User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch44

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba

Can you please take a look at Vithoba and comment on any problems present on the article? Thanks. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I have answered the questions raised about RS, the commenter has replied "I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)" To prove that the source is a RS, i have included links to website articles of Columbia University and Westminster College for one and Intute recognizing the other as "Web resource for education and research". Also both articles provide their sources and have Bibliography sections. Any suggestions what can be done? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

REf: "Please resolve the concerns above about reliable sources; Support declarations over sourcing concerns have little weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)"

Hi SandyGeorgia, troubling you again. How do i resolve it or determine if it is resolved?, as

• There is no response of commenter on RS, neither a support nor an oppose after answering to the RS concerns, (s)he expressed.
• No other editor has commented on the issue.
• There are currently 2 "Support"s, one "Unqualified Support", one "No remaining image issues", 1 "Comments", All have been given after the RS comments (the other "comments"), the RS issue is the first thing on the page. All of the above have not said anything about the RS issue.

Thanks for listening. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The nominator should demonstrate to reviewers why sources are reliable, as explained in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the disputed sources used as references by other reputable organizations/ publishers Prove it to be a RS? Namely the disputed sources are used as referenes here too Experiencing the World’s Religions, 4th Edition, publisher: Mcgraw hill or Henry Martyn Centre, Westminster College, Cambridge CB3 0AA, UK or Columbia University? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically and practically, no. Many "reliable sources" tend to include unreliable claims or speculations, and base these on unreliable sources. That is why so many reliable sources have to be directly quoted or phrased so that people know that its the opinion of the author. This is especially true with newspapers that include a lot of editorializing and less "fact". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Hi, I have added some more links about the author and method of gathering data. Can someone please check as the reviewer has left "out (RS issue) for other reviewers to decide for themselves"?--Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I request you to please look at the FAC again and please point the points i need to address if the FAC needs to be successful. Waiting for a reply, a reply would lead me to improve the article in the right direction. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

rfa

why not Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SandyGeorgia? Nergaal (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks should be removed, not filled. Yomangani^talk 17:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I read a while ago about a Klan demonstration in a city square. Rock out for the First Amendment and all *cough* but when the townspeople heard of this, they thought the screaming and holding signs at the Klan had been done before and so retro. So they decided to sell lemonade at the rally and give all the funds for the lemonade to the United Negro College Fund and the Anti-Defamation League. They raised $10,000. Another town raised $28,000 doing the same thing. Instead of Sandy having to turn all these down, we should put all these to a good cause. The lurkers of SG's talk page should sign a pledge. If Sandy gets more than 25 suggestions for RfA in a year, we'll do her FA of choice. Or something. --Moni3 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's flogging a dead horse. Yomangani^talk 18:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

ah, that was such a cruel pun :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been subject to having to do an FAC of her choice. I ended up editing the German Women's Soccer team. I will have to boycott this particular idea of Moni3's. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

What did German women ever do to you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Spanking, lederhosen, and soccer. --Moni3 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Women and Lederhosen go together like Dr. Pepper and trout. Эlcobbola _talk 22:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that analogy from my SAT's. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember that analogy from my childhood dinner table. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"we'll do her FA of choice." Been there, done that, wasn't all it was cracked up to be. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Who made that my choice, huh?  ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I said "Or something". Get creative. --Moni3 (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet you can answer this question

Is there one page that has a list of all the cool codes that can be used? I just ran across hab and hat, and I was wondering what else I don't know. I've looked around, but I find some lists with endless discussion on how to use them. I just want a simple list that gives a brief description on what it does, then move on. It seems everything is tossed everywhere. For example, I know that there are format codes to convert between kg and lbs, but it always takes me 20 clicks of the button to find it (of course, I finally said, "I'm going to bookmark this stuff"). There should be one location to find anything for experienced editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't guess what "hab" means (?) but the advanced-users index is at Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia (linked near the bottom of the main Help:Contents index) :-)

It was mainly assembled by User:John Broughton, and resulted in his writing the book Wikipedia: The Missing Manual.

(sorry for just jumping in!) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that isn't what I wanted, but it is definitely what I needed. What a great list!!!! Thanks. But, what I want and need is a list of wiki-code, probably templates. hab collapses a discussion thread.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There's this page, which might include some of what you're looking for. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps mathoms from this closet? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Mathoms? hahaha. Nice thread, had been meaning to ask this myself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Signpost

Any solid plans to scale back from weekly? It's too much! Perhaps we could alternate with another feature ... Tony (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless other people start to chip in, we are, by default, scaled back to whenever we have something (unless we want to burden the Signpost readership with my prose every week :-) I just hope other featured content processes don't show up somewhere down the road complaining that they want a slot to contribute content, when I've been left scrambling for months :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for an accurate and sensible closing statement on the Space SF FAC. I don't particularly enjoy seeing a FAC fail (first time that's happened to me, actually), so I hope some good can come from it. I particularly wanted to thank you for saying you're glad I brought it to FAC to try to focus the debate. I appreciate it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I never like pushing the archive button, Mike, but I am glad you brought it forward. I wanted to make sure the closing rationale didn't appear to close the door on short articles, as the debate is still very much alive. It's not for me to determine what the interpretation of the criteria should be when the community is divided and unclear. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI...

Talk:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion#Featured article star. I have to say I'm actually surprised it was the only one. Maralia (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

How'd you do that? I think Gimmetrow periodically runs a script. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

AWB list comparer; one list from articles that transclude {{featured article}}/{{featuredarticle}}, and the other list from articles linked at WP:FA. I had to clean up the latter list a bit to remove 'articles' linked in transcluded templates (like from {{Contents pages (footer box)}} at the bottom of the page), but next time I'll know what to look for. Maralia (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC withdrawl

Sandy, I'd like to withdraw Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tea & Sympathy. I have no idea when I'm going to have the time to do the rewrite that's needed, but I doubt it will be this year. Thanks. Giggy (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Moni and I took care of it - please be sure to leave the {{fac}} tag on the article for Gimmebot to update. Thanks. Maralia (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Maralia and Moni; I hope things settle quickly, Giggy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Sandy - the business certainly isn't a bad thing :) :) Giggy (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Have fun !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Location of European Union institutions

If I'm breaking any Wikipedia or FAC rules by saying this, I'm quite genuinely open to being trout-slapped.. but I'm saying it publicly: please hold off on Location of European Union institutions for a while. See my note on its FAC; it is completely hosed image-wise, but I may not have much free time in the next two days or so. I wanna give the whole thing a very good once-over. However, I am not sure how soon I can revisit. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are preparing to review an article, or in the middle of a review, the best general advice is to leave that info on the FAC, where I can weigh it along with other FAC input wrt closing the FAC. As an example, Awadewit usually includes wording like Leaning or "look forward to supporting as soon as these are addressed", which gives me a clue that the article stands a very good chance and that she is engaged, or that she has reviewed and doesn't think the article is close and isn't engaging in copyediting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevada's FAC

		USS Nevada (BB-36)
		Thank you very, very much for your constructive criticism on the FAC that the USS Nevada (BB-36) recently went through. Looking back, I see that the article's formatting was definitely not FA-quality before you came along... Cheers, —Ed 17 for President Vote for Ed 14:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Nevada underway off of the U.S. Atlantic coast on 17 September 1944.

Clean up listing

Well here it is. Brace yourself, it's not pleasant. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I already had my moment of depression this morning when I first saw it (although I note that I identified Cornell University as desperately in need of FAR just a few days ago, see Talk:Cornell University, so at least we're not entirely asleep at the wheel). I posted the list to WT:FAR. Thanks a lot (not :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Never trusting the fat lady again

Seventh inning, Bosox down 7-0, I turned off the TV. I goofed around a bit, made myself a fruit smoothie, watched ER (just to laugh at all the mistakes, which is better than MastCell, who watches House to get ideas on how to edit medical articles), and got some gas in my Motorcycle. I returned to my computer to write some pithy and quite cruel comments to you about the Bosox. But I thought to myself, "self, just so you don't feel like a complete twit, check mlb.com, just in case." Damn fat lady. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I turned down my ticket to the game, because if I go to the ballpark, the Red Sox are guaranteed to lose. Why should I pay to jinx them? And the boys considering leaving after the 7th, but then decided to stay because they are so well acquainted with The Fat Lady. I guess they picked the right game to attend. Life as usual with The Fat Lady. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Substing FAR

Hi Sandy. I've responded here. D.M.N. (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Fantastic work! I owe you a drink and candy of your choice when you're done.--Tznkai (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, I'm putting in a couple of hours a day, and barely making a dent. There's so much to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll help out this weekend, but I'm also doing a big push at changing some of the writing (which is in my opinion, pretty bad) Just wanted to make sure you got due notice for cutting your way through the molasses that is that article, and doing the hard work with references.--Tznkai (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

MoS and citation cleanup has always provided a good measure of stability, IMO: if it's impossible to get the article clean and maintain it that way, the article may not be stable. And sometimes long-time editors on a particular page don't realize how sloppy their article has gotten until others take a look. I'm not touching the writing, by the way: only the trivials. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not touching it until I can clean up the messy code inside of the article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is that stuff there? You're right: it's awful. Is it to intimidate newbies? :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been suggestions and near admissions of that, yes. --Tznkai (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I'm only able to do citation cleanup because I'm using the edit references script, which pulls out only the text between ref tags. I'm not even attempting to verify citations, because that HTML code makes the article unbearable. If the goal is to make it impossible to find and edit the actual text, it's working even for non-newbies :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll poke at the regulars with a stick and see what I can get done.--Tznkai (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right

Three supports really is too few to promote any type of featured content. I've offered to self-nominate for delisting any of my featured sound credits that got promoted on a questionable majority. With regard to your query for dispatch content, I believe Shoemaker already wrote a couple of FS pages? If you remind me which ones and give a deadline (at least 2 weeks please due to prior commitments) I'll see what I can do. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tony wrote a Dispatch on Sounds in May: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-05-26/Dispatches (I'm not aware of anything Shoemaker has written, did I miss something?). Maybe an update would help generate interest. Put something together, and we'll run it: we're running out of topics. Pls weigh in at WT:FCDW if you're interested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Clips of tics

Hey, just wanted to let you know, I changed one of the links in {{Clips of tics}}; the original link went to the news article there, but the embedded video didn't work anymore (it would play an ad but then stop without playing the actual video). The new link has a prominent link in it to get back to the original article; is there anything else you would like me to do to make the article more easily available, or is it more important to link directly to the video, as it does now? —Politizer^{( talk • contribs )} 22:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you've gotten it all fixed ? The idea is to demonstrate tics, as I was asked to do that in the peer review. Although you can't fix the yoyo who called TS a "disease" :-) Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Politizer, if you think of it (and in case I forget), maybe you can help me stay on top of developments with the Brad Cohen December Hallmark Hall of Fame show ?? I'm looking forward to it, but there's not much news yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Out for a bit

Sandy - I'll be away from Rick Bot for about a week, so won't be adding the bot-assisted new entries to WP:FA2008. I may add some manually (or you could) and the bot should update WP:WBFAN automatically (the bot should run once a day at its usual time). Just an FYI so you know what's going on. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rick (I think the star trackers can survive for a week :-); have a great week! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Schizophrenia#I_like_the_image_but....

I'd like your opinion here. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

Hi, it's Limetolime. Listen, I have cleaned up the page and I would REALLY appreciate if you could take a look at it. Thanks! Limetolime ^{Talk to me • look what I did!} 19:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Hernan (2008) FAC

Although Yellow Evan, the nominator, has been temporarily blocked, can you allow this article to remain an FAC? I'm only asking this because I've withdrawn my opposition to the article due to some support and also because he wasn't the main contributer to the article. His last major role in the article was on September 14, 2008 (save the first two paragraphs of the storm history). [1] Since then, I've completely redone the article and now have finished updating it per the Tropical Cyclone Report. I'd be grateful if you could allow it to be up for FA again. Regardless, thanks for hearing me out. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's not a problem, I really feel like putting this article back up on the list. Please read the reviews for it so far, then determine whether or not to keep it off the list until Evan's return. Review page Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I forgot to reply sooner, Cyclone; long night. There's still the issue of reliance on one source, and the FAC won't have a very good chance when even you said just recently that it wasn't ready for FAC yet. Taking some time to diversify the sources might be a better idea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, we all have those nights :)

I've looked for some other ones to use, but with a storm that remains out to sea, there are hardly any other sources that don't just say the same thing. Unless, having sources that say the same thing is better than having one source explain it all. I've added two refs to Fox news as of now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What is up

See Talk:Chocolate Hills. I left a message at User talk:Lenticel; don't know if it will help. Mike Christie (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I will look tomorrow. After the other matter tonight, I've had enough bad news and drama for one day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Hadn't seen that; that sort of thing is why I keep pages like AN and ANI off my watchlist. Poor Ceoil. I hope at least one of these messes gets sorted out; a week in which we lose Yannismarou, Ceoil and Malleus is a pretty lousy week. Mike Christie (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Crappy week. Hopefully things will sort out while I'm on the road. (And yes, I know I have one thing hanging over my head on Robert, I'll get to it tomorrow night at the hotel. Spent the day getting ready.) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely. Awful. Week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That fat lady again

Well, it appears that the fat lady was given a a new song sheet. This is CRAZY!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You really should know better than to jinx me talk page like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

A jinx is a fringe theory which cannot be verified by reliable sources. Please review the truth before flinging about accusations towards other editors.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please keep discussion of legitimate fringe off of my talk page; there are admins who block on sight at the mere scent. (I suspect they are all secretly Yankee fans.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

FA template(s)

Sandy, is it possible to have the date autoformatting removed from the template that says "This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 22, 2007." I see that the promotion date is also autoformatted. Let me know if I'm able to do it—I can't make out the names of the individual templates. This is non-urgent, of course. Tony (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the promotion date is also autoformatted"; are you referring to the diff of the promoted version of the article linked to the promotion date? I can probably work on the issue of delinking the mainpage or DYK dates displayed in the articlehistory template, but I think it will take me about five or six hours of coding time and locating the right people to help ... maybe in exchange, you can review a few FACs? (You be quiet, Gimmetrow :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorsement for Rollback

Hello, Sandy. I was wondering if I could i have your endorsement for the Rollback privilege. If you take a look at my contribs, you'll see I've been trying to pack a punch in vandalism. Would you help me make a harder and faster punch? Knippschild (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin; I can't pass out Rollback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. It's late at night, so I misread things. I thought you were. :) Take care :D Knippschild (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

50kb readable prose size limit

Hey Sandy, Mike Christie was unaware of this one and asked me where it arose, I couldn't help him and thought you'd know...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's at WP:SIZE (has been there as long as I've been around, is intended to be a rough gauge of average reader attention span, which is supposedly around 10,000 words). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a joke here right? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but I did see the irony when I posted the questions. A grin is a legitimate response. Mike Christie (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My attention wanes after three sentences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bob Windle

Hi Sandy, is Blofeld's objection actionable? I find it a bit vague if he doesn't say what he wants that he feels to be missing. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 03:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Methinks you know the answer as well as I do :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this article's non-promotion an indication that it is actionable? YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 01:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. I stumbled over some of the prose when I read it; I'm sorry I forgot to ping you. Maybe Giants2008 can go through one more time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, he supported, you want some things ironed out? YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

?Ping YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, bathers, maybe I should link common nouns again. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lockdown (2008)

May I ask why Lockdown was not promoted when two seconds before it was close I had just addressed the opposes and asked what there is I could do to change them. I'm just wondering since it doesn't make alot of sense to me that I was trying to address comments and it was closed.--WillC 04:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FAC/ar; GimmeBot often goes through hours after I actually close a FAC (note the timestamp of when I closed). The article had been running a long time without gaining Support, and would probably have a better shot if you worked with the reviewers who commented and brought it back in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm planning on doing that after a few copyedits and reviews from people outside of the pro wrestling project. I was wondering since it was odd that I had left comments, then left my room, came back and saw it was closed. It didn't make much sense to me that it was closed that soon.--WillC 04:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, thanks for the info.--WillC 04:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking in the main page article

Hello - I have some questions for you regarding this linking issue - I believe that "Japan," "Pearl Harbor" and "World War II" must be linked. It is relevant as per WP:OVERLINK, because it was the context and cause of the college's wartime role and must be made clear. Also, I don't get why "U.S.," the country, in the first sentence should not be linked - it is as important as linking Maryland. You are describing where the college is, so surely the nation deserves a link. Your implementation of the policy may just be too strict for its own good. Thank you, Shiva (Viṣṇu) (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:OVERLINK, "Items that would be familiar to most readers of the article, such as the names of major geographic features and locations, historical events, religions, languages, and common professions." The United States and Japan are major geograpic locations that most readers know of and therefore don't need to be linked. In addition, the reader can easily navigate to the U.S. article through the Maryland article. As for World War II and Pearl Harbor, I am undecided on the importance of the linking those terms. However, Sandy is a very experienced editor, and I would trust her judgement. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You did quite well there, Dabomb ! Everyone knows what World War II and Japan are, and those articles contain no context for the BCC article, as examples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for responding. I will follow your advice, although I must admit it doesn't make complete sense to me as why a link in the cited cases are a bad idea; I consider it user-friendly. S h i v a (Visnu) (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-10-13/Dispatches

Hi Sandy, I just wanted to say thanks for the excellent report you wrote for the Signpost. The detail and statistics is really useful and interesting. cheers --pfctdayelise (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you ... it's very nice to get a kind word and thanks, I really appreciate it and am glad it was helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC

I'm done with my unexpected stint as groom and plan to stay at the hotel in the morning for a bit and catch up on FAC stuff. I'm utterly exhausted tonight, but wanted to let you know things were in control. Our trainer's filly went Top Ten, which was great! And we connected with a trainer to do our saddleseat filly, which is good. But tomorrow isn't anything important so I'm going to stay at the hotel and veg for a while. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great news ! I hope you get breakfast in bed, and a relaxing day. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Move of article at FAC

Hi Sandy, I have been asked to move Rhinemaidens (Wagner) to Rhinemaidens by User:Brianboulton. I am fine making the move, but since the article is at FAC, I wanted to check with you first. Is this OK? SHoudl the FAC also be moved or what? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine ... do your bit, and I'll clean up anything you might miss, if you do ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That is, move the article, move the FAC, rename the FAC at WP:FAC and fix the article title in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will leave a note here when I am done so you can clean up my inevitable mistakes ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And fix the tools in the FAC ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is moved and I believe all the FAC tools are fixed too. I must admit I had to ask for assistance with the move. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And check for red links on the talk page so GimmeBot wont' be foiled: [2]

And fix the article name in the FAC: [3]

Now you know why I have to watch these buggers: the worst is that, when they're done wrong, I can't fix them or move them back without calling in an admin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, I do need more sleep. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS question

Hi Sandy, you always seem to be railing about WP:ACCESSIBILITY problems in articles, here's a question: Are collapsible tables allowed in prose? Here is the article in question: List of awards and nominations received by S.H.E. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please sign. No. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Acid dissociation constant

Sandy, I'm most of the way through a FAC review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acid dissociation constant. I expect to be supporting once I've completed the review; I may hold off to see what clarifications can be done on the areas I've highlit, but the article is, as far as I can tell, well-written and almost as clear as it can be expected to be. I am a bit concerned that the nominator is on vacation and though he is making an effort to respond, may be limited in his responses to some degree till he's back home. So this is a request for a little lenience on the timescale. We don't have many highly technical articles, and this hasn't been much reviewed so far. (It's certainly stretching my scientific abilities to their limit, and beyond; I can see why people aren't jumping in.) I think articles like this are rare enough we should let them run a bit long, especially when there's a temporary hitch in the nominator's ability to respond. Just a suggestion; I know you keep an eye on this sort of thing anyway, but I thought I'd mention it. Mike Christie (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to address the significant MoS and layout issues; I've been tempted to close it several times because there is so much work to be done, and it's just a mystery to me why no reviewer has yet to point out some of the simpler issues. I'm on record as saying that no FAC has ever failed on MoS, but the layout issues here are pushing that limit. The entire last section is listy, broken up with incorrect use of the {{main}} template, when the section could be written as prose with those terms linked within the text. Templates go at the top of sections, per WP:LAYOUT, and are only used when Summary style is employed, not to include definitional links; that entire section needs reworking and conversion to linked prose. I was going to close it tonight, because so much work is still needed and the chem guys don't seem to be helping, but saw you are putting a lot of effort in to it. I agree that technical articles often need and warrant extra time, because so few reviewers will engage and some are scared off, but basic layout and prose issues can be addressed by any reviewer, and it's a mystery to me why none have engaged. If you think you can get it there within a reasonable amount of time, we can let it run longer, but it looks like an awful lot needs to be done at a time that reviewers are complaining that FACs are running too long. Is there not a good reason that the nominator can work on it outside of FAC when s/he is not on vacation and can respond more quickly? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And has anyone mentioned yet that the book sources don't have page numbers? How is the nom going to work on all that while on vacation? Have you seen adequate progress? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend not to focus strongly on layout issues because I'm not particularly expert on them, though I point them out when I notice them. I do look at citations but haven't got that far yet; I will be doing the last two prose sections tomorrow. If nobody takes the hint from this section and does a layout review, I'll try to address that too; I agree that it's a shame to fail something for layout when it is usually an easy thing to fix. One question: I went looking for guidelines on the use of {{main}} just now and couldn't find anything outside the simple statement that it isn't to be used at the top of the article. Where can I find more? Mike Christie (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That info is at WP:LAYOUT (or at least it was last time I checked ... so many cooks in the broth there that things often go missing). Basically, that entire section needs reworking. MAIN is only used for Summary style, and only used at the top of a section heading when *this* article is a summary of another article. I suspect that simple wikilinks are intended in most of that section, which can be converted to prose paragraphs. Then there's the See also (see LAYOUT again, why are those links at the bottom? If those articles are needed for this article to be comprehensive, this article should discuss those items in the text). And there are still WP:ACCESS issues (image layout, images go *within* sections not above them, etc.). Maybe I need to start reviewing again. I would have laid all of this out on the first day, and hopefully the nom would have completed all the work by now. I understand that some reviewers are scared off by technical topics, but these are issues that anyone can put on a FAC. This FAC has been up since the 9th and no one has given this info to the nom. No wonder FACs are running so long. Oh, and what about the incorrectly templated info in the lead? See WP:ACCESS. That navigational info belongs in a template, which has to be put in the order specificed at WP:ACCESS; there are two different navigational templates, not incorporated correctly. And WHY aren't the Chem guys giving this nom guidance on this? Why aren't they helping (I have dug in a gazillion times to help them at FAR)? Nominators need reviewers: reviewers need nominators. If nominators get no feedback, they can't improve their articles, and FACs run too long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've completed my pass, and I did comment on the layout of that last section. I am not clear on the WP:ACCESS issue, though. I see the discussion there of navigation templates, but I don't see the requirement for it to be in a template. The "correct structure" doesn't list nav templates, though the list below mentions them, but doesn't say where they should go; and in fact says they can be moved around if there's an infobox (which there isn't, here). Should they go before the introductory text, for accessibility reasons? And is the template just to simplify the text for editors working on the article, or actually an accessibility requirement? Mike Christie (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have only now found this discussion. It would have been helpful if I had known about it earlier! In fact I have now completed revision of the article in the light of all the comments previously posted and request that the candidate be reinstated with immediate effect. Petergans (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi Sandy, in hopes of encouraging more reviewers at FLC, I've been considering a "reviewer of the month" sort of thing. However, I remember that at one point you compiled a list of top reviewers at FAC but haven't done it recently. Is there a reason for this? Thanks, Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And what is the reason? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The goals were to 1) reward and encourage good reviewing, 2) discourage drive-by fan support or less valuable declarations and reviewing, and 3) build comraderie at FAC. It took two solid days of work to build the spreadsheet each month (Maralia did it once; perhaps she'll comment) so that it could truly be a quantitative measure, not just opinion. There were several months where I was putting out fires on other issues or traveling: that was exhausting, and I didn't have the energy to build the spreadsheet. If I had, it would have continued to show the same, month in and month out. Good reviewers take pride in their work and do it by nature, with or without a reward; reviewers who don't take pride in their work won't change based on a reward program, but the idea of a reward might encourage more scanty reviews by those who seek awards for the wrong reasons. So, rather than do two days of very tedious work every month, I could have just passed out the rewards to those who did most of the work, month in and month out as shown by the spreadsheets, the same ones every month, which wasn't achieving anything other than claims of a FAC "clique". How successful were my rewards? 1) The good reviewers already know who they are, and pride in their work is its own reward: they do what they do because of internal motivation, not a reward. 2) The negative reviewer score names stayed the same month after month on the spreadsheet, so the idea of a reward didn't deter drive by and fan support, and may have attracted star-seeking reviewers. 3) Whether I built any comraderie at FAC is for others to decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There just wasn't any apparent return on investment for FAC-wide statistics/rewards. The painstakingly-compiled statistics overwhelmingly confirmed what we already knew; the long-term good reviewers keep on truckin' largely regardless of awards, and the less-effective reviewers seem at best unswayed to improve, and at worst encouraged to fluff their numbers. I still see value in identifying and rewarding good reviewers, especially good new reviewers, but meticulously compiling statistics doesn't seem to be a necessary factor in the equation. Maralia (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question of how successful I was at building comraderie was answered in the last hour.

I'm not running GimmeBot, so reviewers and nominators will have to sort talk pages and FAC closings now as was done in the past (see User:SandyGeorgia/FA work). Raul and I move the files to archive; the rest is up to the community now.

Maralia, if you have any new ideas of how to approach awarding reviewers without all the work, perhaps an audience can found at WT:FAC.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, Gimmetrow has just been blocked and had his unblock request declined. He says he won't be around for a few days. Is this what you refer to about Gimmebot? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Sandy, in the past when I have attempted to help you I have only succeeded in making your job more difficult. You have placed this message on the FAC page "Extensive interrupted commentary; please add the — [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] — continues after insertion below template, by locating the diffs and adding the timedate stamp and sig to the interrupted oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)" and I don't know what you are talking about. I want to help you but I am afraid of repeating a common theme in our working relationship. Could you please just do it once as an example for me to follow, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding this time? I'm sorry I am not a more intelligent person on these types of issues. NancyHeise ^talk 10:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I had another look, and it's so jumbled now that I don't think even adding the {{interrupted}} templates will be optimal. I will take a look tomorrow; perhaps I can just pull out the original oppose posts to the talk page, and then ask the opposers to revisit and strike there anything that has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think. I added interrupted to all the unsigned (interrupted commentary), and pulled out all the original posts to the talk page for easier sorting. The idea is, if you had to sit down and read through all 250 KB, can you tell who wrote what? When sigs get detached from the original commentary, you have to scroll back and forth to see who's writing, who's responding, who's saying what. And it becomes very hard for Opposers to strike, which is the ultimate goal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing a list

I was wondering what the standards of sourcing were for a list. I'm trying to get List of spherical astronomical bodies in the Solar System to FL status but I'm not sure what is required as far as sourcing. If the list were to be fully sourced, then between 200 and 400 citations would be required, plus the inline citations would completely overwhelm the text. I'm not sure what to do. Serendi^podous 10:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If a reference covers everything in a table, it's fine to just have a general reference at the bottom. You can also have multiple general references if everything isn't covered in one reference. The reference section would then be divided into general and specific (for in-lines); read some recently promoted FLs to see how this is done. If different citations are needed for each aspect of each planet, in-lines would still be needed. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Giants (I don't really get involved at Lists, but any list article I have personally done has every line cited, as in People speculated to have been autistic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Attachment therapy

I'd just finished removing the last cite from the lead - with great misgivings I should add - when I looked again at the review page and saw your comment! Serves me right for not having both windows open at once. Anyway I can easily put the "hard data" ones back in. Fainites ^barley 20:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I shouldn't get in the way of a GA review; that never ends well, so I've unwatched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Thanks for your help. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you :) I am hoping to go for FAC later so all comments gratefully recieved. Fainites ^barley 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Now look [4]. Fainites ^barley 20:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That is very kind of Dana; again, I apologize for jumping in to the middle of a GA review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ping

You've got mail. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I'm considering a week off. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I regret to inform you that your request for vacation has been declined. Please return to your regular work duties. :) Just kidding - if anyone deserves a wikibreak, it's you. MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

so much invested ... so many fine articles ... so many good editors harassed and giving up ... so many power trips. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to take a well-deserved break, you can let me know if there are specific issues or articles which have required your oversight, and I can try to pick up some of the slack... MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, I know Gimmetrow was talking about retiring the bot back in July or August, but do you expect him to bring it back online when his block expires or is this it? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. It's a thankless job, he was very much taken for granted, few editors understand how far up the creek we are without him. We shall just have to wait and see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did occasionally check Gimmebot's contribs to see exactly what it does, and of course I often saw Gimmetrow trail after it fixing editor errors that stopped the bot from doing its job. I read through User:SandyGeorgia/FA work and User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#GimmeBot steps. Some of it applies to FLC stuff so it's nice to have something to refer to if the Bot does stay offline. Through the beauty of the GFDL (and as long as you don't mind) I plan to take the relevant parts to User:Matthewedwards/FLC, which right now serves as a reminder of only how to correctly close FLC nominations. All being well we'll be able to at least muddle through, at least until everyone finds their feet. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's nice people think I'm essential, but I'm not. Wiki got along fine before I got active, and will probably get along fine long after I retire. I have various reasons to keep the FA stuff going, so that will likely continue, but the irregularity is a drain. Let's get FA/FAR/FL on a schedule, with updates on a fixed 2 days a week at a specific time. Could you work around knowing the bot will usually run shortly after 23:59 Tuesdays and Saturdays, for instance? Gimmetrow 23:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that might work for Marskell (but we should check). It would be hard for me to be constrained to closing FACs only twice a week (particularly with the current outcry about the list size), but maybe we can come up with a hybrid system? Suppose we established that you would botify only on Tuesdays and Saturdays, regardless of when promotions occurred, and made that clear in all the instructions? Then I would try to stick as closely to that schedule as allowed by other constraints. Would that work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are there only two of you (I think) working on this backorder of FA's? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what two mean? Are you referring to botification of articlehistory (Gimmetrow, me and Maralia), or Raul's three delegates? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I think that's a great idea; I can only imagine the drudgery of botifying daily. I can think of two (surely surmountable) issues with delayed botifying: the 'where's the star' question, and ensuring that talk page templates stay put long enough for Gimme to get to them. I would be *happy* to take on applying stars (it's a hell of a lot easier than manually botifying, plus it's a happy thing to do). I guess all we can do about talk page templates is watchlist articles that are not promoted/withdrawn and make sure the templates stay put til Gimme gets to them. Maralia (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Three delegates, but I'll have to admit, I only interact with you, so I thought it was you and Raul. Nevertheless, what I meant is why so few? I swear more people are interested in editing drama at AN/I than in getting FA's out. In fact, why is drama more important than FAC's and FAR's? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You could always study up and help Sandy out :) Just a pop-in thought. (I'd do it but checking for copyediting, handling large articles, no way.) Wizardman 00:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec to Orange) Yes, drama is taking over :-) Delegate work is easy and not so time consuming; more delegates aren't really needed. What many editors may not realize, though, is that the background work done by GimmeBot to keep talk pages and templates in order is very tedious and time consuming (Maralia and I do it manually when Gimme takes a break). Why don't more people help? I wish I knew. I summarized the work to User:SandyGeorgia/FA work, to little avail. None of that is essential to the FA process; what makes an article featured or not is whether Raul, Marskell, Joelr31 or I have moved it on or off of the WP:FA page. But all of that work helps keep talk page histories clean and accurate, for the benefit of editors. Gimme is right that if he disappeared, I would just go back to doing it the old way. The FA process wouldn't suffer: talk pages and article histories would. With so much effort that we put in to constructing accurate article histories on every FA and FFA, I'd hate to lose that. And, the work that Gimme does on GA and PR and other processes is way more than he does at FA, because those processes are higher volume. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[5] Gimmetrow 00:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. How'd you find it? What do I need to know? Some folk don't understand why I follow the category :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And now reverted by someone else. (For Maralia's benefit, it wasn't showing in the ah error cat, so I don't know how Gimmetrow found it.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état

I have withdrawn this. Apparently now I can't even translate articles - I'm beginning to wonder if it's ever worth the effort bringing this to FAC. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

EotW: translation is hard. It's harder than writing an article of your own, I'd say. Again, I think you should be proud of what you've done with this article (and others like it). You've made significant contributions to the encyclopedia. But I don't think you're in a position to bring them to FAC. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take care of archiving it shortly. Maralia (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maralia. For the record, it takes 15 minutes to process just one FAC without GimmeBot.[6] Average six to eight FACs per day = a couple of hours. FARs take more work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's possible to shave a few minutes off the per-FAC time—I managed 17 FACs in 3 hours when I stood in for Gimmebot briefly last year, which would average out to about an hour for 6–8. Of course that's just for processing FACs, I believe Gimmebot also does did featured lists, as well as maintaining the number of GAs, building articlehistory's, updating all the 'what links here' references after the FAC archive moves, archiving WP:GO and probably some more stuff too. This is all very tedious work, and sometimes took an hour or so per day for Gimmebot to do it all. I quail at the thought of having to do this manually, not once but every day! Dr pda (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm doing a lot more than quailing. And a FARC takes about three times as long as a FAC. And when there is an accumulation of talk page templates, there's even more to do than the simple case Maralia did today. And he was doing much more than lists; he was doing all of GA, PR and almost all featured content processes. Quietly, and well. Oh, you've barely scratched the surface. There are hours of daily manual work here. Which simply won't get done. Pre-GimmeBot, all Raul had to do was move a transcluded file to the featured log or the archive, and the rest of the bookkeeping was up to the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent:) OK, I must have missed this. But why is Gimmebot blocked?! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR report on a GAR template. See his talk page. It's quite shocking that no one has unblocked him yet, but I guess that's why I'm not an admin. I don't know the rules. 05:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Just had a look. I'm not going to unblock... I'm not sure of the "rules" either, but it doesn't seem worth it because it's a short block (which might even be over already... times on Wikipedia always get me confused, which are UTC and which are my preferences), and I'm hoping things can be sorted out once Gimmetrow returns. I set up a GAR in the meantime, which seems to be the way to go. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realized after I typed that that the 8 hours had probably passed, and I really have no idea of the rules on blocking in those cases. I don't know if Gimme will be back; I don't know if I would come back if I were in his shoes. We'll just have to wait and see, and take it from there. It was kind of you to set up the GAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry about that. It looks like my attempt to save you a few minutes backfired with the time you had to spend leaving talk page messages. I didn't want to archive the JFK FAC the usual way as the bot was out of action, but I was certain I'd followed each step to the letter for manual archiving, save for the updating of {{articlehistory}} (which I was told would stall the bot should it have chosen that moment to gallop into action, though I'm familiar with how to do it). Consider me suitably enlightened. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 22:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You're crazy!

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		You do so much to keep FAC going, including going to some serious lengths to make sure that conversations are understandable, various points are clear and so forth. Your work does not go unnoticed or unappreciated. Thank you for all the hard, and often tedious, work you put into the project. Vassyana (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I forget why, but many (if not all) templates seem to hate "external" links (it breaks them). Regardless, I wanted to point out for the record the kind of work you do in this regard and what specific actions spurred me to slap a barnstar on your talk page. It is exactly the kind of work that helps keep the FA process moving and I seriously doubt you are thanked often enough for that kind of tedious housekeeping.[7][8][9] Be well, Vassyana (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

lafayette

Hi sandy,

This is going to seem like the lamest excuse; but, my apartment got broken into. Thus, I don't have any computers with internet access (this post was done on my blackberry). Since I will not have home internet, or a computer.that is being used from work, can I withdraw the nom and re-apply without prejudice next week when I can be sure ill be able to respond to objections?

Thanks, Lazulilasher (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's awful; not lame at all, and I feel terrible for you. Since we may be without GimmeBot (read up), it's easier to just let it run for now, so we don't have to do the manual work of withdrawing and reinstating later. If we don't hear from you in a week or so, and if we figure out what to do about manually processing FACs, then I'll withdraw it, if you don't mind, otherwise it may still be there when you get back. Can we just play it by ear? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's best. I think I worried about it too much: I do have computer access at work and friends, and can reply to any conerns. If something content-wise pops up, it might take a little longer than usual for me to address it (i.e. I'm sure I'd be outed if I whipped out Doyle's 1000 pg book on the French Revolution at work). Otherwise, it should be fine leaving it open. It doesn't seem to be getting a flurry of reviews, anyway. Thanks for understanding; I was worried you'd think "robbery?!?! what'll you cook up next time?" Lazulilasher (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well ... you have my full sympathy and understanding. I could write a book (I've been known to have people rolling on the floor when I start the stories, which have become funny from the vantage point of time, but weren't so funny when I was living through them); being robbed isn't fun (but there are worse things :-) We'll play it by ear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One citation template to rule them all

One citation template to find them,
One citation template to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them [evil inconstancies].

Yeah so there's a discussion about a new template I wrote going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and apparently people would like to hear what you have to say about it. The scope is to merge most of the commonly used templates into one to procude uniform reference formatting. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, {{unicite}} received a big facelift, so people will probably expect your input at WT:MOS. Thanks.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 09:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No No No never. If we have one template, the Cite Nazis will force everyone to use one style. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Categorisation of dermatology articles on Wikipedia, input wanted

Hey SandyGeorgia. Kilbad (talk · contribs) has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion, as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church

Sandy, your summary of opposes on this page is an honorable attempt to summarize issues but I want you to know that many of these have been answered and remain unstruck. Others are not possible for me to answer because they are asking me to do things that are incorrect. The vast amount of data on the talk page to support article text that some reviewers just can not believe came from scholars is evidence of this. Is this article seriously going to fail FA if I do not do every single thing these opposers want me to do even if it is factually incorrect and unsupported by scholars? Also, the image of Pope Pius XII in the Nazi cartoon is part of the Featured Article Pope Pius XII, why can't I use the same picture on Roman Catholic Church when it is discussing the same issue? NancyHeise ^talk 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation on the discussion page of this FAC. I have some more questions pertaining to this picture and your response to my question. Per WP:Consensus since this image has been exposed to such a wide array of editors over the past 6 months or so and only four editors are against its inclusion, doesn't that meet the criteria of consensus? We have had over 50 editors on this page giving comments (there were 54 in the last FAC alone). Four don't like the picture and two of those have not opposed the article. Experienced photographers like user:Ealdgyth and user:Kelly have supported inclusion of the image, Kelly vetted it per image policy in the last FAC [10] and Ealdgyth gave us an extensive peer review just before this FAC.NancyHeise ^talk 03:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because I'm a photographer, doesn't mean i understand Wikipedia's image policies. I stay on the good side of them by very very rarely uploading anything that isn't clearly public domain or isn't my own work. The three times I've done fair use, I've begged for help, so my failure to object to an image doesn't mean squat. I don't usually really look at images, honestly. I did on RCC but mostly as a "does this image help the article" in an attempt to help load times by cutting down on the number of them. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Flagged revision trial in FAs

I've suggested a trial run of flagged revisions with featured articles here if you'd like to comment on the idea. Cla68 (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

I removed a FAC nom for the Sarah Palin article, as I didn't think it was helpful to leave it up for very long. I hope that's okay, and want to make sure I followed all the necessary steps properly. --Aude (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that I forgot to remove the FAC tools. Apologies. --Aude (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, Aude ... see User:SandyGeorgia/Withdrawn FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the instructions. Normally, it's not urgent and can wait until you or someone else handles it. --Aude (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Shoot

My talk page has reached the point that I don't know what's being asked of me or told to me. Perhaps you can (re)clarify anything you need me to do.

Sure would have been nice to know Giant Otter was going up today. Marskell (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So, Sunday and Wednesday mornings? I can do this but not shortly after midnight UTC. That's 4am for me. I'll make closings Saturday and Tuesday afternoons, ten to twelve hours before midnight UTC. Marskell (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I should be closing not before Tues and Sat but on Tues and Sat because the bot run will begin in the first minutes of Wed and Sun. Correct? As I say, this will be no problem. The only issue for earlier ones is emergency closings, such as I just did with Holloway. I'm inclined to use the generic archive templates, {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}}, to shut discussion and then wait to include them with the regular batch. There are no emergency removals at FAR, of course. Will the bot be confused if I also remove the FAR template from talk?

As for otter, no, I can't expect you to be pinging nominators everytime. I don't even really use my watchlist anymore. We need more bots. Marskell (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

List the steps and I'll take care of Holloway situations myself. (Am I missing it at User:SandyGeorgia/FA work?) We still have the larger issue of whether these should be in AH at all. I'm inclined toward no. Marskell (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC Sarah Palin

Thank you for the info about [11]. I guess I didn't read that part and just skipped to the "how to nominate" part. I thought it might be fair for it to be featured before the election, since it's a current event that she had more experience than the Gov of California when she became Gov of Alaska, even though she's only my little brother's age.--Chuck (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ugh...

I'm stuck in Amarillo, the car decided to have transmission issues. We'll get it fixed, but it might not be until Monday until we hit the road. Blech. Luckily, we have internet... They might get us moving tomorrow afternoon, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Stuck in Amarillo ... someone should write a country western song :-)) I don't think Yellow Submarine or Yellow Mellow qualify ... good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My FA contribs

Hi Sandy,

As soon as I started contributing at FAC, I was hit with a triple-whammy.. mostly in real-life. To wit:

1. I have been dealing with burnout issues with respect to Wikipedia. I'm feeling better, but still not 100%. Maybe I'm up to 65% or 70%. They were mainly caused by hardcore AWB work last month (see my contribs). I managed to get 8,000 of the 30,000+ articles on the CD spell-checked, but it messes with your mind and your energy after a while.
2. My wife has been repeatedly requesting that I spend more free time with her. :-)
3. I recently rec'd an email from the chair of my dissertation committee, outlining improvements that need to be made to my dissertation.

• I dunno what to do about my FA !votes. I don't have time to devote the proper attention to the articles... what should I do?

later, Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me look at them and get back to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The editor from the "Vithoba" article has been politely pinging me. I'm sure there are other balls I've dropped. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked yet, but the road is the one that needs a revisit, because the nominator says the primary sources were replaced (I haven't personally checked yet). Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland) I'll check the rest in a bit; I'm in the middle of something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Summarizing:

• Criminal trials of the LaRouche movement and Vithoba, other editors have looked since you opposed, it's up to you, if you feel strongly about the opposes, you would need to revisit.
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 40 Alternate (Keyser's Ridge – Cumberland, Maryland) it would be helpful if you revisit, as they state the primary sources were removed.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Slight clarification: They still have the primary sources - they want to know how we would deal with the route description without primary sources. Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot

Hi Sandy, just a quick question. Is the Gimmebot going to be run this Saturday (25th) or next week? I wanted to do some FLC closures because our backlog is getting a little long, but if the bot will run tomorrow then I can wait. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I rather imagine Gimme will run every regularly now, some time after Tuesday and Saturday at 23:59 (in other words, first thing Wednesday and Sunday UTC). In other words, yes, you could close some FLCs tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. Sorry to ask again, I just want to make sure I get everything absolutely right. Is the following now true:

• We are not to close any noms until Tuesdays and Saturdays (UTC) because Gimmebot will only run at the end of those two days.
• If a nomination is removed at any other time (I'm thinking nominations for articles that are not ready, nominated by non-contributors, etc), then every action that Gimmebot would do has to be done manually, including updating the talk page and Articlehistory template.
• Regarding manual editing of Articlehistory, is it better to use {{FL}}, {{FLCfailed}} and {{FFL}} ({{FA}}, {{FACfailed}} and {{FormerFA2}} for FA)?

Thanks Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not absolutely correct, Matthew. The issue is, if you close articles well in advance of the bot run, will the templates remain in place until the bot runs (if not, the bot will stall and there may be errors)? If nominators remove templates or attempt to build articlehistory themselves, we may just get more errors and more stalled bot runs. So, it's best to close noms as close as possible to the bot run, but if you must close some at different times, you have several options: 1) get someone to watchlist the pages to make sure templates stay in place until the bot runs, or 2) get someone to manually process the entire thing, including articlehistory (you can't do them halfway, that will stall the bot), or 3) replace the FLC template with a failed or promoted template (this option isn't optimal, and Gimme hasn't told us if he wants us to do that). Your final question isn't clear: manually building an articlehistory doesn't require the use of the old templates, so I'm unsure what you're asking there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care. I don't use failed articles for anything because that sample is skewed. If you use templates, they're assumed to be "old" templates, so the date is based on the date in the subpage. When going from the logs, the script uses the date from the log. If you do use the templates, add a comment to the end of the subpage with signature and date, and the script will use that date. The FLC templates themselves are used as a trigger to move the subpages to /archive. That was going to change at some point, but who knows. Gimmetrow 16:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks guys. WRT to the old templates, Sandy, it was just a question based on what you wrote at User talk:Marskell#Update on FAC/FAR/FL closings. "Can GimmeBot still process the old templates in the event we have to promote several days in advance of a bot run, and should we use the old templates in those cases?" Anyway, I think I understand it all. Thank you. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Randall Flagg

Why did you close the FAC? Only one person had voted.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been up two and a half weeks (longer than usual) without gaining support, but did have an oppose. I archived it separately myself tonight (I will process others tomorrow) because the earlier archiving error I made will foil the bot, so I had to do it manually. I thought the FAC gave you enough information about items you can work on before re-approaching FAC in a few weeks; hope to see it back soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Email

You have one from me. It's not brief or particularly heart-warming, so get comfortable before you read it. - auburnpilot talk 05:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't trouble me at all; I just don't agree with your POV or your statements. Please work with other editors to develop content per consensus already established on the talk page (I am just one of the many editors requesting those adjustments to the article). Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Good to see the time I spent typing that email was a complete waste. I'll keep that in mind. - auburnpilot talk 06:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Consider your words from the perspective that I am nothing more than another editor, making the same requests many other editors are making on that article, very simple requests to balance the article, nothing dramatic, patient requests from numerous editors, in spite of resistance from three editors who don't recognize that every other editor who has come to the page requests the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article tools

... is suddenly redlinking three out of the four tools. I think I figured out how to fix it, but—story of my life lately—the template is full protected. I put in an {{editprotected}} request on the talk page. Maralia (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Allright, you need to do the RfA thing. I have no idea what to do next ... I put in a note to Dispenser (talk · contribs) quite a few days ago and have heard nothing back from him, so we just have to wait for editprotected help, I guess. When are you standing for RfA? I am happy to co-nom. (At least you're not stuck in Amarillo :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Another editor who might be able to help is Dr pda (talk · contribs) ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The perils of being a self-employed photographer is that I do occasionally hit these issues. I gotta admit the bluegrass jamboree going on in the same hotel kinda gave it a surreal feeling... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your advice, please

What would you do with Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of people with hepatitis C? Remove the strange canvassing, close the nomination, blank it all and restart, or something entirely different? Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, dealt with. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 14:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I see you dealt with it fine, Matthew; my canvassing guideline is to consider what is best for the article, independent of the canvassing, and watch for independent support when there is a concern. We shouldn't pass nominations that receive canvassed support over opposes by neutral reviewers, but neither should we fail nominations of worthy articles that meet criteria because canvassing or fan support occurred. And the effect of "canvassing" or fan support occurs in many ways, some hidden, some more apparent, some completely legit (large WikiProjects come in with a lot of built-in support); the problem with automatic time limits or promotion based on automatic !vote tallies is that it limits your ability to account for these factors and wait for independent evaluation of the article (I think FLC is moving away from those automatic promotion levels and times, though ?? It looks like you've removed the four votes, ten days instruction?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the four vote thing was thrown out in May with the criteria upheaval to combat drive-by votes from fans and Projects where comments are simply "Support a great list". Lists are still kept for at least ten days though. Thanks for taking a look. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Gimmebot will be busy

I archived seven today. FAR now has just sixteen listings—lowest level since the inception of the two-step process. Marskell (talk) 15:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Something rather odd after the mediawiki changes - pages move without leaving a redirect. So will National emblem of Belarus be appearing at FAR shortly after it goes mainpage with 12 footnotes? Gimmetrow 02:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that why all the FAC pages went redlinked? Can we get them back? Do you want Maralia and I to do that manually? The previous FAC link helps detect and minimize premature re-noms. Belarus, 2006 promotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I see it happened. Gimmetrow 22:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

What happened? Perhaps you mean the three red linked FACs I restored (thinking they were from the Wiki error) before we moved to the new system? Unsure what you mean; you've got to speak to me like a techno-dummy :-) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/National emblem of Belarus/archive1. Gimmetrow 22:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Yes. I meant to ping you. One of those days :-) (Are you able to translate for me why G guy is mentioning colors on the talk page of the RCC FAC (he's using "font"), but I'm getting no colors? Is it just my browser (IE7)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[12] I guess your browser doesn't recognize those html font tags. Gimmetrow 23:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you really really want those cleared pages? Most of them won't be used again. If I ever make the auto-subpage system, the cleared pages will all be obsolete. This means future noms will be fresh pages - especially if some bot op deletes all the cleared pages. Gimmetrow 02:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I use them increasingly (as does Ealdgyth, I believe). First, they help detect and prevent premature re-noms. Second, Ealdgyth can look back and see what sources have been checked. Third, we can look back to see what images are checked. If they're deleted, I'll probably re-add them manually when I check each new nom: more work for me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea, give me a little time to think...it's one of those where it's either the best idea ever, or I should be shot for thinking it. Maralia (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the sound of that (not the part about being shot!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to other facs could be created automatically by the preload, although I would think that clicking on the images would be a more direct way to check them. Gimmetrow 03:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Only if you know what you're looking for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's late and I'm clueless—what do you mean by 'clicking on the images'? A preload approach is what I'm thinking. It seems feasible, and certainly less work than manually clearing redirects. Any huge problems with it? Maralia (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Gimme was referring to checking images at FAC: that rather than look at the previous FAC, just look at the image itself. I'd rather see what Elcobbola said about the images on previous FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Re the preload, I'm sure you all know this (Gimmetrow certainly does as it was his idea), but Peer review uses this system: see e.g. Wikipedia:Peer_review/Ayumi_Hamasaki/archive3 for a current peer review with a link to the previous one (which links to the one before that). The links were automatically created by {{PR/preload}}. Geometry guy 13:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See here. Does that solve the problem? Gimmetrow 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Works for me: can you take off the "Featured article candidates/" prefix to shorten the text? Is that easier to generate than the "previous FAC" link? The one thing that loses (which I find helpful) is the date of the previous FAC: that was a means of easily detecting and minimizing premature re-noms. I'm not sure we really need the entire FAC history, unless that's just easier for you ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This particular approach is rather limited. I don't think it can be massaged easily to remove the prefix. But it didn't take much to put in, and will show up on all current FACs. Gimmetrow 23:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

See here - why the prefix might be useful. Gimmetrow 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Because it automatically picks up the FAR as well? That's cool, because I usually pull those from memory (scary thought :-) Is it possible to have the last N archiveN listed first, so we can easily check for premature re-noms? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This just takes Special:Prefixindex and lists whatever it finds. It doesn't provide a lot of options. Gimmetrow 00:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, don't want to make it harder than it has to be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Wondering what hint? I really appreciated you support last weekend; you were a rock as usual. Hope I didnt offend in some way. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to create further drama, but the AN/I thread needs to be refocused on the matter at hand, which is: because you were given an unfair blocklog by prior admin errors, now you are unfairly judged by every subsequent admin who comes across your posts, and it will be one admin today, another one next week, and so on, until someone addresses and corrects your blocklog. It is a downward spiral created by past admin errors, and no matter how many times you apologize and make amends, now there will always be another admin who will read your block log as if you're trouble. That was the concern last week, which admins don't want to understand. I will e-mail you my suggestions, to avoid drama, and because I need to take a few hours to read FAC now. AN/I threads get little attention on Saturdays; I suggest ignoring it for a bit. I will try to catch up after I read FAC; please let me know if you don't get my e-mail. S

Thanks Sandy, I'm glad somebody gets it. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes; I get it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In a show of solidarity with Ceoil, someone should put in my logs that I am a complete whore. --Moni3 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Am did you use the 'h' word Moni? I'm sure what you meant was 'treasure'! Ceoil ^sláinte 21:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hussy/treasure, tomayto/tomotto. Whatev. --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And now I just saw this; the boys are giving us gray hairs. I'm going to read FAC now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Need I say more? They can't wait one hour while I'm busy. Oh, well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested to read another discussion at ANI about a content editor accused of incivility when dealing with a tendentious crew. --Moni3 (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Been biting my tongue for hours, but someone should tell Seicer (again) to read before s/he types. Also, civility and neutral editing are not mutually exclusive on science articles: e.g.; Tim Vickers, Eubulides and MastCell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

rcc

vb has two a duplicate Oppose (i.e., two opposes) on RCC. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, but I've been ... uh ... busy. Normally I would move that comment up, to include it under and as part of Vb's original oppose, but with such a long FAC, that puts a burden on the reviewer to find their section. I haven't figured out the best way to fix it, but I'm aware that it's a duplicate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

University of Michigan

I have placed a response on the article talk page. Can you give some specific advice as to what is needed? Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 01:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Party time

FACfailed is cleared. Maralia (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Acid dissociation constant

I believe that the archiving of the fac candidate acid dissociation constant was premature, due to a misunderstanding relating to the length of the correspondence. This arose because I have been away for 10 days and was not able to edit the article in that period, so I responded with brief comments on the candidate discussion page. Also, Mike Christie, who is not a chemist, wrote at length with some very helpful comments on the presentation of the chemistry from the laymen's point of view.

I have now returned and have completed the revision of the article in the light of all the comments posted on the candidate discussion page. Having got this far, it seems to me that it would be pointless to go through the candidate process again from scratch. I therefore ask you to re-instate this FAC candidate. If this were a peer-reviewed journal, I would expect the editor to make a final decision regarding publication on the basis of whether the author(s) have responded adequately to the referees' comments. I assume that a similar process applies in WP. Petergans (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! After posting this I found an earlier section with the same name of which I was not aware and have added a comment there also. Petergans (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not meaning to sound rude here, but you put an article up as an FA candidate and then went on holiday for 10 days and didn't do anything with it beyond some comments on the candidate page and are surprised that it was archived and not promoted? If you don't do any of the suggested fixes for 10 days I could understand that it would be archived. When I took off on my holiday last week, i packed three bags of books because my own FAC was still up and I needed to be able to reply to concerns as promptly as possible. While I do understand that holidays are planned in advance, it surely wouldn't have been that difficult to wait until after your return to nominate the article, if you were going to be unable to reply while you were gone? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea that a delay of 10 days was so important. What I am objecting to is premature archiving, before I had a chance to respond properly and, additionally, removing the possibility of further comments or replies on the candidate page. The present situation is unnecessarily chaotic, with postings in five different locations, three user discussion pages, an archived candidate page, the article itself and its discussion page. Surely it would be better if all matters relating to the FAC candidate were posted in one place?

In any case, I have attended to the issues raised by Sandy. The only one that I don't understand relates to book citations. When citing specific information, pages or whatever are provided. The books cited at the end are references to topics in the applications section, not to any specific material.

Once again I request that the candidacy be re-instated as all the issues previously raised have been dealt with. Petergans (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Peter, I think the most efficient thing to do is to wait and renominate it when we're sure everything is fixed. The goal at FAC is to nominate an article that has no remaining issues at all. If we renominate right now, others might oppose on the basis of some of the issues raised. I haven't had time yet to go through the recent changes and see what's fixed, and I would like to check through some of the other style issues too. The only downside to having to renominate is that typically one waits a few weeks to do so, but Sandy's explicitly said in this case that it would be OK to renominate as soon as we're sure we're ready. So I think the best thing to do is address the points that have been made and renominate then. Mike Christie (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as soon as Mike thinks it's ready, please feel free to bring it back. Petergans, please trust us :- ) Working in this manner will give you the best shot at success next time through; it helps to get reviewer attention at the top of the FAC page, with your best foot forward, and Mike has a good sense of any remaining issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message on my user page. Mike has begun posting notes at Talk:Acid_dissociation_constant so we now have an easy system for the final clean-up. Petergans (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Ceoil

"The conclusion at the top of this thread"..... [13] by which I assume you mean The day I think otherwise is the day I need to get rid of the bit. Again, thanks and happy editing. I'll be delighted, Sandy, if you'd care to explain how that is unfair to Ceoil. I've made my comments in good faith and I can't for the life of me see how this is in any way - to quote you - unfair. Are you mixing up threads or are we looking at a different one? I'm trying to be supportive and helpful here and if I'm not doing that a quiet note on my talk would be useful. Pedro :  Chat  22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No ! Wrong thread! Re-read :-) The AN/I thread, where Ceoil was summarily dismissed by the editor who closed off the thread. You're misreading ... I did not say the top of this thread: I said, the top of that thread. The AN/I thread. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This one, Pedro:

What a nightmare of a thread. Ceoil, you have been suggested to stay away and find something else to edit until you have sufficiently cooled down. Scarian has apologized. Looie496, using "sweetheart" and "little sugar dumpling" is not grounds for desysoping. Closing this because nothing else can be garnered out of this. seicer 02:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It dismisses Ceoil, and sets a tone at the top of the thread (for anyone who doesn't read the entire thing to see what happened) that Ceoil is somehow at fault and needs to calm down. Dismissive and unfair, shuts down discussion leaving the impression Ceoil was all wrong, and everyone else was all right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah - that thread! Sorry - It really seemed a very odd comment in the thread on Ceoils talk - thank you for clarifying. Regretfully my initial desire to help Ceoil has now gone, due to his abusive and derogatory remarks in that thread to me, and his utter lack of AGF concerning my intentions. A quality editor, but not one I am prepared to support given his/her outbursts and erratic dealings with others I'm afraid.Pedro :  Chat  23:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the risk of splitting this discussion four ways now ... it's got to be hard when someone's reputation on Wiki is affected by a comedy of errors on a block log. That's why I wish the feedback at AN/I had been more understanding. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec - agree about splitting conversation) Regarding your last note - there is no misunderstanding as to why Ceoil is not supportable. The above is not relevant to that. This is.Pedro :  Chat  23:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had a way to put the genie back in the bottle ... to rewind the clock all the way back to the first faulty block made on a fine editor. It's hard to see so many good editors in such discomfort and so much time spent trying to sort this. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Good editors are only good when they do not become more trouble than they are worth. Ceoil strikes me as an exceptional editor but his/her temprament is fast running them out of credence. In the last 24 hours I've done nothing but offer support and to try and manage a stuation to a comfortable accomodation and understanding. And for my patience and work I get rewarded with swearing, abuse and an accusation of cheap talk? If Ceoil wants to be taken seriously perhaps he/she needs to start earning respect rather than expecting it. My patience and desire to help this editor have been exhausted in one swoop. I'm not convinced Wikipedia is actually made better by editors like this. Pedro :  Chat  23:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There has been misunderstanding on top of misunderstanding (look at this thread, a misunderstanding over "this" vs. "that", and notice how that small thing made you feel ... now imagine if you had that block log, and people kept discounting it) ... When something hurts, it hurts. Maybe it would better to revisit this all in a few days, when emotions have hopefully subsided. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Another semi-related tangent, just food for thought. Admins are human, too; no one likes to have their reputation tarnished or their motivation/intent questioned, but those who have been given extra responsibility on Wiki have to accept the extra burden that comes along with the responsibility. I have been rather blatantly attacked many times, some quite recently, outright untruths stated about me and vulgarities hurled at me, my name smeared in several places ... but if a response from me will affect FAC, it's best that I quietly move on and ignore the attacks. That is part of my "job" responsibility. For the good of the community, the article, the editors. End result, I get to endure attacks that probably affect me just as much as the next editor. When admins see an editor as hurt as Ceoil has been, I wish they could always remember how it feels: that thread at AN/I is hard to see, as hard as the last one, and for Ceoil to have this two weeks in a row is hard. I'm willing to be patient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Admins are human too. I agree. And this one does not like offering support just to have it (out of the blue) thrown back in their face with swearing and abuse. Any way, I'm going to bed but will revisit in the morning. Pedro :  Chat  00:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, Ceoil encouraged Pedro to run for arbcom, but Pedro misunderstood the tone of the comment (and the meaning of seconded?) and is now pissed at Ceoil? Good lord. All this proud talk and then he misreads one comment and decides Ceoil got what he deserves. What a staggering and revealing turn of events. -JayHenry (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not convinced Wikipedia is actually made better by editors like this." I can't believe this was even said to Ceoil, on the basis of a single comment. All Ceoil's work--harder than that of nearly any editor--means nothing because he made one comment that Pedro misunderstood and got all offended by? Even if Pedro had understood what Ceoil was saying it's ludicrous to think that Ceoil's good work is negated from a single rude comment to Pedro. The fact that Pedro just read it wrong makes it all the more ludicrous. --JayHenry (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There were some interim posts deleted, a bit more to it. Perhaps we should let it all go for a few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(←) I checked the diffs carefully and didn't miss what was said. The result: "I'm not convinced Wikipedia is actually made better by editors like this." Here's the thing... that might as well be aimed at me. Ceoil does the same sort of work I do (only higher volume and quality), and if all his work is negated by a single comment then just logically everything I've done is only one edit away from being meaningless as well. Countless hours reading through books, thinking about topics, putting it to the page, crossing the t's, looking up the MOS rules, working with the reviewers at GA/PR/FAC, fitting it into the broader quiltwork of articles. Pedro's done none of that. Yet make a single comment that offends him and he's "not convinced Wikipedia is actually made better by editors like this." Sandy, I'm an editor like this too (the difference is only that I've not been accidentally blocked). I'll go have some tea but the catch is this: I'm not angry; just demoralized. --JayHenry (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with JayHenry here. I thought we were here to write an encyclopedia, you know. That's why I bother with the bishops and the horses, trying to get the best possible information out there. It's not nice to be told that my work isn't important and part of the goal of this site. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The demoralization of top content producers is the theme that needs to be addressed at AN. It's not just you, Jay; my Wikiwork is particularly vulnerable to a recent trend of admins embracing quacks and trolls at the expense of solid content contributors. The difference between Ceoil's block log and these disruptive editors is that Ceoil has never had an issue with his article work. Ever. Ceoil's issues have been admin-fueled misunderstandings of talk page conversations with friends. Adding insult to injury after losing Yanni (who apparently wrote with too many exclamation points). And I'm not sure the people who have been so insensitive to him at AN/I really get it: User:Franamax/Ucontribs-0.3a. How many of us stack up like that? I am concerned that we build better understanding about the value of our top content producers to Wiki, and that we find ways to stop wasting so much of their time on drama and dealing with trolls and quacks. For that, we need good admins !! And Pedro may also be right that content producers don't understand the burden of admins, either. I'm concerned that AN/I shuts down the conversation every time this happens: that says something. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My goodness. I'd never seen Ceoil's Ucontrib before. 58 Featured Articles on that list. "I'm not convinced Wikipedia is actually made better by editors like this." --JayHenry (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I must admit recent interactions with a very tendentious editor made me lose all patience when I overhauled an article for accuracy's sake. The lack of recourse and process was very disheartening though not unexpected. There's no reason this editor couldn't start again today and put me through the whole thing again. Though I realize I don't add content to please other editors, and rarely do editors outside of the FAC project recognize the hard work that goes into making an FA, if there is not a system in place to support content editors, there should be. I have always believed accuracy is much more important than civility issues. Not to mean that once an editor racks up a few FAs he can call everyone a flaming asshole and get away with it. But the priorities of the admin system should be clarified. --Moni3 (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A parable of sorts. I've done some good work around here, but when I think back on the best edit I've ever made, there's no question what it is. I was checking hooks at DYK, and an editor (we'll call him the noob for now) had made a hook that probably violated BLP--it was his first DYK submission. Somebody flagged it and passed on by. The noob was upset as he'd actually dug up 17 sources on the article, only to see it summarily dismissed, without any clear guidance on what had been done wrong. I'm not sure why I was in a helpful mood that day, but for whatever reason... I saw the editor made a frustrated post on his talk page. Project seemed like a waste of time, to him. He'd worked hard and got no recognition. I think he was one edit away from just giving up on Wikipedia, forgetting his brief encounter with the site ever happened. He almost quit. I said 'good article! don't give up quite yet!' Fortunately for us, he didn't: The point isn't that I'm responsible for those articles (in fact, that'd be the author himself and the support he got from User:Awadewit, User:WillowW, deserving that credit), but the bottom line, the moral of the story if you will, is this: by far the best edits you can make to improve the quality of the encyclopedia are to support the people writing it. --JayHenry (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Huge misunderstanding here, very sadly. I intended to describe my words as cheap, NOT Pedro's, but was inegegant. I was being cheap, is what I meaned to say, and I was withdrawing the comment. I made a hash of it, expressed it a very vague manner, and I can for sure see how it could be seen that way. It was intended as an apology, but read like an accusation. Crikey. Ceoil ^sláinte 03:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's why we have AGF; when you're not sure what someone means on the internet—any place on the internet—it's always better to ask for clarification rather than to assume. Ceoil, I wish we could all take you out for a beer to get this entire drama behind you. There's whisky being passed around the next section. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what happens when I'm stuck in a hotel room in the Panhandle of Texas...

I review four FACs. Yes, four. I'm rather impressed with myself, honestly! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to be writing country western songs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You need more inspiration for that. Get some whiskey, think about how Momma always wanted the best for you, hijack a train, and go to jail. That'll do it. --Moni3 (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Always reminds of that scene in the Blues Brothers film, where they ask the bar owner what kind of music his customers like: "Both kinds, country and western." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I just spent two days listening to a bluegrass convention going on outside my hotel door... that in itself would be enough to cause me to go postal and hijack a train. And I don't drink whiskey... Besides, trust me, you do NOT want to hear me sing... I sing worse than Willie. And thanks, Moni, that's such a great inspiration... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It's more my recalling David Allen Coe at the right time. Who said, after Patsy Cline, anyone in Country music could sing? --Moni3 (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pass the whisky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what happens when you play a country record backwards, right? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Bring it on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your dog rises from the dead, your pickup truck starts running smoothly, your girlfriend becomes faithful... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC) PS. make mine JD black

I'll take my dogs back, but I'm not sure what I'd do with that faithful girlfriend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll take her. --Moni3 (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Xenu

This Featured Article previously had a Featured Article Review and was kept, see Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Xenu. The current one is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Xenu. Should the old one be moved/renamed and the new one moved to a page 2 - in keeping with uniformity and so forth? Cirt (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The old page has a different prefix so it doesn't need to be moved. All the pages under Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/ were left unmoved because there was no naming conflict. Gimmetrow 05:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay no worries. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

community service

This may be up your alley. I've been called away by my Better Half. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 14:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Everybody Is Different : A Book for Young People Who Have Brothers or Sisters With Autism

What is wrong with the article? Schuym1 (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dispatch

My tools are pretty much works in progress. For instance I'm working on an interface overhaul for checklinks and planned improvement to the dabfinder tool. As Gimmetrow pointed out the readability tool isn't accurate. I knew I needed to do more research on the subject and those were my reasons behind the removal. Additionally, I'm a pathetically at writing, so I doubt that you'll see anything, even documentation, from me. — Dispenser 18:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

Sandy,

• 1)both Geometry Guy and Ioannes have placed new FAC comments on the FAC talk page. Ioannes comments are here [14] below the list you transferred over from the FAC page and Geometry Guy's comments are here [15]. How am I supposed to answer these comments? Arent they supposed to be on the FAC page?
• 2)Also, Geometry Guy has listed sentences that he says are POV but does not offer an NPOV version of the sentences, all of which are referenced and are paraphrasing the sources. Am I supposed to give him quotes for each sentence he says is POV? What do you require of me here?
• 3)Taam is asking me to remove article text that is referenced to a top source and is repeated in other sources. I can not just eliminate facts from scholarly sources to please FA Reviewers. What do nominators do when FA reviewers ask us to do unreasonable things and things that go against Wikipedia policies? Some of these comments I will not be able to answer to the FA reviewers satisfaction because they require something that is not supported by sources such as Vassyanna's first FAC comment asking me to included mention that some scholars do not consider the Church of Rome to be the same Church that became the Roman Catholic Church. None of her scholars say this and I have searched for a reference myself so I could meet her demand. NancyHeise ^talk 22:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There has never been such a long FAC to my knowledge; at this stage, I'm trying to do anything I can to keep the page loadable for people on dialup and manageable so reviewers are able to find and respond to their posts. Ioannes is keeping up with his strikes on talk regardless of where you respond, so I'm not worried there. You could start a new talk page section to respond to G guy, or put the responses on the main page. I've linked the talk page sections from the main page. FAC, Raul or I don't necessarily "require" anything of nominators: a FAC can be promoted when all actionable objections have been resolved and consensus for promotion has been reached, or archived when actionable objections have not been resolved and consensus for promotion has not been reached. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"actionable objections" - I am hoping you two will see how "unactionable" some of these comments are for me to incorporate, especially when it requires me to remove facts noted by many scholars or include text that is not referenceable to any scholar. Also, I checked all the diffs and they are all fine. That must have been a lot of work for you, thanks for organizing it. NancyHeise ^talk 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No Way Out (2004)‎

I replied to the comments you left. Thanks!--S_RX 20:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC for Batman (1989 filM)

I nominated this article and I realize it was too soon. Could you please withdraw it? Thanks. Wildroot (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

1 April FA aim for 2009?

Gadsby (book). NB you will find a stormy discussion about how that topic is treated on its talk. But what if a group could do it that way with skill and styl? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides promoting the idea via a Dispatch, I'm not going to take a lead on the next April Fools. New blood, fresh ideas :-) There was some criticism last year of "FA by committee", so I'd really like to see someone else spearhead an effort for next year. (My personal favorite is still Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 because I've lived, frighteningly, the absurd consequences.) Let's get the Dispatch out earlier this year, like early February. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I love the vain attempts to keep the whole Gadsby article lipogrammatic for "E": let's fix "Character list" by replacing it with an jazzy, oh-so-everyday phrase which contains "...the..."; that works doesn't it? Errr...no! Skill and styl indeed—so far all it has done is prove 'Vin Wright' (arrghh!) far the better in that regard. And the Wikipedia software itself doesn't help by inserting a non-compliant [Edit] every time one gives it the chance. Be imaginative, choose another letter (not "q", it's sometimes harder to get that in than omit it; a vowel perhaps?). Yomangani^talk 12:01, 31 October 2008 (GMT)

Off on a tangent here but I found this and chuckled rather alot recently. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens recent promotion

I don't quite know how to raise ths, but the Rhinemaidens article, a joint nom of myself and User: Peter cohen, which was promoted to FA on 28 October, has not been added to WP:WBFAN (last update 29 Oct). Is this because I mucked up the co-nom format? It seems a shame as I asked Peter to co-nom, and I think this is his first FA. Brianboulton (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like it went in with this edit. Maralia (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It did. Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, here's how to track those down in the future. (I believe this one is resolved?) First, it's a bot, and sometimes something foils the bot, so it doesn't hurt to check. Also, it depends on when the bot runs. The Bot adds the entries to Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008; if Rick Block notices a mistake, he manually adjusts those entries. So do I. Then, that page feeds WP:WBFAN. So, whenever you notice a mistake at Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008, fixing it manually will result in a correction the next time the bot processes WP:WBFAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn FAC

This FAC is withdrawn. Normally I'd just withdraw it but since it's gotta be synchronized with GimmeBot now, I'll leave it up to someone else. Gary King (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I withdrew it and left a note on the talk page that the {{fac}} template should remain until Gimmebot passes through in a few days. It's all a little experimental right now :)

Sandy: I wasn't sure if you wanted to try {{facfailed}} again; did the bot fail to botify that Pokemon article because of the diacritic, or some other reason? I would like to be able to switch {{fac}} to {{facfailed}} on withdrawn/failed nominations so that Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list doesn't continue to list nominations after they are closed. Maralia (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Calvin be archived? Clearly not FA quality yet, and nominator is not a significant contributor. Gary King (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew it, and notified the nominator. Sandy: I didn't move it to the October archive log, as it may not warrant an articlehistory entry. Pending your input on that, I also haven't moved the FAC to /archive1 (since you might feel it should go into articlehistory, and I don't want to stall botifying in that case). Maralia (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to use {{facfailed}} again, because GimmeBot processes them differently. The Nor'easter needs to go to archive for botification, and it can wait until Saturday for Gimme (we'll just watchlist the articles in these cases to make sure the templates stay in place). The Calvin article would have been a withdraw, but two people entered opposes, which makes it harder. I would say to process it as a manual withdraw, without moving it to archive or articlehistory. I'm just catching up this morning, so you may get to those before I do ... haven't read my watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

We could also botify the Nor'easter manually into articlehistory so it won't continue to show on that other bot list (the one that leads to these issues). Or, we could just stop removing withdraws early, and wait til the bot run to remove them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Calvin done. I added a note to the bottom of the Nor-easter saying that it's archived. I am not in favor of us creating extra work for ourselves, having to botify articles manually only because some other Bot pulls up old FACs. I'm fine with just watchlisting the article to make sure the templates stay in place until GimmeBot goes through. I wouldn't object to someone else botifying them, but another long-term solution may be for us to leave these withdrawn FACs on the page with a note saying that they will be withdrawn on the next pr/ar pass. Whatever will create less work for everyone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping the drive-by nomination of Calvin. Flex was the major contributor to GA status and I have just started the rewrite for the push toward FA (only got the "Early years" subsection done). I got all the major sources for the project but I haven't been able to regularly contribute due to real life. But my intention is to get it done before the 500th anniversary. --RelHistBuff (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, oh, RelHist; now we know what to do to get you active again :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page ‎

In case you didn't know, you can get most of the effect of Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page by having a monobook.css file with a line such as:

.has_been_on_main_page a { color: green; }

This makes all the former mainpage FAs green, for example. Identifying older FAs in bold would be a require some sort of new maintenance, however. Gimmetrow 05:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but ... I don't know how to add that to monobook ... do I just copy it in exactly? Doesn't matter where? With the leading . ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Purge cache or whatever, and look at WP:FA now. Gimmetrow 05:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

oh my gosh ... but I don't know what you did, other than magic :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked your contribs ... Greek to me :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That is sooo neat. Someone should post instructions about this somewhere for other interested users. Cirt (talk) 05:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the place would be WT:TFAR. A whole new way to view WP:FA ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.css does it. Any better ideas than green? Gimmetrow 05:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The green is a bit hard on old eyes, but I can't think of anything that would work better, and I'm Not Pink. That is really nice of you, Gimme; it will be a big help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you guys didn't already do this? I've had it on my ceiling cat account for a while. (I don't use monobook on my main account because I can't stand it) That's how I schedule them. Raul654 (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Methinks I don't want to know why I should hate having a monobook.css ... ignorance is bliss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I added a note to WT:TFAR. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I simply prefer the classic skin (which is how Wikipedia looked when I got here). I don't care for monobook, although unlike classic, monobook has all kinds of nifty customizations you can apply (like the above). Raul654 (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Cool. Awadewit (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow

This is either the worst idea ever made public on Wikipedia or absolute genius. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We'll see. I added it only because it was rattling around on the talk page, and we needed to get it out in the open. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're seeing. By the way, this goes for you too, ma'am. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really: you know I was chicken :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

scattered disc

I asked Serendipodous to re-add my name as co-nom to the (old, closed) Scattered disc FAC. Not vandalism etc. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Linky, linky please !!! If you want it to show up at WP:WBFAN, I have to add it to Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean this one or this one? Yes, add my name there, but only if/after Seremdipodous says it's OK. Thanks.. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No, adding it there isn't relevant; you already show there as a significant contributor by the data I added at the time of the FAC. I can add you to the page that does matter, if you like: Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008. That is the page that feeds WP:WBFAN; the bot has already been thru the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the mistake. I altered the request to Serendipodous; now it's a request to drop a line here to you if he thinks it's OK to add me.. please wait for his confirmation that it's OK... thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Got it ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring

I have no problem in your refactoring my off-topic comment at the FAC review. But please consider refactoring the off topic comment by Cirt as well. Thanks for your consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked Cirt to do that; the reason I can't is that it's part of the Support statement, so it's hard for me to edit around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at this, and I would hesitate to remove information from the declaration. I don't consider the sentence to be an attack (having a perceived conflict of interest and acting in a manner to undermine the article or process are two very different things to me), and it really isn't off-topic. We regularly point out that reviewers were also article contributors or are members of a wikiproject that might support, and it's not uncommon for similar statements to be made about reviewers of more nationalistic articles. If we start refactoring these now, we'll have to refactor a LOT of FAC declarations in the future. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this statement is an attack, either. Per this, Jossi himself seems to think that he has a COI in articles on this topic, so I don't see any problem in having Cirt make editors aware of it. He didn't do so in any inflammatory manner. It is imperative that FAC reviewers know if any editors have a COI. Awadewit (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, ladies, for the additional opinions; helps to hear other opinions. I feel more comfortable moving info not directly related to WP:WIAFA to the talk, and leaving a link, so others can follow up, but removing a piece of someone's declaration is trickier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ling.Nut

Just posted on my talk page, saying that s/he has changed his/her mind vis a vis Scattered disc and now wishes to be given credit for it. Do you think you could add his/her name to Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008 and to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations? Thanks. Serendi^podous 07:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I added Ling to Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2008, which will cause him to be added to WP:WBFAN the next time the bot runs. As the second-highest contributor to that article, I couldn't understand why he declined at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah! that he did. Bah! that he changed his mind. I love WBFAN; it's grrrrrreat. Yomangani^talk 17:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops

In the edit summary for this revision, when I said "there is a citation," what I meant to say is that there is a site somewhere online to verify it, not that there is already a citation in the article. I just realized after posting that that it probably sounded like I was trying to contradict you, which I didn't mean to; anyway, I just removed "award-winning," entirely, because even though it could be cited, it's not really worth it (the award seems to be a rinky-dink award, and whether or not the film got an award is irrelevant anyway; I don't think the other films mentioned in the article have any information about awards here, either). Anyway, sorry about that edit summary! —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the citation...there is a possibly better citation here: "Kinderfilm - Wettbewerb / Children´s film competition". Retrieved 31 October 2008. . That site is mostly in German, but at the bottom there is also an English translation mentioning that the film got the award. (I have no idea what the site is, though, or how it's affiliated with the award...partly because I also have no idea what the award is.) I agree with you that it's probably not notable; I just left it in for now to give it the benefit of the doubt, since I don't know anything about Swedish film. Anyway, if you think that citation is better, you are welcome to use it instead. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem there, I completely understood :-) That site doesn't mention the TS, which is what needs to be cited. My concern is that there are scores, legions and gobs of films that use TS as a cheap plot twist, and we don't need to mention all of them. Since I've never heard of this film, I'm unaware of how it fits into the scheme of things, where The Tic Code and I Have Tourette's But Tourette's Doesn't Have Me are truly about TS, while the rest merely use it as a cheap plot twist. I guess we'll have to wait and see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I'm not familiar with the situation of TS in movies, but if you feel the link is unnecessary I certainly won't be offended if you remove it; I got wound up in cleaning up the article on that movie because the article was abominable (and mostly plagiarized), but I don't have any personal feelings about whether or not it gets linked to. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 19:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK to leave it for now; I'll eventually find out more about the movie, and then we can sort it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)