'm right", rinse repeat. And my baseball team was #1 in the MLB up through last week. So there! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The best things I can say about the Marlins are Beckett and Lowell :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Of course, it appears that the Marlins got the better of Detroit in the trade this past winter! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about real teams, not AAA and pee-wee leagues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You lost me there. You talking about my Marlins, who have won two World Series over the past 10 years or the Tigers, who are somewhere else? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

uh ... with Beckett and Lowell, traded away by the brainiacs :-) National League East = AAA ball this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh. That's harsh. But since it includes the hated Mets, I'm semi-fine with your personal attack on my team.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, fun's over ... I have to go put on my little red Armani suit and pretend to enjoy cocktails with people who really only want a donation, when I could be back in the hotel watching the ballgame. Bye! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Diff for ArbCom evidence

Hey Sandy, I notice you quoted me in your ArbCom evidence (I noticed my ears burning). Here's the diff in question if you'd like to insert it. MastCell ^Talk 21:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get to it, but I'm on a bad connection and really had to piece that together. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Supremes FA

I dont think this article meets FA critera anymore, it might need delisting swiftly im afraid, thoughts? --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no procedure for "delisting swiftly", but you can submit the article to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Im overloaded with my Madonna GA reassessment, still i guess ill go do it, the article hasnt been reviewed in some 3 years so its about time. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 15:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

withdrawing Peter Wall

With great regret, I feel I have to withdraw Peter Wall from FAC. I have indicated as such also on the FAC. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll take care of this. Sorry, jbmurray, that it had to come to this. Karanacs (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Karanacs. I'll just go in and "unreveal" the note on the FAC itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)