User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch39

"In general, people who are confident in their overall judgement, experience, and competence much more readily admit and apologize for their own mistakes. Those who are insecure are much more likely to defensively circle the wagons and shift blame." (MastCell, 10 July 2008)

"For this project to set an ethical example, it needs to uphold a high ethical standard itself." (en.wikiversity.org 15 July 2008)

Manny's gone

I was hoping the Fish would get him. I guess the Bosox got tired of him. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Darn, I was wishing him upon you guys ... it would have been a great deal for you. And in exchange for putting up with him, you might have gotten a ring :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the team doesn't give out rings to fans. Maybe I should check eBay. Anyways, Jason Bay, in some ways, is an upgrade. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the BoSox made a bad deal, but what the heck ... we don't need to win all the time (no Yankees complex here :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yankee complex? There has to be an article. Well, I tend to disagree with you. I like Jason Bay a lot, so we'll see. I just don't have any faith that the Rays are that good. I think it will come down to the Yankees and Sox in the AL East. But then again, the Rays have a big lead going into August. Who woulda thunk? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can sleep easy, the DBacks will win the West now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout the bad news, Tito :-) I may have to root for the Red Sox West! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany 2

In the references and further reading sections, I have changed the format from Harvard reference style to citation. I have tried to follow the format used in Samuel Johnson. Please review the edit. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's late and I'm tired; I'll look more closely tomorrow, and finish up anything needed, but you haven't converted the "Further reading" section to {{Citation}}. When you view the article in edit mode, and scroll to the bottom of the screen, you can see all templates used in the article. If you see the cite xxx family there, along with citation, you've got mixed reference styles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the rest, but I don't know how to fix the remaining cite web (I hate using the citation template and Harvnbs). If you ping him, User:Jbmurray knows how to convert that last cite web template, and I think the rest is OK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Just curious

Why were you so emotional about the Ronald Reagan FAR? I don't know who you are. You seemed very upset within seconds of the time I created the thing, and whether you agree or not, I made a good faith effort to go by the written rules on that sort of thing. Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Afer a brief look at the FAR, perhaps Sandy was frustrated because it was a bad-faith nomination, which is why it was kept so quickly. Next time you need dispute resolution, perhaps start on the talk page of the article, and proceed from there. S. Dean Jameson 03:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, well, lost my long reply to an edit conflict. Sorry if the second doesn't quite capture the feel. Short story: no emotion, no frustration, and just how do either of you determine my state of mind? There were three premature FARs to be dealt with; Reagan was no more special than any other FAR where editors either haven't read the instructions or don't understand the purpose of FAR. It takes editor time to archive, deal with and botify them. FARs typically last four to six weeks; a dispute about one paragraph, that has never even been raised on talk, is better resolved on talk than taking everyone's time on a FAR, particularly with an editor like HappyMe22, who will work towards consensus on talk. If you had raised the issue on talk, and could show that there was an ongoing neutrality or instability or whatever issue on the article, then FAR would be appropriate. I hope that answers your question, although I know I left something out I had typed before the edit conflict. I see you've also left questions for Joelr31 and Marskell; since they don't log in daily, please fire away if you still have questions. Just out of curiosity: do y'all describe male editors regularly as emotional and frustrated ?? And, no, I'm not in the habit of describing things as "bad-faith nominations" because I believe AGF is our most important policy, and I stick to it as long as I can, until an editor has really shown otherwise. I would describe it more as a situation where an editor simply isn't aware of how FAR functions, but likely intended no harm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  Sorry for the EC. And saying you might have been frustrated, means just that. And I, as a "male editor" get "frustrated" far too frequently. I meant no harm with my language. It seemed like a bad-faith nom to me, and I said so, that's all. Sorry for any offense. S. Dean Jameson 04:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  No problem, no apology needed, I just needed to clarify (since it's on my page :-) that I didn't consider it bad faith; sometimes Wiki processes can be mystifying, and I'm sure that the nominator thought that was a logical way to proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  Could have been. It was just the language used in the nom that made me think it was more an "anti-Reagan" nom than a true "is this still a featured article" nom. I could certainly be wrong, though, as I'm not a FA regular. S. Dean Jameson 04:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Salvia divinorum FAC

Sorry to bother you, but I found Salvia divinorum, which appears to have been nominated (WP:FAC/Salvia divinorum) but not transcluded by an editor who admits to having never edited the article (No, I don't see an award center type situation just an infrequent contributor who drive by tagged an article). Not sure how these are typically handled. The article's primary contributor appears to be User:SallyScot based on edit count. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary editor notified, (User talk:SallyScot#Salvia divinorum FAC). -Optigan13 (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Optigan13; messages left. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me in the loop on this. --SallyScot (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Tourettes Action and unvoluntary

I don't want to be a bother but I don't see any difference between involuntary and unvoluntary (except that unvoluntary seems to be treated by many dictionaries as incorrect). Dictionaries I found both words in treated them as synonyms and I saw the word involuntary in different publications concerning TS.

Dictionaries:

• The Free Dictionary
• Wiktionary

Could you explain to me why you changed the word? Furya (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious how someone writing an article about a Tourette's organization could be unaware of the term "unvoluntary" (or could describe tics as "uncontrollable"); you can find the distinction by reading our article on tic, where you'll also find peer-reviewed literature to help clear up any confusion about the nature of tics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is no reason to arrogant. Second of all, I am not a specialist of Tourette Syndrome and I was also not the one writing this article, so I guess you can excuse my "ignorance" and simply explain. Third of all, in the same article you are quoting the word involuntary is also used.

Phonic tics are involuntary sounds produced by moving air through the nose, mouth, or throat.

And, again, whenever I read anything on TS I found the word involuntary rather than unvoluntary, so even if this neologism exists, it is still used interchangeably with involuntary and there is no need to edit it out from the article and call it incorrect. Furya (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The edit history shows you did create/write the article. No, unvoluntary is not a neologism; it is a concept very well described throughout the peer-reviewed TS literature. Using the word "involuntary" isn't strictly incorrect; "unvoluntary" just gives more accuracy. On the other hand, describing tics as "uncontrollable" is incorrect and overlooks entirely the suppressibile characteristic of tics. It's unfortunate that this new organization, Tourettes Action, does things like that; are there no longer advisors like Rickards involved? Perhaps medical review of some of the info on the website would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the history shows that I input the article to Wikipedia. But that is actually beside the point. The word "uncontrollable" was perhaps incorrect but as you can see I am not discussing this with you. Tourettes Action is not a new organization as you can see from the History section of the article and it has several consultants as far as I know. The discussion here is however about the one edit I disagree with you about, as both words are used in the literature.Furya (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

FTC

I thought you might like to know about this discussion – you've been mentioned as well. Just try not to mention me :) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 14:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Statistics

Hi Sandy, I finally remembered to add the Peer review stat for July to WP:FAS and noticed that Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2008 is a red link. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. That link always stays red until Marskell archives the monthly FARs at month-end (he likes to do it himself, so I have to wait). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation, I figured it was better to mention it just in case Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring baseball for the moment

I just set up an FAR on Helicobacter pylori. I watched the article for vandalism, then today, I actually read it. What a mess! Anyways, it appears that other than bots and a few vandal fighters, I'm the only one who's edited it in almost a year. I put an announcement with Jdwolff and the various WikiProjects. How else do I get some visibility and help? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Short answer :-) Unless Tim Vickers will fix it, it's probably a goner :-) Like Manny! It's in bad shape, and I don't know how it flew under the radar for so long. If a content expert pitches in, I can help with clean up, but I don't know the territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean it up with the help of a couple of others. I think this article just needs some copyediting and cleanup of some unreferenced bits. Give us a week to clean up, and maybe you can swoop in with some copyediting for readability. You know, be the Theo Epstein of FAR's :) Which leads to a couple of thoughts? I notice a lot of pre-2007 FA's being in really bad shape. Is that an issue with the comings and goings of editors, and people don't watch over cruft and vandalism? Or do we get an FA, and then just say, "hey it's done, no need to do anything else?" My one FA, I watch like a hawk. I think we need to watch over FA's like we watch over children. They need to be nourished, but not smothered. And we have to keep out the bad influences. In other words, I'm beginning to wonder if we need a cadre of FA patrolmen...they just watch over them, and call in the experts if things need it. BTW, after an FAR, does an article fall to GA status, or is that also gone? Just wondering. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No Theo here; I've got my hands full already, and my attempts to delegate ongoing tasks at FAC and FAR haven't paid off as I'd hoped they would ... everybody's busy :-) If you think some of the 2007 FAs need attention, look at some of the 2005 and 2006 FAs that haven't been reviewed yet. Apparently, not all FA editors or Projects watch over their FAs (similar to what we've seen at WPMED). On assessment, until this recent change added a new, C-class, GimmeBot automatically re-assessed FARCs to B-class. Most FARC'd articles wouldn't make GA. With the addition of a C-class, it's not possible for a bot to decide if a defeatured article is downgraded to B- or C-class, so now GimmeBot leaves the assessment blank, and Projects need to re-assess. I hear Manny's gotta cut his dreadlocks !! I feel a Samson effect coming on ... it didn't do much good for Damon :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

←I went to the Dodger game today (hot and sunny, no fun). Manny still has dreads going. Very popular out here, and as I was driving home (and no, I'm not a typical LA fan leaving after the 7th inning), he said on the radio that he wanted to retire a Dodger. I wonder if the Red Sox are laughing or crying. Back to bacteria. I went to Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology to see what other FA's existed for that Project. Well, other than Rotavirus, I'm not sure the other articles deserve to be FA. Rotavirus was a main page FA this year, so I assume it's in good shape, because I've watched you in action with regards to main page FA's. I wonder if that should be the model for redoing Helicobactoer. What do you think? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

and no, I'm not a typical LA fan leaving after the 7th inning was the best part of your post :-) I thought they arrived in the 2nd, were blasted by the 4th, and left by the 6th :-) Maybe I just travel in the wrong crowd ! Red Sox are happy all round; someone tonight predicted that Manny will end up in Florida after all. Yes, Rotavirus is in very good shape; it was written by GrahamColm (talk · contribs), who might give you good ideas about structuring the bacteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! Thanks. And since I'm not an LA fan, I'm also in the wrong crowd. I am a baseball fan, and I happen to like watching the whole game, eat a couple of Dodger Dogs (not that they're as good a Fenway Franks), drink an overpriced brew, and see Manny in action. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

←I feel like a real jerk, but I started to look at other FA articles that I watched and really didn't edit. Asthma is a real mess too. It probably should be removed from the FA roles, but I'm beginning to feel like a real curmudgeon (which I am). I might have to FAR that one too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

About the abundance of older FAs that are in trouble, nothing I didn't already know :-) The problem is, there are only so many hours in a day, and I try to submit FARs myself for the *most* troubled older FAs. I can't submit all of them :-) (I've had my eye on Chagas disease for a long time; when you look at the older FAs, you get a real appreciation for editors like Eubulides, Colin and GrahamColm.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I know it's been proposed that we lock FA's from any editing--it kind of goes against the democratic nature of this project, but I'm beginning to think it might be best. New information can be posted to the discussion section, and trusted editors could do some tweaking. Of course, who's to be trusted (goes against the democracy again)? I get a headache thinking of the permutations, but something has to be done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Something has to be done about a lot of things, but I already raised my children, and Wiki was supposed to be fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have one child on The Hill. I need to make more money, so unless I figure out how to fun ways to make money, I'm stuck using Wikipedia as my stress reliever. Yeah, that's working. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You have one on the Hill? My condolescences to your checkbook :-) Book your commencement hotel room today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I'll change it back until there is a consensus. WxGopher (talk) 02:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry again about that, I didn't realize all the problems that would be caused. I'm done touching anything until the problems are fixed (I left a note for someone too) and we decide what to do with the title. WxGopher (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Signpost report

With regards to clarification, I've left a note on the talk page. Thanks. Rudget 12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how all that can get sorted, or what the Signpost's editorial oversight policy on statements made in interviews is, but I recognize you're only responsible for the lead. On interviews done by the Dispatch, we've had editorial control to reword and make sure the responses are neutral and accurate (although it's never been an issue), we only had to slightly tweak wording a couple of times when reporting on polls); it looks like you will need to do some editing of the responses to keep them within the realm of neutral news reporting. To fix the introduction to be more of an accurate newspiece, maybe you could change the wording to reflect North American City Projects (not all North American Projects, and then link to a page that refers to that). Also "... it is also the project that best represents its topic of interest ..." is a qualified claim that I'm not sure can be verified, particularly when the Project tags a lot of articles with a dubious connection to the city. The whole thing might be more neutral and newsworthy if you change it to something along these lines (reflecting that it has tagged articles rather than implying it has written those articles):

The project's membership puts it among the largest North American City WikiProjects on Wikipedia in terms of contributors; it has tagged articles representing a broad representation of its topic of interest with 38 featured articles and lists, 120 good articles and slightly more than 15,000 other pages tagged.

Linking this way so that readers can see the data you're referring to will help. There are many more similar, unverified or unverifiable claims in the responses, for example, only 3 of the 30 FAs I recognized were written by Chicago Project members, most were not, so some editorial control to clarify the interview responses might help. I'm fairly certain there is no "Director" named to the Project either (other than self-appointed). I hope you'll have time to check all the facts there before it hits the Signpost, particularly following on the heels of MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I rarely have to re-write the responses since they're nearly always (99%) accurate with no frills attached, as you say its never been an issue. I'll see what I can do with it now. (Re: the last sentence you make you mentioned Milhist - was that incorrect also, or have I read that wrong?) Rudget 18:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all; I meant that MilHist always sets a high standard, and is a tough act to follow :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that's good :) Rudget 18:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess the difference I'm getting at is that, while the Chicago Project has tagged articles that independently attained FA status, the MilHist Project actually has quality control, peer review, and other processes and elected coordinators to set and maintain standards and to help bring MilHist articles to FA status. One article running right behind the other, with such differences, could be confusing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that was what you were getting at. I've been going through some of the FAs listed in the category of Chicago FAs and one I remember particularly stood out (Oliver Typewriting Company) which was in fact done by Elcobbola (I think), perhaps I should contact TTT and see if we should appropriate the number of 'real' project work that has involved participants of the project. Rudget 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That was one of the ones that triggered my interest initially as well :-) I thought that Elcobbola, Moni3 (Ann Bannon), HappyMe22 (Reagan) and RelHistBuff (among others) would be surprised to learn that they were Chicago Project members :-) I feel badly for the spot you're in, but it appears that the text should be carefully checked to be Signpost-worthy. By the way, I already did go through those 30 FAs I added to the talk page, and relative to WP:WBFAN, three of them were Chicago collaborations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I should say so. Did my I-Pass get lost in the mail? ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola, if you lived in Britain it probably would get lost. I've left a note with TTT regarding the FAs. Rudget 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rudget, look at some of the wording Tony1 used here; it might help avoid tricky spots for you in future interviews. By defining this upfront, you maintain some editorial control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Pendle witch trials

I was very surprised to see this got promoted as it was. It doesn't seem up to the usual standard to me, and was mostly supported by the Mancunian claque. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I find Johnbod's comment about a "Mancunian claque" to be deeply offensive. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Cliques", "claques", "fan support", "friend support", "quid pro quo" support, and "member of a large WikiProject or FA collaboration" support happens on almost every FAC (the nominators who have no "support" group ... BrianBoulton comes to mind ... have to wait weeks for a few supports, while some articles are guaranteed to come in with a dozen supports right off the bat). I'm aware of this factor and I account for it by looking for independent support as well as what may or may not be "fan" support (AGF unless proven otherwise, pls), weighed relative to the opposes (or lack thereof). Even if a "clique" is alleged here, I don't believe that Karanacs fits the description, and hers was an independent support in this case, in conjunction with the absence of unresolved opposes. If there are significant, unresolved opposes, no amount of "fan support" will overcome them. In this case, I saw an absence of unresolved opposes in conjunction with independent support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't, and don't, regard any of my comments as resolved, except the one link Malleus deigned to add. I would hope this was clear from my final comment. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnbod, would you care to elaborate what you mean by "Mancunian claque"? Jza84 is the only editor who supported the article who is Mancunian, and there are supporters of the article who have nothing to do with Manchester: User:Karanacs, User:Epicadam, User:Myosotis Scorpioides; therefore your argument seems to be somewhat flawed. You were the only editor who opposed. Nev1 (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The nomination was only up for 8 days. Without labouring the point, I seem to be the only editor expressing a view whose talk-page is a Malleus-free zone, and others had worked on Mancunian articles. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're now altering youe accusation from a "Mancunian claque" to a "Malleus talk page claque"? Frankly I am apalled at what you appear to be suggesting, and not a little angry. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Pendle Hill isn't in Manchester though. Or Greater Manchester. In fact its barely in Lancashire. Maybe its a Yorkshire born conspiracy to belittle Lancashiremen. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I'm not a Mancuian. I'm a member of WP:GM, but that doesn't mean I'm a Manc. I'm offended by the "Mancunian claque" comment too - totally uncalled for. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Clueless newbie, I think not...

Do I have a "move with subpages" tab, or is that an admin tool? I don't know why I am so unable to sort these move messes, but I think it's because admins see a whole different set of tabs than I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't all be amazing at everything Sandy! ;) The move all subpages is an added checkbox we admins have. I just checked with my non-admin account and that is the only different thing about the move tab. (except the option to delete the other page which come up if the page already exists.) Move with subpages was originally open to autoconfirmed users but vandals found out about it and were moving userpages and other subpage reliant pages around; someone kicked up a fuss at VPT and now it is admin only. Some people are extremely proficient at moving pages, some people aren't; I still foul up some of the complicated page mergers so I leave it to the pros at WP:SPLICE. BTW, the reason for the gap was me watching Andy Murray finally win something!. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad for the Scots !!! Thanks, Woody; this move over redirect thing is a constant source of frustration for me. I guess I was partly right that part of the confusion is that admins have a whole different set of options than what I see. If I had not had to scramble over to Raul's talk page looking for an explanation, the whole thing might have been much less confusing. I still have to sort out that mess at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak, which I suspect is going to be tricky, because the article already moved, and moved back, once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you tell me what needs doing, I can do it now if you want. In terms of moving over redirects, you should be able to do it as long as the only edit to the redirect page is the original move. (ie one edit only). After that, +sysop is needed. I gues I have forgotten about moving without admin tabs and how frustrating it can be! Regards. Woody (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be done:

1. Make sure the spaced endash is the correct title (I asked Tony, but he's skiing). If so:
2. Move the article and talk page
3. Move the FAC page
4. Fix the article title in the FAC and within the article
5. Correct the listing at WP:FAC
6. Correct the peer review
7. And anything else on the article talk page.

I have never found a case where I could move over a redirect, even with no subsequent edits, so I just don't know what I'm doing wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, Waltham is the authority on dashes over at WP:ERRORS so I would go with his reasoning. Can't hurt to wait for Tony I suppose; he should be back in a week. In terms of moving over redirects, I think that if the only history is a log entry, then it can be moved over the page by anyone. If there are any edits on that page, e.g amending the redirect, then you need an admin to do it. Regards. Woodym555 (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agreed with the dash change, and was halfway through making the corrections to the FAC, when the nominator moved it back. Now I'm hesitant to do it all again, but on the other hand, waiting for Tony, when Waltham agrees, might not make sense. What if you just go ahead and do it all? I don't know what other changes were made, but with a move and a move back, I think I need an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

All done now; all the backlinks to the FAC/GAN/PR page and the old ones have been deleted. It was no problem whatsoever, always happy to help. Now I'm off to bed, it is a bit early in the morning over here! Regards. Woody (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Another look at Helium?

Would you mind taking another look at the Helium FARC? I'm running out of ideas. Thanks, marm! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

Thanks for the heads up, Sandy – and for all your help over the months. It's been much appreciated! Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks; they are always appreciated :-) Good luck with that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Anekantavada

Thanks for the promotion of the article and also for having patience till the end. It helps to keep the faith and will be an encouragement for more articles. During the process, if some of my words were harsh I apologise for the same and thanks for keeping cool. You are doing a wonderful job and keep it up. --Anish (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC of SummerSlam (2003)

Can you look at the Featured article candidacy for SummerSlam (2003), here is the link. Thank you.--S_RX 02:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't notice anything unusual there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

re: Michael Jackson

Sandy, I really hate to say this but I cannot work with Realist2. I don't care to go into details, but perhaps you will extend me your understanding. --Laser brain (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering….

…how and when will the article Anekantavada be featured on the main page. I was under impression that, once an article attains the featured status, it will be put up on the main page. But this does not seem to be the case and there seems to be some procedure for it, of which I am not aware. Till now no article on Jainism have been featured, so it would be nice to have it featured on the main page especially when the major 8 day Jain festival of forgiveness and fasting – Paryushana is near (from 27th August to 3rd Sept). Thanks.--Anish (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Raul654 is in charge of scheduling articles for the main page. You can also request that an article be on the main page at WP:TFA/R. Karanacs (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

hi

Room-mate's charger broke down shortly after my last visit to WP. Now, after he gave it a good bashing on the floor, it works. Fingers crossed. Will try to do more on the Dispatch tomorrow and Thursday. Turning in shortly. Tony (talk) 13:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Candide's FAC <-- link to nom.

Hello. I'm the nominator for Candide's FAC. Ottava Rima has asked me to tell you he is very busy and would like to change his "oppose" (of Candide) to a "'comment' without any obvious opposes" until he can re-review the article (which he estimates will be in four days). For his exact statement, see his talk page. Also, I know you're aware that User:Karanacs‎ is currently unable to change her "oppose" for the moment also (if she wanted to). That said, I believe I have addressed all of the objections that either of them has raised. I'm still working on Awadewit's remaining criticisms, though I believe I am close to resolving them completely. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've actually let the nom run much longer than normal, considering the three opposes, because of Ottava's block and knowing that he can't revisit. Under other circumstances, I would have closed it by now :-) Unless Awadewit feels it's getting close, it's really on the border, considering the time it's been running. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(SandyGeorgia left a message on my talk page) Usually I feel it is best to withdraw a nomination when research is being done as it is for the "Legacy" section of Candide. It is hard to do thorough research while at FAC, whip up a draft of that research, AND refine its prose! It is just too much to ask of any nominator. I think if Rmrfstar withdrew the nomination and came back in a few weeks time, everything would be in much better shape. I am certainly willing to help out with any copyediting and MOS work if s/he does decide to do that. Awadewit (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the time now; I won't in three weeks. And I've done (the) research, significantly beefing up the "Legacy" section. I have just spent the past few (read "many") hours addressing your (Awadewit's) specific objections. I also have one of my good friends copyediting the whole article tonight (he'll be e-mailing me the issues; I'll correct them tomorrow morning). With Karanacs' recent edits, both "object"s besides yours (Awadewit's) have been struck (formally or informally). I do recognise that Candide has no "support" yet; but it looks to me like very few FAC people have looked at the article at all. By my count, Candide has only been up for 10 days; it's near the middle of the page. If the the remaining objections have not already been addressed and can be addressed this round, I'd prefer not to withdraw. As I have mentioned, I will be much busier (in real life) in a few weeks' time. I'm committing myself now. That said, I don't want to rush anything. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to add some tags to some of the stray comments. I couldn't get them all, but hopefully I got enough to make sense of the major points. If it needs more work, just say so and I will go back and find the ones I missed. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ottava. There's a boatload of not-entirely-necessary, but helpful nonetheless, crap janitorial work that I have to do every day at FAC and FAR, and I really appreciate anyone taking up any of it. User:SandyGeorgia/FA work. FAC and FAR work fine without any of this, but it's "stuff" that just make life easier. Some days I spend more of my time fixing noms, fixing talk pages, prompting to close peer reviews, sorting through diffs to see who commented and who struck, etc. then I do actually reading the FACs. Favorites are double bolded opposes, and supports buried in a long commentary so that I may miss them the next time I read through, thinking "I've already read this FAC". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to ad tags to stray comments on a regular basis and move "support", "oppose", and "comment" to the front of messages if there can be added a comment to the FAC process that says such things will happen in case anyone complains about an edit. Also, I won't revert anyone that seeks to change it back or undo it. I hope you can appreciate why. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It's probably tricky/unwise for anyone else to move or bold/unbold comments ... prehaps best not. If I goof, the buck has to stop with me. I can use help with other items and reminders, though :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You know where to find me, and I'm a sucker for tedious, repetitive work. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes one {{interrupted}} template at the top of a long discussion is more efficient than a sig attached to every little piece. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That could work. I went through and updated the pages that seemed to have any major issues up until August 3rd. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Because some editors have truly horrific sigs that clunk up pages, I actually prefer a few stratetically placed {{interrupted}} templates to a lot of sigs. For example, Awadewit gives very long reviews, so that often her sig at the bottom gets separated by a page of text due to subsequent discussion: add on a lot of threaded responses and a few missing sigs, and it's harder to keep track of who said what and more importantly, who struck what. One interrupted template at the top is enough for me to know I'm reading a dialogue between the nominator and Awadewit. The recent problem was a nominator adding replies with no sig whatsoever, not even on the last piece of several responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one interrupted template. Gotcha. I can check this once a week if that is acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

A typical, time-consuming, janitorial edit; this info makes no difference to me in promoting/archiving, but it helps RickBot and it helps reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Back from Wikibreak. Absolutely no idea when to plonk Bradman on the main requests page. Help! Hope you're well. Your much admiring Dweller (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you get to make that choice, not me :-) Welcome back !!! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Blast. I can't decide. And for me it highlights a weakness of the current system. Let me try to explain what I mean:

If we had 8 outstanding candidates, they couldn't all be listed.

If we had 0 goodies and 5 dreadfuls, they all get listed.

What I think is that frankly, I think we need a parallel system for people to nominate articles with no strong date link, for Raul to schedule whenever. The current system encourages tenuous connection-seeking, some of which is sometimes somewhat embarrassing, IMHO. ---Dweller (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to get that page to make sense, since I have no pony in the race, and it hasn't worked and some not nice things have been said to me, so I gotta step out. Sorry, friend, but you're on your own on that one :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Gosh. If I've ever spoken badly to you, I most certainly apologise. You deserve nothing but kind words. --Dweller (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you ever have, but if you had, it wouldn't bother me ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Drive by comment

I'm getting ready to ship off for my fall semester at Virginia Commonwealth University, so my reviews of both Conan and Midtown Madness have not been completed.... I'm not sure exactly when they might be archived, but just a note to possibly hold off on it until I get time to do a thorough recheck/copyjob on them? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Conan's sudden FAC closure

Hi Sandy, I am a bit shocked by the closure of Conan's FAC[1] just as I was resolving Laser brain's issues. This was not even 3 hours after Laser brain's last comments. In comparison, Midtown Madness's FAC was started much earlier and last received comments an hour earlier than Laser brains comments at Conan, but its FAC is still listed as open. Has there been a mistake? Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No; it wasn't a matter of when the last comments were made. Midtown Madness has four supports already (hard to see them, some are buried) and if the ce issues can be resolved, it may make it, so I decided to give it more time. With Conan, even if the oppose is resolved, it doesn't have a high level of support, so I thought it would have a better chance at passing if you finish up off-FAC and then resubmit. I try to avoid having them rattle around at the bottom of the list for too long, unless it's a matter of clearing up specific issues, and a fresh start would give Conan a better chance. Please bring it back whenever Laser is satisfied; hopefully David Fuchs will also be settled then and will be in a position to support. Good luck, and hope to see it back soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Burger King legal issues

Could you please explain the sudden FAC closure? I had addressed all the issues that had been brought up and was awaiting responses from the other contributors. Could you provide a reason a reason why it was just suddenly closed? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A link to the FAC will help me answer sooner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Link - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Burger King legal issues/archive1--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps me get through my talk page and watchlist faster :-) It wasn't a "sudden closure"; it had been up close to two weeks (the norm) without garnering any support. When a FAC approaches the bottom of the page without garnering any support, it becomes very hard to get reviewers to re-focus on the FAC, and the FAC has a better chance if it is re-submitted after any issues raised are addressed. That particular FAC showed some wavering and uncertainty from reviewers, so a fresh start once all of that is addressed may help towards a stronger review and response next time through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Belated thanks

Thanks. Next time, I'll know not to revert whenever it's the cat. =) D.M.N. (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Sacks

What's happening with the Oliver Sacks page? I wanted to read something on Wikipedia about him, and for five days now the page is blanked —sort of— and there is no discussion at the provided space. Also, my cursory reading of the last proper version of Sacks' page doesn't support your assertion of a copyright violation regarding this article. Note that I'm completely unaware of any history of this page —I'm just a passing reader— so would you mind explaining the situation at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008_August_6/Articles? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 August 1; an earlier version was taken from an article in The Guardian, I queried someone who said he was the main author, who assured me he had checked it for copyvios, but the next time I went to add a citation, I found plagiarism from The New York Times. When I added the subst:copyvio tag, I found that the process has changed, and it apparently automatically blanks the page (I didn't do that). I don't know who resolves it now, but I'm not going to remove the tag or reinstate the text until someone checks and assures there are no more copyvios or plagiarism. I'm not sure how the process works now on the Copyright problem board or who resolves that, but if you reinstate the text, pls check all sources and remove the plagiarism. The tag says not to remove until resolved by an admin; I'm unaware if admins regularly follow the copyright page or how that gets resolved. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Maryland High Schools List

I wanted your input on a change that I am proposing to a Maryland article. I want to convert the List of high schools in Maryland article to a sortable version. I have gotten through the F's, but before I continued I wanted to see if there were anything I am missing or anything you would change. My goal is to promote it to featured list status {{FL}}. Here is what I have done so far. --«Marylandstater» ^«reply» 13:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Its taken me about a week to get that far so I know completion will take a while. I am willing to follow direction to get it right.

I'm not involved with lists and don't really know the standards there; you might ask at the talk page of WP:FLC or start a peer review. I'm sorry I can't help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Amateur radio in India FAC

Hi! I'm a bit concerned with the lack of reviewers for the article Amateur radio in India. (NOM). I have posted it on two relevant noticeboards, but no one has reviewed for content other than User:Tony1. There is one oppose, regarding the credibility of a reference for which I have posted this comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Brief History of Amateur Radio in Calcutta hoping for a discussion. There was one comment, but the editor was unsure. I have now since updated User:Deckiller/FAC urgents‎ with the hope that someone gets to review it. What do you think of the situation? Can an FAC pass without a support? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

An FAC nomination cannot pass without supports. Some FAC nominations are archived because of a lack of comments. If that happens to you, I recommend peer review, and then bring the article back at a later date. Karanacs (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'm trying to let them run a bit longer than usual because so many people are on summer breaks and there's a slowdown at FAC and everywhere else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

FARs

Do all points of an FAR have to be addressed before its shifts to an FARC, or will the community let one or two lesser issues slide and clear an article if other more important points are adequately addressed prior to and FAR becoming an FARC? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That depends on what the issues are and what Marskell/Joelr31 think about them ... if they are unsure, it does tend to move on to FARC. I'll have a look in there tonight if I rmember, Tom ... I saw others were at work on your FAR, so I haven't tuned in yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been on overdrive since getting back to locate and remove the fishy references, and I have gotten all but two or three I think, but in the process have overlooked a few things that were suggested cause I deemed the 1c argument to be the most important thing to fix. That was the reason for the question. At any rate, thanks for the answer. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I give up.....

I can't find the &)%*$^#%^*^%* link/tool which tells you how much readable prose one has on a page. Major depressive disorder is proceeding apace and I need to know its readable rpose WRT ceiling of 50kb....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

See Dr pda (talk · contribs); hang on, I'll check the prose size for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

41 kB (6392 words). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

kthx. much appreciated. am moving to talk page :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On your question RE: novice editors and being blocked

SG;

I've had a think about the "provide diffs or be blocked" item that Bish has raised. It's not impossible to imagine a situation where, by the time you (as an administrator) get to the scene an accusation has been spread across various venues. It may be that simply having an editor _stop_ saying these things is not enough, that to reverse the damage they be required to either produce the evidence or say that they don't have any. So, without respect to this case, I can see where it might be necessary.

<devil's advocate> If a neutral third party goes around and places the note "please provide evidence to support this claim" wherever the smear occurs might that not do the same thing?</devil's advocate>

In the end, a warning has been issued and debate has taken place... Regardless of the outcome, that's got to be a good thing. Does Bold/Revert/Discuss apply to admin actions? To threats of admin actions?

brenneman 02:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Pondering these questions is why the admins get paid the big bucks :-) If a warning is placed, hopefully the behavior won't continue. But there have been cases of admins who repeatedly engage in that sort of thing (smearing others without ever providing diffs), and doing it so often that it eventually sticks. The next step is that the editor can find themselves before AN/I, where others repeat the charges that have stuck, and find themselves the subject to an indef or a ban discussion. If a non-admin or non-established editor said that sort of thing, repeatedly, AN/I would have their head on a platter. So, of interest to me, is that we find a way to strongly nip these tendencies in the bud, particularly in admins, who should set the standards; Bish was on to something, even if it became moot when the talk page was archived. Thanks for popping in with the thoughts, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

1896 Summer Olympics

Despite being a FAR rookie, I enjoyed reading through this article, late in the process though it was. It caught my eye because, well, I think there's some sort of Olympics coming up, and I thought it might work well as a main page feature to coincide with the current olympiad. That said, I have no idea where to begin for a nomination to the main page; The topics coincide well enough that I think it would work well, but Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests has me baffled. Do I really delete someone else's request to add a new one? How should I proceed? Thanks in advance, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's already been on the main page, and (so far), Raul has never run an article twice. You could bring it up on the talk page at WP:TFA/R, and calculate the points to see if it has enough points to replace another article, but I imagine Raul is aware the article is an FA, and has likely already considered whether he would break his tradition of never having run an article twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it some thought, but didn't catch that it had been run already. That takes care of that, then - Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ellipses

Thanks for the note. I just want to make sure I understand the relevant MOS rule (for future reference) – we're not to use four periods, even if the excised part comes after the end of a previous sentence? – Scartol • Tok 11:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the four spaces (MoS changes so often, you should check, or ask at that talk page, where Dan or the Duke or Tony will help) ... what I noticed was the lack of spaces between the end or beginning of the phrase and the ellipses. Congrats on the FA! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Japan 1995

Hi Sandy. I responded to the comment about the lead, and have added a bit more. I left another comment as well (about nbsp's) - I don't really know if I need to add any more and where. D.M.N. (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On the lead, it was just a question, to make sure you give Raul enough to work with if he ever has to write a blurb. On the nbsps, I don't think there's a script, and it's more a matter of common sense than guideline ... anything that you would't want to break lines. No big deals here, but the nbsp guideline is at WP:NBSP, and you should join times with the am or pm, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've added a few extra nbsp breaks in where needed. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC paperwork

Hey there. I'll be going on vacation August 17 for a few days. I've been thinking about this for a while, and when I get back I may redirect my Wiki efforts. I've been doing the paperwork for FAC and FAR now for about 18 months, over a year with WPGA, and about 6 months at FLC. It's becoming a drain and taking time away from articles. I already abandoned featured portals because it was too much fuss. Maybe its time someone else did the paperwork. Gimmetrow 01:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Darn it, Gimme. I completely understand the sentiment. I've pushed and pulled for as long as I can to get people to cooperate and communicate and coordinate and recognize all that you do and understand where we would be without the bots and scripts and people who help keep things moving. This is really disheartening, but no one understands as I do. I lost my entire afternoon to this; I understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[2] Actually, did delists too. [3] Gimmetrow 03:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, too sad for words. Glad I could help a little bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, Gimme, I'm still trying to recover, even though I can't say I'm shocked or surprised at this news, all things considered. You've done all that you've done so well, so transparently, making it look so easy, that it's possible that few people understand how much you do or how little it's been appreciated or what could become of these now very well functioning processes and tidy talk pages without your work. Are you planning to continue any aspect of the work? In particular, what about articlehistories? I can go back to managing FAC as Raul did in the olden days, before all the talk page and archiving improvements due to your dedication, where the only thing we had to do was move a FAC/FAR to archive and add or delete promoted/demoted articles to FA, leaving talk page and template updating, moving, closing and tagging of FACs and FARs, keeping up with name changes and tracking the categories etc., to anyone else who is willing to pick up the work (and I'm concerned whether anyone else will do it was well, as politely, as expeditiously and as efficiently as you do -- BetaCommandBot nightmares come to mind when I think of the abuse you've politely endured as you've done this incredible amount of underappreciated work). I don't have time to add and update all the talk pages, even using the old templates, or keep up with articlehistory issues and errors without you, but in the olden days, no one did that work anyway, we just had a mess on talk pages and a mess whenever a subsequent FAC was resubmitted, and the only thing we could conclusively say was that an article was featured or not if it had been moved by the FA director to WP:FA. We can go back to that. Please fill me in on whether you plan to continue any part of the massive amount of work you do, so Raul and I can figure where to go from here. You've been doing articlehistories, FAC, FAR, FLC, and any number of other processes, GA converting of templates and update, PR template converting, keeping up with name changes and tallies, and much more. What next ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we should get someone lined up to run a bot to take the place of GimmeBot's FA work then. I'd offer to help, except I have no Python experience. I can offer to help with (some!) of the manual work, though, if we go that route. Gimme, your work was very much appreciated—thanks for all you've done. Pagrashtak 16:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In my past experience, there is no one willing to take on everything Gimme does, and does well. We're going to need a lot of help, or the alternate is to go back to how the processes and talk pages were managed in the olden days. I know I can count on people like you, Pagrashtak, and Maralia has some training in this area, too, but I'm concerned about the long-term big picture, having seen how deprecation of automated and behind-the-scenes work wearies even the willing and dedicated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not qualified to run a bot. I just don't have the experience, or the time needed to learn it, honestly. I've picked up a side job/volunteer oportunity/task that will keep me busy enough that I'm not going to pick up any more Wiki taks. Although I will add appreciation to Gimme's work, it's been unrewarded, I know. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if I should pick up the main date tagging again; it seems to be the only FA-related task compatible with my inconsistent schedule. ;) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 19:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, Ec, please do; I've been watching it sporadically and adding them as needed. More eyes are always welcome. I've begun a page describing all the FA-related tasks, might finish it by tomorrow. I'm mystified at all the editors at the Village Pump discussion who are willing to chime in about how simple they say it is to code bots and scripts, while no one (there) seems to notice the real issue or offers to do the difficult, ongoing, and thankless work of actually operating the bots in an ever-changing environment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a first draft of FA-related work: User:SandyGeorgia/FA work. It doesn't even address the What Will We Do Without GimmeBot question yet; first, I need to improve the list/instructions there and see if others can assume any of the little pieces. Later, to sort what to do about the big issue. Please use the talk page there to discuss, or if you can help improve that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch37#Requests archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you suggested over at WP:FCDW doing an interview for the August 25th Dispatch. It seems like Gimmetrow would be the obvious choice; this would also allow an appeal for someone to take over running the bot/helping with the paperwork etc. Dr pda (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was putting off doing the interviews of both Marskell and Gimmetrow because 1) I wanted to help doing those myself, after my late August to September travel, they both mean a lot to me and there was a lot to say, 2) I wanted to wait until the citations list dropped below 75 for Marskell, to use it to announce the progress there along with mention of his redesign of the FAR process, and 3) I was waiting to do the Gimmetrow interview pending his plans to rewrite the bot, so that announcement of that could be included in the interview. Now, Gimmetrow has pending vacation/travel, and so do I ... it's still doable, though. I like your idea, but need to hear from Gimmetrow on that. I guess it's obvious that I'm concerned that no one will fill those shoes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Gimme for his python scripts, which would give me a big headstart in picking up these pieces. While I maintain that I haven't seen anything to indicate that the reasons behind this move are any more sinister than the desire to work more on actual articles, GimmeBot is certainly integrally tied into the featured content processes, and so there's a lot to get a grip on here! Happy‑melon 17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Maletinazo Article

Sandy, I have no clue how to contact you, I hope this is the proper way. I was wondering if you could please get back to me regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maletinazo#Antonini_Wilson_background.

Alessio.aguirre (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

DrPda's list

Yes, this is good. I responded on his talk. Forgive me if I'm not immediately responsive, but I will try to participate. Start a thread re FAR in the most appropriate spot and let me know. Marskell (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

E-mail. Send one, and give me a couple of days. Marskell (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Robert Sterling Yard FAC

Hi, Sandy, maybe I'm just groggy, but I don't see Yard's article listed at FAC anymore even though the discussion is still open. Was it not promoted or something? Damn me for writing articles about people no one has ever heard of. :( María (habla conmigo) 13:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FAC/ar and the edit that counts. Congrats !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Thank you kindly. :) María (habla conmigo) 16:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC

I should catch up on sourcing tomorrow evening. Having too good a time at the convention (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making a decision

Thanks for making a decision on the Mangalore FAC. But I thought you would give me atleast a day to make the final corrections, since you just informed about the issues today. There were also all Supports and no Opposes or Comments. As this was my first FAC, I didn't know about these issues. After how long, can I submit the article again for a FAC. Kensplanet^Talk_E-mail^{Contributions} 16:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No link to the FAC so I can comment quicker? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mangalore/archive1 Kensplanet (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This FAC has already been up for three weeks, and had only garnered one solid support, and was a very lengthy FAC because it appeared initially with issues of all kinds. Two weeks is a normal timeframe for a FAC that doesn't have significant opposition, but because of the summer slowdown, I'm letting some of them go longer now. Each time I checked the article, wondering why it wasn't getting more feedback, I found issues; sometimes that explains why reviewers aren't getting more involved. Also, if you compare the way you respond to the responses on some other FACs, you'll see that this FAC became very messy very quickly, which could discourage subsequent reviewers. Keeping a FAC as readable as possible may help avoid scaring off subsequent reviewers. A 100KB FAC can scare off reviewers; if it had had more support, it might have been a candidate for a restart, but it wasn't getting support. The referencing, overlinking, and anything else still there needs to be sorted out, and then you can bring it back to FAC; hopefully a clean start will result in more attention. See WP:CITE and WP:WIAFA 2c, regarding mixing citation styles. You can renominate whenever issues identified are resolved (the copyediting glitches, linking, referencing, and anything else raised). Once you've addressed all of those issues, you might also consider asking User:Epbr123 to run through and do a MoS check, as he is very thorough and that will help you towards a smooth FAC next time. Hope to see you back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No problems. I do think there were not enough supports. Anyway Thanks for your comments. Let's see when can I bring the article back there. Kensplanet^Talk_E-mail^{Contributions} 18:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeff

Hi. I'm Jeff's sister, Debbie. I don't know how to use Wikipedia. I think I've caused a lot of confusion and I'm sorry. It looks like I created my own page, jeffssister. I guess I should have tried to do it on Jeff's page. Did I? I dont know where to post, how to reply or if everyone has my email address now, etc. The awful truth is he's gone. Both of them. It's all so terrible. He was just 46. My younger brother is gone Jeffssister (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)jeffssister

Hi, Debbie. You're doing fine. I will respond over on your talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy - I would contact someone with oversight to ask them to redact the history logs to remove the personal info, because its still there in the history for anyone to see. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they oversight something put there by its owner? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Last time I did it, it was a phone number. I don't know the extent of what they remove. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm completely out of ummmphh, was up in the middle of the night, and have guests due momentarily, if anyone else wants to ask wherever the asking should be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I've oversighted Debbie's personal info. Just so's you know - Alison ^❤ 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And again, Sandy. It's all been taken care of, on both pages now. Go for your appointment - I'll keep watch on thing to make sure it doesn't get repeated - Alison ^❤ 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you so much for your kind words. Gut punched is a pretty good term for what I felt as well. If we were on the phone you'd hear (or not) that I have barely any voice left after the screaming that came out of me when Isaac's niece called. Like Jeff, I'm not too private. And the arrangements are that Jeff is going to be buried in the same grave as Isaac on Friday at 2pm. My husband and I are leaving for Amsterdam Tuesday and home again on Monday the 18th. If anyone is from the area and wishes, of course they are welcome to come. Jeffssister (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)jeffssister

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Insane Clown Posse/archive2

There were three users supporting the FAC and no opposals. All of the article's significant problems were taken care of. Why was this not promoted? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC))

If you can explain to me where you see three supports, I will stand corrected. I see one, and a neutral to weak comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked again, and didn't find that support, but please do let me know if I was mistaken; if so, I'll restart. It had been up for a very long time and still hadn't garnered support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

I know that Frank Zappa must be getting pretty close to decision time for you, but if you could hold off closing it for a day or two, maybe it might just be able to sneak through at the last gasp? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Was just scratching my head over that one :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have left a request concerning the article at the FAC page here. I sincerely hope that this is not considered in any way inappropriate (making a request as such; whether the request is appropriate or not is, of course, for you to decide). Best regards, --HJensen, talk 09:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind you asking at all; I'm usually willing and able to provide explanations for my decisions. When an article has reached a preponderance of opposes after being up more than three weeks, the article usually has a better chance if work proceeds off-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, some opposes came in very late and were slightly unfair imo. In any case, when I am finished, does this FAC restart or do I start a whole new nomination?--HJensen, talk 10:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Once you've addressed the objections that were raised, you start a new nomination. There were some unresolved image issues on the FAC, so it might be good to get a check from Elcobbola (talk · contribs) before initiating the next nom. Hope to see you back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought you would like to know...

When I talked with Jeff, he spoke of you and how much he respected you and your work here. Aleta ^Sing 04:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources

WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS are on fire. Again. JFW | T@lk 13:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how two posters can undo common sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject report

Right. I'll double-check the research on that, and prepare it for next week, after that, I'll run Norse history and culture, Shakespeare, then start going through the list of suggestions I discovered until that's cleared. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, dear. I begin to see the extent of the problems. This may require some trimming - it's hard to see what else to do when the question itself is questionable =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye. I agree. But I'm a little concerned about how repairable it is, as it does seem like to fix this properly, we'd have to redo the interview. =/. I think I'll get WP:WikiProject Norse history and culture ready as a backup, in case there turn out to be too many problems to sort. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, what's the real deadline for the articles? It's saying Monday, but I'm not actually sure I believe that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be move-protected. Can you sort it out? User_talk:Shoemaker's Holiday/WikiProject Chicago (Rudget), please =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

8-11 Signpost

Sandy, I have been trying to get in touch with Rudget about one of the answers that was removed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/WikiProject report/Rudget. The copyedit did not seem to match the removal and I had intended to beef up the answer. I am going to readd the section with the beefed up answer. I don't know who to talk to if Rudget is not answering. I have tried emailing him/her and using the User talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak French, but it appears that Rudget has left the building and those of us who aren't admins can't post to his talk page. User:Shoemaker's Holiday took over the WikiProject Reports as of last week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Rudget's French ain't too hot either, but if you check the properties on his leaving icon you will find this: "I should not have to waste my energy raising the expectations of others to something so unachievably high. Even with the most overwhelming of evidence; trust and maturity are essential elements that, on appearance, I will never be able to fully achieve. Without that, I can not possibly continue. I resign my tools with immediate effect." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. I had no idea. Thanks Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

With the requests page all cleared out...

...you could help out the newbie who tried to post a suggestion there a few hours ago by reinstating it? I'm pretty sure it'd get knocked off soon enough by something with more points, but it'd be a nice thing to do... and would show the process in action. Just a thought. --Dweller (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See my last talk page post there, which took up my remaining posting time today, just as I need to get ready for an app't. It would be stupendous if you would help the template posters get their articles on the page ... the fire, the planet, and so on. Those people added their articles in the template in good faith, but the chart and the page hasn't been used fairly for several weeks now, probably confusing everyone, and lending credence to the notion that the community isn't ready to assume more responsibility for mainpage scheduling. With this unfair fiddling of the summary chart, it's probably best I stay out of the mess, and I'm going to be out all evening anyway, have to get ready to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, where are you? I was hoping you'd jump in and help the fellow ... I was out most of the day, will catch up tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It was my evening/night time - was offline from shortly after the time you posted! Sorry I missed it. :-( --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've dropped Scott a (lengthy) line. --Dweller (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

NB this is me, signing out, probably for the night! :-) --Dweller (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Harvard referencing

I'm looking for any FA that is a good illustration of author-date referencing. I'm trying to get some closure on fixing {{reflist}} and I think I found a hole in one of my early proposals. Thanks. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gadget850, see Learned Hand or Saint-Sylvestre coup d'état for examples of Harvard-style referencing. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Those articles use something most people here call "short footnotes". Author-date or Harvard-style referencing would look more like Irish phonology. Gimmetrow 02:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Some drive-by FAC nominations for your attention

It seems Bugnot (talk · contribs) nominated five articles for WP:FAC at the same time[4]. I've untranscluded two of nominations (nom pages were never created) and deleted another one, which I sent to WP:FLC. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for handling those three, Nish. Sandy, the other two FACs (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iraq War and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vladimir Putin) have already received what I believe are significant opposes so I didn't withdraw them even though they were drive-by noms. Nish and Gary King left notes for the nominator, so the ball's in his court regarding withdrawal. Maralia (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all (I was out all afternoon and evening). The nominator didn't consult regular editors and has neglible edits on both; someone could have withdrawn them based on the WP:FAC instructions before they got all the opposes, but I understand the hesitancy. Now with all those opposes, they'll just add up to a high fail rate for the month. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the order, Maralia; I was just going to do that next. Strange move that was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wish I'd caught them in time but I was out too - odds are that when they were nominated, I was either (a) trying to convince my 3-year-old that merry-go-rounds and other kiddie rides are not flaming excursions into the bowels of hell, or (b) attempting to stuff my face with enough funnel cakes to forget (a). Maralia (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't work too hard on a). If your child swings to the other side of the spectrum (like mine), you will hear countless refrains of "me ride! me ride again! me ride!" and then have one of those fun everyone-is-looking-at-me-because-I-am-such-a-bad-parent type of tantrums when you finally decide that one more merry-go-round ride would destroy your sanity ;) Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am so enjoying this conversation; almost tempted to discuss what *I* was doing last night, and let you two decide which age group's issues you prefer :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Main article subpages

Any thoughts on this proposal to deal with 'infoboxes' and other encyclopedic information that might not belong in prose? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Joopercoopers. I hate infoboxes, possibly as much as Giano does, but I'm not sure that proposal solves the problem. In fact, it may just further the problem on other subpages. Infoboxes hoist all kinds of worthless and useless info on our readers (in most cases, some of them; e.g., MilHist can be useful): by codifying a page for that kind of information, the problem may become even worse, just moved to another place. At least, with the current situation, we can object to infoboxes. I think the problem occurred at Buckingham Palace when Giano stopped watching for a second; as long as editors are watching, consensus should be good to keep infoboxes out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Candide's FAC (again)

Hello. So it looks to me like Candide isn't getting enough attention on the FAC page: neither "supports" nor "objections". Also, Awadewit isn't responding to my responses fast enough, I expect, for me to please her completely. Now, Candide is near the end of the list, with only Awadewit's lingering objection (some parts of which other editors disagree) and no support votes. I want to know what you think you are going to do with the nom. I've tried asking people on IRC for reviews and got nothing (I carefully specified I was not looking only for "support"s); I don't think it would be appropriate to ask my wiki-friends to review the article because they might be biased. Is there anything I can do to further the nom.? Is there a chance that you will restart it? I think it'd be a shame for it to fail because the topic is uninteresting, or whatever it is that discourages people from reading it. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 09:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit now officially "support"s the nomination. There are currently no "object"s in place. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not a muddled, hard to follow, or stalled review, so it doesn't warrant a restart. I typically restart articles when the FAC is so muddled that I can't sort out what work remains; that is not the case here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Keith Miller

Next FA candidate toward our FT project is well under way. It's going to be another biggie. I reckon it'll bottom out at around 85K of readable prose. Does that seem tolerable under the current climate at FAC? I've not been participating there too much of late (Bradman took a lot out of me). --Dweller (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Donald Bradman is only 53KB of readable prose, 9100 words, which is within WP:SIZE. At 83KB of readable prose, and 14,500 words, Keith Miller would be the longest FA per word count. As a reviewer, I always objected to those extra-long articles, and I opposed Ketuanan Melayu at 13,800 words, arguing for better use of summary style. My objects never prevailed. As FAC delegate, I go with consensus, and no one else seems to bother (or check). The war service section doesn't seem to make good use of summary style (long section, considering most of that could go to the daughter article), and I see several other sections that I think could be better summarized to the daughter articles. But that's just me, no bearing on how FAC reviewers will see it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Reflist

Would you please expand on your comments about multiple columns at Template talk:Reflist. Some examples would be great. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There have been multiple long discussions and examples, spread across several discussion pages; it will take me some time to find those discussions or even remember where they occurred. The bottom line is that three or four cause problems in many browsers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I have ended up spearheading a resolution on this and just want to get all of the issues characterized. I'm thinking the best thing is to default to one column and allow users to change their CSS for multiple columns if they desire. I'm picking brains to see if that is possible (I'm a hardware guy, dammit). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Allright, the place to start locating the discussions is the archives at WT:FAC, although they spread to there from several other places. I'm hoping if I wait long enough, someone else will remember where to find those conversations :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for listing those older discussions. Am I not making myself clear in the discussion? The proposal is to make the default 100% and one column; users can then change it to whatever they desire for their personal viewing. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not that; I just didn't take the time to read through everything on the page. Your default sounds good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Category watch

Tornadoes in the United States was tagged, but its FAC page was not transcluded nor even created. Nomination otherwise valid (principal contributor etc), but nominator is offline so I untagged it for now and left him a note. Maralia (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maralia; I'm thrilled that someone else watches for this kind of busy work, that occupies tons of my time. See User:SandyGeorgia/FA work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandy. On an FAC I'm involved in (SummerSlam (2003)), two editors have stated that they believe an oppose is "unactionable". When reviewing the nomination when coming to promoting/archiving the FAC, will these opposes be counted? (The oppose in question is towards the bottom of the FAC.) Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

An actionable oppose 1) relates to WP:WIAFA and 2) specifically identifies something that is possible to fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. In which case it's unactionable, as it doesn't specifically identify something. It does relate to WP:WIAFA, but the opposer wants key details of the article removed, which would go against criteria 1b. D.M.N. (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read crit 4 at WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It sort of doesn't concern that - the user wanted a whole section of the article removed, specifically this section. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

D.M.N. — I think you may be referring to my argument agains detailing the undercard. See my reply on the SummerSlam (2003) page. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)]]

FAC Help

Ok I can't stand this no more, the page is just out of control and I need some of your intervention at SummerSlam (2003)'s review page, I the nominator don't even know what to make of it, there are four supports but three opposes, 2 mainly classified as unactionable by users. The real main problem is that users, mainly wrestling fans, go to the page and oppose because they do not like the new format of the article, which is written without violating WP:IN-U and WP:JARGON. See SummerSlam (2003) and No Way Out (2004); SS is out of universe and NWO is in-universe (which the wrestling fans want this format). I don't know if it's best to restart the FAC or just let it keep going because I am so stressed with what is going on in that page.--S_RX 02:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If editors are split on this issue, what would change with a restart? Why wouldn't a restart just be more of the same? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, most of the opposition is from in-experienced users from the wrestling Wikproject (by inexperienced I mean that they do not know Wiki's policies or the style guide) and they don't like the new format because it is harder for them to read the results since its not written in the universe of wrestling, so they go to the FAC page and complain about the format and oppose it because they don't like it. I don't know if their votes count because most of them are just complaining and not giving reasons to improve, and if they do, they were addressed by consensus already by the experienced users at the Wrestling Project and FAC reviewers on the peer review. So I'm not sure what to make of it from this point...S_RX 03:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it tomorrow, but an article shouldn't be hard for anyone to read (experienced or inexperienced), so if the concerns aren't addressed, a restart is just likely to continue the differences on to a new page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note, on another PPV article, a discussion/argument is going on between several users, a group who seemingly do not want professional wrestling articles out-of-universe, although their arguments judging by the links are rather bad. D.M.N. (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it may be helpful to consult Deckiller (talk · contribs), who is very experienced in matters of in-universe vs. not writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

FAC voting

I have a question. In the past week or so, there has been quite the discussion on whether to promote the article SummerSlam (2003) to FAC status (relevant discussion is here). Several voters have voice their opposition to this article on various grounds (I won't regurgitate their arguments), and the nominator in reply has asked whomever makes the final decision to disregard the vote — mainly on the grounds that those who oppose the vote are members of the WikiProject Professional wrestling group. My question is this — should it/does it matter whether a member of a given WikiProject group votes in a FAC nomination? Also, how much weight is given to members of WikiProject group's arguments (I'd imagine it would be only the merits of their arguments). Thank you for answering these questions in advance. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)]]

Ideally, I look for balance: input from people familiar with the topic as well as input from people not familiar with the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's good that you look for balance in FAC discussions, but — and perhaps you already answered the question, in which case I apologize — does voting on a FAC when you're part of that article's WikiProject automatically disqualify that vote? Meaning, if someone were a member of the professional wrestling topic and they voted either to support or oppose, would that vote automatically be disregarded? The main reason some on the FAC discussion wanted several of the "oppose" votes thrown out was on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (meaning, those in opposition were suspected of simply disputing the new "out-of-universe" style that has recently been adopted for professional wrestling pay-per-view event articles by WP:PW), and I would think that it would be up to whomever makes the final decision on FACs to decide how much merit a given vote has. [[Briguy52748 (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)]]

To give you an example out of your realm of editing that may make it more clear, consider a medical article. I would expect support from Medicine Project participants, to indicate that the article had been medically vetted. If the Medicine Project doesn't support a medical article, that raises concern. But I would also look for Support from non-Medicine Project members to be sure, for example, that the article was accessible to laypersons. Oppose declarations must be related to WP:WIAFA and must be actionable, that is, related to something that can be fixed. As long as a declaration is valid and actionable, I take it into account, but I look for balance between "fan" and Project support and independent support. I am answering this question in general terms, without having fully read the FAC in question. *If* there is a problem with in-universe writing, or if the article isn't understandable to a wide audience (lingo, jargon, etc.), that needs to be addressed. I've asked Deckiller, an independent editor, to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Burger King legal issues FAC withdrawl

Hello, you posted this on my talk page about the Burger King legal issues FAC that you withdrew. I have some questions I would like to ask if you are OK with that?

The Burger King legal issues was archived only four days ago, and has seen only two edits in the interim. The typical period to prepare for a new FAC is at least two weeks. I had a look at the article to see if it appeared ready; because I easily identified a number of issues that should be dealt with, I'm going to withdraw it to allow more time to better prepare, so that the article will have a better chance at success next time. I suggest that you ask User:Epbr123 to run through and check on all issues after you finish, but at least, I noted the following:

1. I saw quotes italicized. See WP:ITALICS.
2. I saw inconsistent use of italics in the citations. Periodicals, newspapers, journals are italicized, websites etc. are not.
3. Inconsistent date formatting throughout the citations, some have wikilinked dates, others have raw unformatted ISO dates. Please be sure to use a consistent date format, and view the article both logged in and logged out to make sure all date formats are consistent either way. See WP:MOSDATE. Because different citation templates handle formatting in different ways, it may take some fiddling.
4. Attention to WP:MOS#Ellipses needed.
5. Page numbers are needed on book sources.
6. Curly quotes shouldn't be used (switch to regular quotes).
7. I'm not certain what the case citations are at the top of each section or if that is standard formatting.
8. Attention to punctuation on image captions needed per WP:MOS#Images.
9. In the Animal welfare section, text should not be sandwiched between images, see WP:MOS#Images.

My questions -

1. I fixed that.
2. I did not italicize any of the citation names, that is a function of the templates I used, {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite episode}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite book}} and {{cite press release}}. What can I do about this as I cannot change the templates?
3. I am guessing you mean the instance where I only place a mmmm yyyy date (June 2008) verses a yyyy-mm-dd (2008-06-01) in the citations. In those cases the source only gave the former form of the date as such that is what I used. When I linked the latter (June 2008) they were deleted per comments in the GA nom and GAR. If I cannot get a more exact date, what can I do about this issue?
4. Are you referring to the ellipses I used in the quotations? Per the link to the MoS you provided "Use an ellipsis if material is omitted in the course of a quotation..." I believe they are being used correctly, am I mistaken?
5. I fixed that, it was a typo.
6. I don't see any curly quotes in the version I nominated.
7. I removed them.
8. I believe I fixed those.
9. I fixed that.

Thanks for you assistance,

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 19:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your numbers don't match mine, so starting over. There is still incorrect punctuation on image captions per WP:MOS#Images (full senteces are punctuated at the end, sentence fragments are not), WP:MOS#Ellipses are not fixed (see guideline on spaces), Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists is not followed, there are left-aligned images under section headings (check WP:MOS#Images), there are still curly quotes (example, ... what the industry calls “indulgent” ...), citation review in order ( ... "History Illuminates the Rage of Muslims". the New York Times. ... it's The New York Times), yes, the citation templates do allow for italics on periodicals, you can do that in two ways, either add the italics on the publisher parameter, or use the work parameter which automatically italicizes. The fastest way through this sort of work is to ask User:Epbr123 for help. Also, there were content-related and prose issues on the previous FAC, so asking those reviewers if they're satisfied now will give the article a better chance next time through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick replies:

• Images - I'll look at them later, I cannot see the fragments vs the sentences.
• Fixed the "... foo" issue.
• The bullet list is part of the quote, to change it would be bad.
• Removed the curly quotes, they were in the original sources and were from the cut an paste of the quotes
• I will work on the citations in regards to italicizing names
• I did fix those errors and will get back to the commentators.

Thanks again --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you yet again Sandy, I have slight dyslexia and some times miss these types of errors. You can see that sometimes in my edit summaries, with several "fix typo" comments that appear after a major editing run. I rely heavily on the spell check feature of Firefox, and occasionally a complete copy and paste into Word. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand; if you look at my edit summaries, you'll see I seem to have developed adult-onset dyslexia ... some of my typing lately is scary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Small plea for Operation Brevity

Hi Sandy. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Brevity has picked up some heavyweight opposes based on 1a. With few strike throughs, there is little evidence that the opposes are being worked on. They are, however, being taken seriously. I have suggested to Tony that I copyedit one section, and he has agreed to review this effort. If his review is positive, I think I can get this one through. I'll be notifying him tomorrow that my test copyedit is done, so we may have an early answer anyway, but if this FAC's time is coming to an end, I wonder if I can plead for a little leeway whilst this test plays out? --FactotEm (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not on my radar yet; the big batch of stalled FACs near the bottom of the list are occupying my attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Opening up Pandora's Box

SG, It was I who initiated the messy exchange but I did want to have a discussion on the issues of citation guides and layout. I would also like to seek out others like yourself who may have a good perspective on researching and bibliographic notations. FWiW, I will also refer this note to Tony1 who also may be an assist here. Bzuk (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC).

Which messy exchange where? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See:Wikipedia talk:Citing sources‎ and Wikipedia talk:Layout. My bad, should have known you are scanning a zillion topics. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC).

Crown Fountain

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain you did not respond to my query about whether we are suppose to correct punctuation in article titles especially as it relates to WP:DASH. I copy-pasted article titles and have corrected for upper and lower case issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have seen talk discussions at MoS and from Tony1 saying that we should, but as far as I know, WP:MOS is silent on the matter, so I overlook this at FAC. You could ask Tony1, but it's not something I'll weigh at FAC unless MoS addresses it. In my own editing, I do correct them even when using a cut-and-paste. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I understand your response to be that there is no policy and various people may have stylistic preferences. I will change to –, I have to ponder some of the — uses and other punctuation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tony: yes, an article title should be changed so that it has an en dash, where that is mandated for text in general. There used to be an unfortunate exception for article titles ("use hyphens"), which was changed some time ago since technological advances rendered it irrelevant. BTW, internal links to articles that wrongly use a hyphen should be piped with an en dash. Tony (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

O.K. I am done with my changes, but Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) is in the middle of a copyedit. I was unsure what to do on ref #4 and changed (star) to *. I think ref #41 is O.K. as is. Other than that there are no real issues with ref punctuation any longer. I continue to await Elcobbola (talk · contribs) to reevaluate FURs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

date formatting: the binary boundary

Hi Sandy: I need to discuss this issue. Forgive my ignorance, but I concentrate so much on main text that I just ignore the appendices, except for my occasional checking of refs (not their format, but their reliability).

"Where a citation template is used, all dates rendered via date-access fields should be consistently formatted throughout the "References" section."

Your comment: "Not quite, independent of whether a template is used, there should still be date consistency. And it's more than references: it's references, footnotes, further reading, external links (appendices at WP:LAYOUT). And it's not only date-access, it's also publication dates."

So let me get this right. Are citations templates used not only in the References section, but in the other appendices? I guess you're saying they are. Does this mean that the two "zones" for internal consistency are (1) main text, and (2) all appendices?

I'm concerned that cite web forces DAed ISO dates—so does that mean people should change all dates in the Ref section to ISO?

Do all appendices have to be internally consistent with each other? I'd have thought the footnotes would go with the main text, since citation-generated dates are not usually found in footnotes.

On the other matters, the US thing and an explanaition of "autoformatting" are simple: I'll do them now. Tony (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

They aren't necessary, but some editors use citation templates to list items in Further reading and External links. The take home message is that dates should be consistent throughout appendices as listed at WP:LAYOUT, regardless of whether citation templates are used. It doesn't mean they have to switch to ISO or not; as far as I know, this is doable across all possibilities, although the cite templates don't always make it easy. Citations go with the main text? That's the old discussion we already had at WT:MOS, where I thought it was decided that wasn't possible or easy, so we were going to punt to the option of consistency within text and separate consistency within citations? I thought we already had that discussion? Confoozled. Any reason we can't keep this on that talk page, to have everything in one place and off of my talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

MEDRS

There is no discussion on MEDRS but there is some bickering on WP:MEDMOS on issues quite pertinent to MEDRS. I would actually appreciate your comments there. JFW | T@lk 09:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

Several of us have worked on the article addressing some of the issues presented in the prior FAC. If you have time, I'd like you to give a quick readability review. I appreciate anything you can do. Go Marlins. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

On my list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you saw the football...errrr....baseball game game at Fenway yesterday. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I was waiting for the field goal :-) Bad news, Orange; I took a look at the edit history of the article and decided, for sanity's sake, I'd rather not go there (particularly not if it's headed to FAC). I hope you get my drift. I see Fv and Colin (talk · contribs) are already there; GrahamColm (talk · contribs), Casliber (talk · contribs) and Eubulides (talk · contribs) can be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was blocked after Texas drove down to the 5 yard line. Got your drift. Cas has been helping out a little bit, especially since he's one of those odd head shrinkers. He might be helpful  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget to ask Tim Vickers (talk · contribs) to run through when it's almost ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: FA query

That was the "best sales pitch" ever, perhaps? :) I'm surprised anyone would recommend me for that! I haven't been as active here, in August, as I have been in previous months so I might not be as helpful. However, what would be involved? Gary King (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Depends on how much you want to do :-) The "stuff" that I do all the time is at User:SandyGeorgia/FA work. Some people have picked up some pieces, none of it is essential, but all of it is helpful. Let me know if anything on that list interests you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I can certainly help out but I don't want to be committed to any specific task, otherwise I have responsibilities – which are scary! :) I think I'm familiar enough with FACs to determine what needs fixing even without the list, so if I see something broken then I'll fix it. Gary King (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with this idea?

A problem with the style guides is that they often conflict with one another. A solution is to have the information on a particular topic in one article and have the other articles contain only a brief introduction with a pointer to the main article. Of course, once you introduce brief introductions you are introducing opportunities for new edits to re-create the conflicting text problem. So here is my thought:
Set up a "brief introduction page" (for example: "Wikipedia:Lead section (brief)") to contain a universal brief introduction to a main article on a particular topic. Then you could transclude that brief article into other style guide articles that contain subsections that discuss the topic covered by the main article (replacing the current conflicting text).
If this approach were successfully implemented then there would be only two articles to keep an eye on for each subject (the main article and the brief article). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is ... if you start trying to address individual MoS pages, you'll be chasing your tail for years. Just when you get one page under control, the same thing pops up on the four other MoS pages that cover the same item. I really believe the only solution is to invigorate WP:MOSCO, build a core group who will work on the pages, begin to develop some guidelines ... when you're up to your arse in alligators, it's hard to realize you need to drain the swamp. The swamp needs to be drained. MOSCO has never had a leader; it needs someone to take charge, and realize that fixing the MoS pages is a long-term commitment, and there will be steps backward before it can move foward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

So the approach (using transcluding) is acceptable but, you believe, doomed to failure. Is that what you are telling me? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well. You need to go back in the talk archives at WT:MOS and see how people screeched at the mere suggestion that there is such a thing as any main page on any area. Everyone has their territory carved out on an individual page, and protects that page and resists any notion of a "main page". So, good luck; if it's not co-ordinated Wiki-wide, I just don't think you'll make progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. If it isn't a no-no then I just may try it once and see what happens. Then you'll be able to say "I told you so" when I fall flat on my face. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Have fun ! Experience isn't the best teacher, it's the only teacher :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah

So? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Q

I have been very sporadic in my editing, but was wondering, since I assumed it was going to be there, why Yellowstone fires of 1988 is now not going to be on the mainpage on 8/20, the 20th anniversary of the event. I have no idea what the point system is all about, but I assume the article had insufficient points to get on the mainpage.--MONGO 04:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, actually it probably did have enough points, but you didn't add it to the request page when you could have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to do that Sandy when one isn't around a lot...seems whenever I think to add an FA there, there are already 5 listed. Anyway, this issue was previously discussed on some pending mainpage listing well before this month...I can't seem to find the page now...perhaps deleted? Is 9/7 taken?--MONGO 04:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened there is that you added it to the pending template, which is only to generate talk page discussion about the points, but you never returned to add it to the main page when you could have. I have to say ... I was crushed :-) "The Yellowstone fires of 1988 were unprecedented in the history of the National Park Service ... " undeniably an important anniversary that we shouldn't have missed, and a worthy article, but if you don't put it forward on the requests page, there's no way for Raul to know; he can't really browse through all 975 articles that haven't been scheduled checking for important anniversaries. And I can't play advocate for any given article, so I had to watch it pass by :-(( Gosh, I remember how the park looked when the new trees were all at a height that you could look right over the top of them and see for miles. No, 9/7 isn't taken, but you had two points for the 20th anniversary, which you don't have now (unless 9/7 is a 20th, too?), so now you won't be able to get a slot on the page. With the anniversary, you did have enough points and you could have replaced one of the other five listed, but you never came back to add it when you could have :-( If you still have a date in the article that meets the 20th anniversay, the article has 4 points, 2 pts decennary and 2 points no similar articles in six months, and you can replace another article already there. Get thee to WP:TFA/R and read the instructions; I can't do it for you, as I can't advocate for any given article. Right now you can put up any date from Aug 22 to Sep 21, except Aug 24 and 27, and you can replace Jackson, which has only 2 points, as long as you're still in the 20th anniversary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you go for 9/7, you gain one more point (promoted more than a year ago). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oopsie. I just looked at WP:TFA/R. 9/7 is taken, but you have more points, so you can replace it. But if the fires burned during all that time, you could also pick another date, and replace Jackson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(Excuse me for eavesdropping) MONGO, if I may suggest, go for September 8th, which is the 20th anniversary of the first time the park was ever completely closed. That will give you the full five points, I think, and it is a significant date mentioned specifically in the article. Risker (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant. Mongo, if you go for 9/8, you should replace Jackson. He has only 2 pts, and 50% oppose, so he's next to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both...sorry for my cluelessness. I suppose 8/20 was special to me...I was fighting the fires there near Norris at a place known as Madison Junction on that date. I spent 7 weeks total in the park that summer...and it was no vacation! But surely 9/8 is fine...and that will be an good choice. Maybe I need to incorporate that date into the intro along the lines mentioned by Risker.--MONGO 05:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How sad that summer must have been ... but at least no firefighters died ... first, get thee to WP:TFA/R and get it on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't remove one of the other nominations can I? I thoought it had to be a clear no...Jackson seems to be still under debate. Anyway...will check back tomorrow...late here and much thanks Sandy for the help...you too Risker.--MONGO 05:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Even if Wacko had 100% approval, you could replace it because your article has more points. --Dweller (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy...thanks for your help. I think my lack of editing lately has made some more recent changes to some of our processes a bit of a mystery to me. I also didn't want to be presumptive and just remove another nomination...but that is apparently how it works I guess. I think I did nominate one other FA I worked on before, long ago. Now, if I can just set aside the time, I can finish up Pallid sturgeon and get that to peer review. I wonder if we are becoming too difficult for newbies to feel comfortable editing. I know when I first started on Wikipedia, the place was far easier to master, even for an egghead like myself. I think if I were just beginning now, I would make so many mistakes that my frustration would eliminate me from advancing. Take for example the inline cites...they are great and probably no other device will work as well...but for a new editor clicking the edit this page tab, seeing such a menagerie of templates and other things mixed in with basic text must oftentimes seem very intimidating.--MONGO 22:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, there's always someone to ask for help. When I was new, two and a half years ago, I probably set a record on the use of the {{helpme}} template, and I had a "Who wrote the manual for this thing, anyway" note on my user page. I thought Wiki was a chaotic maze then -- Feb 2006 -- utterly frustrating, but I kept at it. I think User:Commander Keane was manning the "Helpme line" 24/7, because he always appeared with an answer to my always-frustrated questions ... and years later, I had to archive one of his FACs. Made me so sad not to be able to promote an FA for someone who led me thru when I was so frustrated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe I should offer help more often. Your help was certainly appreciated. Best wishes.--MONGO 23:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you back

Thank you for your kindness ... I hope my copyedits helped a little. I don't know how you do what you do at FAC (and elsewhere) all the time - thanks again for doing it so well! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

How.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Polar stuff, featured topics etc

Thanks for drawing my attention to the stuff on the Featured topic talkpage. User:Carcharoth has contacted me, and we may well co-operate in the future, specially in relation to Arctic exploration articles. However, since the question of a featured topic has arisen, could you answer a question for me? Is it possible for a single article to be part of more than one featured topic? The reason I ask is this: I am considering a featured topic called "British Antarctic Expeditions during the Heroic Age" or some such title. One of its component articles would have to be Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition. But that article could easily be the basis of a separate featured topic, along with its various daughter articles and biographies of commanders. Can both topics be created, with overlapping articles? Brianboulton (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, an article can be part of multiple topics. There are a few existing FTs that have one of the entries marked (subtopic) - that means the article is the main article of a different featured topic. Other articles are members of two different topics without being the focus of a subtopic. Karanacs (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good thing we edit conflicted, before I posted my answer, which was "I dunno". By the way, Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Essay on auto-formatting

My first essay! Yes, I have added myself to the hundreds of Wikipedians who have put their thoughts to writing, hoping someone would read them. I should be interested in your opinion; it's not a particularly long piece.

I must say, the relevant discussion at WT:MOSNUM has grown exponentially during the last couple of weeks. I had some serious catching up to do today.

I'll tackle the WT:TFA/R one tomorrow. (sigh) Waltham, The Duke of 23:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks good! One suggestion, though. Those of us who have followed this issue for several years "get it" because we speak the language, have seen it in action, know all the confusing possibilities. But most people have no idea what this date issue is all about. You might include a series of examples showing how bad things can look to a non-logged-in reader, compared to how it is camouflaged to a logged-in editor via preferences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point there; I'll see what I can do. Thanks for reading.

PS: I have a couple of endorsements on the talk page. I guess this is standard practice with essays? Waltham, The Duke of 07:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno; never really been involved with essays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I usually check out the new ones (when promulgated in the Pump), but I rarely participate in the discussions. Most of them are temporary by nature, anyway.

The realm of essays is so chaotic... It's a huge category of almost 700 pages, not subdivided in any way (there's only a small subcategory of eleven "supplemental" essays). An organisation effort started some months ago... It ended soon afterwards. Thank Unicorn there's the index for the important ones. Waltham, The Duke of 14:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

hi

Hi... i saw you removed the comment i left on jeff's memorium. jeff has always allowed me to comment him despite being banned... for instance, when i wrote this, he replied with this. on another occaision, he in fact placed something i sent to him via email onto wikipedia.

anyway, i know that jeff would have wanted me to comment on the page, and i have been in year long email contact with him. please leave my comment there. thank you. 89.240.110.172 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

When will y'all learn?

That it's all about me. Srsly.

Me. --Moni3 (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It can't be All About You when you said you were gone, traveling :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all about me and free wireless in the Jacksonville airport, litterbox that it is. --Moni3 (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy it while it lasts (last time I checked, no free wireless at SFO :-) Have fun ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)