User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch56

FAR

I had no idea it changed so much since 2006-late-2007 when you and Marskell were in full flow. Thanks for pushing through the reforms and putting up with all that; I had no idea how much horrendous rioting used to go on there. How long did you spend fixing up all those old articles in those old days? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hours, days and weeks :))) The camaraderie was high, and the results were gratifying when we could really pull one through. Dr Kiernan, Ceoil, Outriggr, Marskell, Me, Qp10qp, Dr pda, Deckiller, Yomangani ... so many others, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Dispatches ... we would dig in and really fix them. Marskell would prod people until the work was done, pinging their talk pages, etc., giving them time as long as work was proceeding, checking back in with the editors he knew were working or might help. Marskell was the key; he really kept after people, and if they didn't do the work, he would dig in and do it himself. He would work on prose and sourcing, I would work on MoS stuff and cleanup ... it was a most rewarding place to work, as we really treasured the ones we could save. Then people began to tear down FAR, as happened recently at FAC as well, breaking down the camaraderie we'd built over so much hard work, making them less fun places to be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the horrendous fighting in the first 8 months of 2007 must've been horrible. Oh well, at least Australian articles still have a bit of a fighting spirit....I guess with the rising standards nowadays it's harder for an outsider to do non-MOS/prose things. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the more productive spirit can be revived; most of the people prominent in the rioting are now gone, but in any case those were the ones that benefited from 3rd parties fixing the articles that they refused to fix, so if things just get shot down nowadays, it's their fault really. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

YM, I've been too busy to really pay attention, but if you get a FAR that has a lot of Keeps without a good review, pls ping me and I'll try to look. In those cases, it's also good to ping in editors who know the topic area. For example, I asked the film editors and Ealdgyth to look in on Kung Fu Hustle, which isn't even close to being up to snuff, yet has a number of Keeps. It's OK to ping people! I can't promise I can always get to them, but if something is on the verge of being Kept when it's not ready, I'll do my best! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr pda size and long articles...again

What's the difference between the formats of Intelligent design and Lesbian? ID looks like a bigger file, but Lesbian has more words. Is it that all the notes in ID are in the ref section, and notes in Lesbian are in a separate note section? I'm trying to determine if I should start cutting now, or if I should try for FA at all for this behemoth. I don't mind improving the article and covering sources comprehensively, but I don't wish to battle over size...which would be typical for this topic. HA! I'm hilarious. --Moni3 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop it !! (Are you trying to give a whole new meaning to "bust a stitch"?)

OK ...

• Lesbian

Prose size (text only): 81 kB (12863 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 10047 B

• Intelligent design

Prose size (text only): 64 kB (9975 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 72 kB

I think it's that citations are a much shorter (typically) book format in Lesbian (Dr pda measures what's between ref tags, and the ID citations are typically websites, not books) ... 13,000 words is getting up there ! By the way, ID is actually much longer than 9975 words, because it has a lot of quotes and listy prose that aren't picked up by Dr pda. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this discrepancy compared to the info you posted:

• Lesbian File size: 262 kB
• Intelligent design File size: 546 kB --Moni3 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are the whole shebang, Dr pda watches my page and may explain better. For article text size, we're concerned about the numbers I posted. But both show the same thing: ID is much larger overall because of the citation format (mostly websites), not because of content (prose). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Inevitably I'll have to answer to FAC reviewers and other talk page enthusiasts about this issue. Clearly Lesbian a complex topic that is culturally malleable, taking a lot of explanation. I know you can't answer this for all articles, but I may have to consider either doing something to get around this or explaining it to editors: is it preferable to switch content to ref tags for Lesbian? I tried to neaten the article by using a separate Notes section because I find text in ref tags difficult to follow. --Moni3 (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I think the structure is fine (it's troubling when content is hidden in notes). Where is Dr pda's list of longest articles (look on the talk page of WP:FAS)? Some of those Dynasty articles are up around that prose size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length at the top, which is ID. I'm being asked to add more to some sections of Lesbian on the talk page. I don't anticipate a lot of material, but at the size it is now, I'm anticipating objections on the length alone. If I have to cut...I suppose I will, but argh. I'm hoping this can be explained by formatting discrepancies making the prose size in Lesbian seem much more than ID or General relativity. --Moni3 (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong place to look! See User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics (prose size, not overall). And ID is much longer, because it has quotes and listy prose that don't figure in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. That helps...a bit. --Moni3 (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Dr pda here. A few comments

• The "File size" which my prose size script gives is the size of the webpage, i.e. how much data is transferred to your computer when you load the page (excluding images). This includes all the HTML markup etc; if you go to View->Page Source (or the equivalent in your browser) you can see what this looks like.
• I've manually counted the extra quotes and lists in Intelligent design. They add a further 477 words/3 kB readable prose, making it 10450 words/67 kB readable prose.
• The body of the article for Intelligent design is shorter than for Lesbian. However the "References and notes" section in Intelligent design is longer than the body of the article!! This is partly because the sources are mostly websites, so the citations are longer. Compare
  • Expert, J (1 April 2009) My wonderful website on intelligent design Some University. Retrieved on 1 April 2009

to

• • Expert, J (2009) p1

and multiply that by 200 references! However the notes for Intelligent design often include a quote of the relevant text, which also adds to the size.

• There's nothing wrong with the way the Footnotes, Notes and References sections in Lesbian are structured. I find it less imposing and easier to follow than the huge block of tiny text at Intelligent design.
• Having said all that, Intelligent design is not the best article to use if you want to be able to point to an existing FA and say "Hey, this is bigger than Lesbian and it's an FA". The first five on my list (User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics) would be better for this purpose:

1. Ketuanan Melayu — 87 kB (14004 words)
2. Society of the Song Dynasty — 85 kB (13615 words)
3. Tang Dynasty — 83 kB (13940 words)
4. Ming Dynasty — 84 kB (13691 words)
5. Byzantine navy — 79 kB (13068 words)

• (Note that the above numbers differ from what is on User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics; that's because I have to use a different method to calculate the prose size when generating the list than I do in my script.)
• The length of Lesbian will be commented on if you take it to FAC, but if you can show that summary style has been used, and content moved to daughter articles where possible, then, as the above articles show, it is possible for something of this length to become featured. There's also the "exception" wording at WP:SIZE: ... some broad subjects or lists either do not have a natural division point or work better as a single article. In such cases, the article should nonetheless be kept short where possible.

Dr pda (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling in article on Incas

Hi, Sandy!

Saw your welcoming message (for IP 212.58.193.37) and decided to avail myself of this opportunity to ask you - what's the best way to fix a spelling error in an article that is protected and locked against editing? The article in question is "Inca Civilization", section "Society" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incas#Society) - in the first sentence, there's 'g' missing in "exaggeration" and the lone comma after it isn't right (perhaps, should be changed to something like "...wrote in the preamble of his will (not without exaggeration) the following..."?).

Best regards,

SZ (212.58.193.37) (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. You can also leave a note on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

With the template {{editprotected}}, and then an admin will come by and do the edit. SZ, if you're that IP, nice work so far! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking a day off

I will take your advice and take a day or 2 off (you suggested a few days, we will see). I know I am going into the personal attacks territory now but I feel how vandalism and peronsal attacks are taken seriously but yet disruption, sabotage and so forth is seen as not much of a problem is a serious flaw in wikipedia. You should check out the ADHD arbcom on scuro and you will understand why my fuse is so short. This is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...

For the co-nom. I've given up adding them myself, I just screw it up. Off to Wally-World! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

1968 Illinois

Thanks for the comments, I've asked a couple of editors to try and give me reviews. I apologize for overlinking, I hadn't even thought about not linking the states. ceranthor 00:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This weekend

Are you planning to do the run-through this weekend or would you like me to do it? Baby seems not to be in a hurry, and we've banned visitors until he arrives, so I should have free time if you want a bit more of a break. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I see through your plot... you're just trying to get baby to hurry up! (grins). Seriously, good luck, dear. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been slowly gearing up, reading through top half of FACs yesterday before I got tired, but I think I should be able to read through by tomorrow (or Sunday ... Gimme now lets me pr/ar on either Fri, Sat or Sun for more flexibility). Since the list size is low, if I don't get to everything (in terms of time it takes to read through to promote), it may not be as critical as when the page is approaching 60, but if you see anything I miss, I wouldn't mind if you mop up after me. I'm so glad the baby isn't in a hurry; that is good news for the baby :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Karen; do you have a plan for how to let us know when you're gone (in case it's sudden)? Do you need/have a phone number from one of us? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not have a plan...if you don't mind, Sandy, I'll add your email address to the list of those who will get one of the first announcements. I've also got a message already prepared for my talk page so all I have to do is unhide it. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, e-mail me if you think you'll need my phone number. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandy? When you hear, will you forward to me please? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't forward e-mail, but I will surely let you know! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, I put you on my email list too. I have separate emails set up now for various groups of people, so no worries that others will get your addresses. Karanacs (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: PR mess

Hi Sandy, it was not a regular peer review, but a video games PR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Blue Dragon archive 3 that seems to have gotten no response and was closed after a few days. I do note that there is a previous video game PR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Blue Dragon (video game)/Archive 2 which actually got feedback. I cannot find the first one - Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Blue Dragon/Archive 1 is a redlink. and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Blue Dragon is a redirect to version 3 above. Will keep looking and let you know when I find it - I do not normally deal with WikiProject PRs. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I found the first PR - it is the one in the Article History that the link actually works. If wou want I will try to fix the Article History (but I am not much practiced at that). Just let me know, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind, yes, please give it a try ... I'll watch and fix if necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, except those are actually WPRs, not PRs; there are so many options for result at WPR that I'm disinclined to fix it further :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, will leave well enough alone. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did fix the PR code to WPR, but will not link the third WPR request as it was withdrawn by the nominater without response and is currently balnked. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good now! Thank you SO much (I hate leaving all those messes for Gimmetrow). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help - thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the check!

Just wanted to say thanks for doing that style check for Yukon Quest. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What have I done now?  ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Nothing that I'm not thankful for. Frankly, I'm glad someone looked at the article. Incidentally, someone printed a book of all the featured articles. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre logic. It says: "Reproducing Wikipedia in a dysfunctional physical form helps to question its use as an internet resource." I'd have thought the very opposite. Tony (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Same here...was quite confused by that sentence. TwilligToves (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

blessed en or em dashes

Sandy, this has come up at MOSNUM talk. I'm sure I remember this discussion at FAC – perhaps for music albums/tracks, where an interrupting punctuation is required in a list. I thought the consensus was for spaced en dashes. here. Thx. Tony (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's spaced en dashes, I'm fairly sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Me, too. I posted there (don't know why that article has a dash and a colon. And the MoS archives are such a mess that I'd never go looking for a past discussion there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I love the spaced en-dash.  :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Albert Bridge

I've removed one image and shuffled the others around to try to reduce squeeze – does that work? The monitor I'm using at the moment is so narrow, it's hard to guess what will cause squeeze and what won't. I think the problems are because this image – which I think is the one image that's absolutely necessary to the article as it illustrates both the color scheme and the Ordish-Lefeuvre structure, the two unique features – is so long and skinny. – iridescent 18:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine now, thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Pauline Rita

I never got the hang of MOS stuff, much as I have tried over the years. Would you mind sweeping the above so its correct pls. I didn't write it, but I like it. I ask because I know you might like the subject matter (I'd add a utubes but she predates all that stuff). Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'll get on it (still recovering, tired of reading, and bored as an oyster)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of news and other sources with no article names: is that accurate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I missed that, and have requested. Thanks a million for the help! Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That was quick; I don't see any other MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yamato Class Battleship

Hey, Sandy, could you take a look at the FAC for Yamato class battleship? It has the three supports, having had one oppose resolved yesterday. Regards, Cam ^(Chat) 21:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandy and I review the FACs for promotion/archive twice a week (Tuesdays and on the weekends). I'll take a look tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Yes, more eyes are needed there for MOS. Joelito is also more lenient than me so if I leave something open in the hope that the people might stop dragging their feet, he might close it as keep instead YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The questions run too deep / For such a simple man

Hi Sandy. A (hopefully) quick question for you. We've been running through some MOS fixes over at the Ten C's FAC, but the only thing that's not clear is the logical quotation. As an example of a logical quotation error, you cited this sentence:

... because the adulterer sins against "his spouse, his society, and his children as well as his own body and soul."

Which I take to mean that you believe the period should be outside the quotation. I'm completely fine with that, and it's the way I've always done it, but it doesn't quite jive with what the MOS says:

On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not.

The guideline seems to indicate that the period should be inside, but it doesn't explicitly say what to do in a situation where the period is part of quoted text ([1]) that is a grammatical part of the sentence. Sorry to bother you; I was going to ask at WT:MOS, but then I saw this mess and backed slowly away from the door. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 08:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Steve, there's a big mess at MOS over that very issue. For sanity, I avoid reading that talk page, but I saw a protection for an edit war over logical quotation, so who knows what the guideline says from one minute to the next. My advice is to ask directly at Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Or don't worry about it :) Simple? Lol ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually considered asking Tony, but he seems to be enjoying himself bringing down The Man, so I didn't want to bother him. :) But will do, thanks. Steve ^{T • C} 10:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Who's "The Man"? Steve, the situation you refer to can go either way; I'd personally prefer the fly-spot as part of the main sentence even where the quoted fragment does end with a stop, and would internalise the dot only where it's important to show that the quoted sentence does end there. But either way, it's no big deal. What WP has traditionally said is not to add a punctuation mark inside the quotation marks where it is not in the original. Tony (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have included a link; it was just a tongue-in-cheek—and possibly inappropriate—reference to your proposals for admin reform and various interactions with ArbCom. So, OK, I've sucked up enough of yours and Sandy's time over this, so I'll shut up now, with thanks for the clarification. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 11:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it's at MFD. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Content noticeboard

To Sandy's TPS: From the above proposition came an idea to start a noticeboard where editors can exchange ideas on article writing, copy editing, sources, and content in general. It is currently live.

To Sandy: I often don't see some of the pitfalls of brilliant ideas, so this is where you may come in and sober up those who participate. There is an attempt in the first thread to define what the purpose of this noticeboard will be. --Moni3 (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC tools

Any idea what's going on here? I can't seem to find the problem personally. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's because the FAC tools template gets the previous FACs from, e.g., Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Foo. If Foo happens to be a substring of a longer word, e.g. Football, those FACs will show up as well. Off the top of my head this could be fixed by adding a slash after the article name. In fact looking at the FAC tools template more closely this has already been done for the FLC case, but not for the FAC case. The template is protected so I can't edit it. Dr pda (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding a / into the template would prevent listing pages lacking the /archiveN ending. Gimmetrow 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspected there was probably some reason why the / wasn't already included. The fix in this particular case, as Juliancolton has already done, is to add the / to the parameter passed to the template, i.e. {{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=Wind/}}. Dr pda (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, since {{facfailed}} has been converted to AH, it's possible that most of the pages at WP:FAC/Pagename got moved to /archiveN subpages, and it may not be very important if the other pages don't get listed by the tools template. Gimmetrow 01:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

I noticed you closed the Albert Einstein article as not promoted although I was actively in the process of updating and fixing all of the problems that where addressed. Is this normal protocal? What is the normal window of time given normally to fix identified problems or suggestions? --Kumioko (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at WP:FAC regarding sigificant contributors; the article was not FAC ready, and FAC should not be treated as peer review. There are some good tips for getting a thorough peer review at WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, as far as it being ready, maybe it was and maybe it wasn't but after the changes I made and after I fix the references I am going to resubmit it again. Also, I personally do not like the significant contributor rule, it goes against the very concept of WP and that is that anyone can edit. You should be seeing the Albert Einstein article again in a few days. Cheers.--Kumioko (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It is expected that nominators will take a few weeks to really get the article ready before bringing it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Show me where that written! I can accept that the article needs more work but I am not going to shelve it for a few weeks because you think I broke protocal. If YOU don't want to review it when I resubmit it then someone else can. Judging by your tone thusfar though I doubt that it will recieve a fair judge and that at this point you will undoubtedly find a reason to fail it but thats ok. By the way there are plenty of FAC's going currently that have multiple comments and some have severe issues but I don't see you shotgunning them! --Kumioko (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First, if Sandy reviews, she doesn't close the candidacies. Second, how, if you haven't been involved in the content research for an article, can you answer questions about the sources, any potential biases, anything that might have been omitted from the article, etc. Nominators should be familiar with the information presented in the article so they can respond to concerns brought up by the reviewers. FAs aren't just if the article conforms with the MOS and with good prose. The content of the article must be up to high standards also. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So what your saying is in order to submit an article I must have written it and or have access to every book, magazine, journal, etc that is referenced in the article. First, it is not a realistic goal for you to say that in order for an editor to submit an article for FA they must have written it when dozens of people could have made potentially thousands of edits to the article. Second I typically only edit articles that I know about, in this case the Albert Einstein article is a well enough known article, with loads of easy to access references that if someone asks a question I will find the answer. I would not try and get an article about the theory of everything to FA status because I am not qualified to write it. Third, I work 2 blocks from the library of congress so if I need a book I'll go get it. This whole thing has gotten off topic. MY argument is that I was making the changes necessary to get this article to FA based on the comments I was getting from reviewers and Sandy closed it amid change after I had already been working on it for a few days. I have a very busy schedule and a full weekend and it was taking somem time to get the changes made. On a side note unless you are willing to have other than the same 5 editors submitting featured articles then you have to give us a chance to fix the problems and follow the process through and not cut it off in mid stream. Like I told Sandy, the article wasn't ready, ok but I was making the changes necessary to get it to FA. This whole thing is turning me off of the submission process and I have close to 70,000 edits, I imagine how it would feel to a less seasoned editor.--Kumioko (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time understanding the hurry, when there are hours of work needed still only in formatting the citations and providing missing publishers, an issue throughout the citations still, yet strangely marked as "done" on the FAC. Please take the time and elbow grease to prepare the article before bringing it to FAC again. Doing things like supplying publishers and checking on reliability of sources (to conform with a core policy of WP:V) is a minimum prerequisite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm done and I get the hint. I will stay out of the FA drama and stay in my own swim lanes of featured lists, medal of honor recipients and AWB edits. I just want to finish with saying that I had not marked any of the reference related comments as done yet. I marked off some See also, structure and a couple of other things but not references. I did a lot of the work on the article you are talking about in a word document where I added some data, trimmed the references down to about 40, cleaned up the publishers and citations data and refined a couple categories but I'll let someone else have at it since I was not a major contributor.--Kumioko (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Take a glance at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gregorian mission/archive1, which I nominated. If someone unfamiliar with the article had nominated it, how would they address the (very valid!) concerns brought up by the current reviewers? If someone doesn't have access to the sources used in the article, how would you address those concerns? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You probably don't need me to chime in here, but I clear a week or so off my schedule when I take an article to FAC, and I make sure I have the materials cited in the article during the FAC process. If the article has sources that I haven't read, I try my best to find them. I usually construct articles myself and replace what already exists per WP:BOLD. Sometimes this takes several rounds: I construct the article using some sources then take them back to the library. I use another set a of sources, then take those back to the library. When it's time for FAC, I check them all out again just to have them near in case anyone asks about what the references say. --Moni3 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Chiming in to the chime. Going to FAC without access to the sources is very risky indeed, In fact even going to GAN without access to the sources can be risky, especially if you're unlucky enough to have me as your reviewer. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Show me where that written! In the instructions at WP:FAC; please read them. The suggestions for a peer review will be your fastest route to an article of featured quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but those instructions aren't very clear on that. Also, just for closure on my part I would like to leave a suggestion for the future. If you are serious about having new editors submit articles for FA and you have an editor who submits an article for FA who is obviously making the changes needed to get the article up to status, you might want to assume good faith and give them the chance to finish it. --Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What on earth has "good faith" got to do with this? Have you ever considered the wisdom of taking your own advice? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't comment on the merits of the nomination, but it also says in the edit notice (when you initiate the FAC) that "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nomination". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I agree that some of your comments have merit but I was addressing the concerns and comments as they where coming in. I did ask the top couple contributors but they did not respond, I can get pretty much any book in existence short of the Presidents book of secrets within a couple days time so the issue of not having the references is a non issue. This whole issue has gotten way off point and quite frankly I am tired of talking about it. Whether I am or am not a significant contributor to the article is only relevent if I cannot answer the questions, I was able to answer all the questions received thusfar so... Anyway, There are plenty of other things in WP to dedicate my time too other than FAC's so if they want to keep the same ten or 12 editors contributing all the FA's then thats fine. I think its a shame but, ok. --Kumioko (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles presented at FAC ought to be ready, or at least plausible candidates. This one clearly wasn't. End of story. FAC isn't a workshop where articles are fixed, that's best done elsewhere, at leisure. FAC is where articles are assessed and critiqued, not fixed. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

No not clearly, but I have already stated my opinion on the matter and knowone agreed, fine I am moving on.--Kumioko (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore

Hi. I just tried to nominate this for FAC. Did I do it right? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you fixed it now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. With Shoemaker's Holiday out of the picture, I'm all alone, and as you may recall, I'm a bit of a technophobe. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is SH gone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[2] – iridescent 00:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings FA

The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II is an FA. It contains section after section of original research and really bad sources. However, it was passed in January. Is it still necessary to wait 6 months to list something for FAR? And I find it shameful that such blatantly obvious things as citing information about Electronic Arts to a 1954 book was deemed acceptable (see: "Electronic Arts added new battles to the story, and introduced original characters to the game, such as Gorkil the Goblin King. Some characters were altered in their appearances, abilities, and roles; for instance, a combat role in the game is given to Tom Bombadil, a merry hermit from The Lord of the Rings.[9]"). Ottava Rima (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination ... " close enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Listed, I just didn't want to step on the FAC process any. I was always bothered by those that would immediately rush in and the problems it would cause. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

FA order

Why is Abu Nidal listed before Samuel Adams; I thought we went by last name with people (link)? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Do you want to fix it or shall I? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm heading out the door as I type this. If you're busy, I can fix it when you get back. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks, I'll get it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"Abu Nidal" was a title ("Father of the struggle"), not his name (which was Sabri Khalil al-Banna). – iridescent 22:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Arrrrgh ... knew there was a reason! It's so hard to remember everything with five tabs open. 23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Double arrrrgh! Sorry for the trouble. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Well I've plonked the boxes on FAR and FAC urgents together. Macedonia could do with a look YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy Black Channel FAC

Hi, I noted that you commented that one of the opposing users, Karanacs, is on a wikibreak. Just wondering what the procedure is in such cases. Does the article stay there till the user returns or can you use executive power to see if the objections have been met and so finally decide the article's fate? Rafablu88 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Abu Nidal

Thank you. :) [3] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Joseph Priestley lead image alignment

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Auditory integration training

Are you an expert with regard to Auditory Integration Training, or just another editor who hgas no real deep understanding of the subject.

dolfrog (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Followup at WQA; Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Dolfrog_-_personal attacks SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok lets put this another way, what evidence that AIT does not help some who have both dyslexia and Autism, the link is auditory processing disorder. I am aware of the legal issues in the USA but in other countries AIT has been used to benfit both conditions.

The problem with the link you have found is my frustration with wiki editors who have no understanding of my communication disorder and have ignored the summunication suport i need when working in an alien environment such as WIKI

dolfrog (talk) 16:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please supply a reliable source showing that AIT is effective for dyslexia (or anything else). See WP:MEDRS. And please keep discussion on article talk pages. No one has to supply evidence that AIT doesn't help: you need to supply evidence that it does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Auditory processing disorder

I noticed that you cleaned up the Auditory Processing Disorder Article. You may have noticed from the dyslexia project shambles that i have a comunication disability and become stressed to easily in open discussions, unfortunately it goes with having APD. SO it is back to waht I am good at whicxh is finding the research and support information for others to present in the best way possible, and to take care of the politics of discussions. I was wondering if you want to help me bring the Auditory Processing Disoder Article up to date, it was alaways my intention to do this after I had do my bit for the dyslexia article. As you may gave noticed I have done all that my APD will let me for the dyslexia article, So In the next few days I will try to make some sense of waht exists on the APD article which i last edited some 3 or 4 years ago. If you prefer not to work with me I do understand i know how difficilt it is living and working with somone who has APD.

dolfrog (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I did only a wee bit of beginning cleanup. In theory, I'd love to clean up CAPD, since I know quite a bit about the topic (and AIT); in practice, however, I just don't have the time. Perhaps Slp1 (talk · contribs) will take a look. I would not be troubled by working with you; I just don't have time. (And it's troubling to see generalities in the article about people with CAPD: many of those generalities aren't true, like people with APD being timid or shy.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be very happy to help out if I can, but as always am rather busy. One or two things are probably worth noting however related to Dolfrog's kind offer to do some research etc for the article: Wikipedia aims to use the best quality sources for all articles, and this is especially important in a medically-related article like Auditory Processing Disorder. This means journal articles, academic books, etc etc, and not websites and newsletters. See this article for more details WP:MEDRS of the sort of sources we are looking for. Also, it seems that you might have some clear ideas about APD since you have it yourself. It can be difficult to work on articles you feel strongly about, since we need to write the article from a neutral point of view and as you probably know APD is actually a fairly controversial subject, with lots of disagreement about what it is, and even whether it really exists. All of these views will need to be included, and given appropriate weight. Anyway, Dolfrog, if you would like to do some research for the article and suggest some reliable sources on the talkpage I would be glad to take and look at them and include them as appropriate. But do take a break for a few days if you would like and/or think it would be good for you to reduce stress. I wouldn't be able to get to the article very quickly in any case. --Slp1 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi both,

just to fill in a bit og background about me. my eldest son was diagnosed as having CAPD back in 1998, ans in the UK no one was prepared to even acknowledge that APD existed so my fist prjoect was to collect information which initially came from Dr. Jay Luckers CAPD Listserve, so that my sons school couls understan his problems and provide the support he needed, that lead to my fist web sites the most useful of which are http://dolfrog4life.homestead.com/AA_index_ZZ.html and http://capdlinks.homestead.com/AA_index_ZZ.html from there together with the leading UK APD researchers I became involved with getting APD recognised in the UK, which resulted in the Founding of APDUK, and the creation of the APDUK web site, http://www.apduk.org/ of which I am still the webmaster and main contributor (you will see my real name in the copyright statement thye would not let me use dolfrog LoL). So It could be said that I may have a conflcit of interest I do not know. I also own the OldAPD forum for adults who have APD which has been in existance since 2000 http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/OldAPDs/ with regard to research which is where all the dyslexia stuff started, I have been on mnay dyalexia forums and from my own observarions most who have dyslexia have APD as one of the underlying causes of their dyslexia symptoms, and the problem was that most of the information regarding dyslexia was usually from 1980 and beyond and skewed toward one remedial program or another. So that is why I have spent the last month or so trying to revise the dyslexia article to reflct curretn resrarch while also maintaining the information from the research history. And the addtion of a History of APD on the Auditory Processing Disorder article may be a good place to start. At the beginning of this year I radically revised one of my alomost unused disucssion forums, to add 160 PD files mostly research based regarding amny of the issues that relate to dyslexia, some of which are about APD, may be you may like to join this forum and look at the PDF files that are already there, and may be add a few more. The forum is at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/what_causes_your_dyslexia/ (it is more of a research forum than a discussion forum, but the mebership has grown from 6 to 36 in the last few months.

I do need to take a break I am knee deep in dysexia research articles which need to be added to a new reference program I am using to store my pdf files and useful abstract information on.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that a gear deal of the APDUK web site consists of article contributed by professionals interested in APD, and one "Central Auditory Processing Disorders as a key factor in Developmental Language Disorders" http://apd.apduk.org/rosalie_seymour.htm is also part of a series of articles at http://www.aitinstitute.org/rosalie_seymour.htm

dolfrog (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this dolfrog. It would be better to continue these sort of discussion on your talkpage rather than on SandyGeorgia's talkpage. I am going to copy your posts over there, and will then answer them.--Slp1 (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FAR

Can you think of more people who would be interested in reviewing? There are only a few that take more a few minutes, as most FARs are abandoned and only a minority get improved a bit so that a close look is required, which at the moment is a weak spot. Unfortunately Laser brain as quit just yesterday...Maybe a frustration with the one line reviews but with most of the articles there are so many problems people don't need to state all of the problems if no work at all is being done YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your dyslexia edits

I can see what you are doing but some of your edits are not in line with the revision of the whole dyslexia project. Yes when the project has been complete how you see the article should be the final produxt, but the project is not there yet, and i had to leave becuase I could not get the support from other areas of WIKI to make make the article more global, there was too much resistance and I am notr the best of diplomats I tend ot go from seeing the problem strait to the answer, and having to rely on others to fill in the individual steps olang the route that most others require. The Dyslexia artilce is na summary article now with sub artilce to fill in the full detail, when i moves some of the orignal content some of the references may have moved but not remained to support the intial staemants.

as far as I am aware there is only you and may be me editing that artilce at the moment, that was my problem I had no one to help me do the things that my APD causes me problems to carry out.

dolfrog (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The dyslexia project: A new beginning

Hi All

I have added some new sections below which have come from various talk pages in recent days but all realted in some way to the dyslexia project. So I have added them all below, in the hope that we can all begin to add our own input as one person working alone can cause also sorts of problems as can be seen above. I will post a copy of this to all who I think may wish to the new begining of the Dyslexia project and a copy will appear on your individual discussion pages ( I hope you do not mind). The oringinal copy of this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia the discusion page of the main project article you will see revise project template, the changes on the tamplate is the addition of a Project pages section, which includes the orinal project pages and the new STAGE TWO page which is hopefuly the new starting point. the STAGE TWO page has the dyslexia article as it is now. And we can tinker with it without changing the actual article itself and discuss and issue we may have before making further changes to the article itself.

dolfrog (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H.M.S. Pinafore/archive1

What is the best way to make it clear to you that a reviewer has checked the sources? I, for example, do not say that an article is "well-researched" unless I have checked the sources. I do not make comments in my statement about the sources unless I have looked at them. I was a bit frustrated by your comment at the Pinafore FAC because I did both of these things and yet it was, apparently, still not clear to you that I looked at the sources (you asked if any of the reviewers had looked at the sources). Would it be best if in the future I said "I have looked at each source and they are all reliable"? I can't remember a time when I supported an article without looking at the sources, but I can start appending this statement to all of my support !votes to make it explicitly clear. Whatever would make it easier for you - please let me know. Awadewit (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know you check sources, just checking in general (there were many other supports). I don't know all other reviewer styles as well as I know yours :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should start doing that anyway and try and set a trend? Awadewit (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea ! When reviewers get to the article before Ealdgyth does (or when they support in spite of her questions), it can be hard to tell if they have reviewed sourcing! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It can be hard to tell if every reviewer has reviewed anything, never mind sources. Seems pretty clear to me, for instance, that a not insignificant number of reviewers support without ever having even read the article, or at least all of it, never mind checked anything in it. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Got that right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

[left] I have answered Ealdgyth's comments. Please let me know if you think my explanations are adequate. If not, I will remove any particular reference that you don't think is WP:RS. Note that these references either 1) add a useful source that is very helpful to the reader; or 2) adds an online source for information that is available in a library, but the online source would seem more convenient for reader. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll look closer on Tuesday, Ss ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ealdgyth has already responded and lined thru some of them. See you Tuesday! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

← It may just be me and my cranky English attitude to life, but I don't like to see discussions like this on SandyG's talk page. If you, Ssilvers, have addressed Ealdgyth's comments then say so on the FAC review page. Why attempt to draw SandyG's attention to the fact that you've addressed one reviewer's comments?

Sorry Sandy, but I just wanted to get that off my chest. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

About TOTW on Metawiki

May you check m:Translation of the week/Translation candidates and participate in relevant votings? There are still many candidates not decided whether to be the formal TOTW or to be removed, some have not been decided more than three years, such as Yixian Formation. Please notify other Wikipedians to participate in the TOTW votings as well.--RekishiEJ (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Blank cite parameters

Sandy, I notice that you're always finding articles with blank cite template parameters. I have a handy script that removes them, so give me a holler if you want a cleansing. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow tried to teach me that once, but I only heard the sound of <whoosh> going over my head. Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Dablinks in wind?

I'm getting an error message when I hit that link that the page for wind does not exist. Titoxd brought up that issue a few days ago, and I fixed all those results, but I have expanded the page some since then and thought I was careful not to introduce new ones. Which disambiguation links remain? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nevermind. The dablink link was wrong on the talk page. Fixed that, along with the two disambiguation links which remained. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No wonder I couldn't find it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It was right a few days ago. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

MOS Question

Hey Sandy, I'm looking at an article that is currently at FLC, List of African American Medal of Honor recipients. The article has a number of quotes in the notes section, where it explains why the person received the medal. A number of those quotes are derived from the original, but not the entire quote. My question is, when taking a partial quote like is done in the notes section, what is the appropriate format. For example, the citation for Robert Blake is, "On board the U.S. Steam Gunboat Marblehead off Legareville, Stono River, 25 December 1863, in an engagement with the enemy on John's Island. Serving the rifle gun...." In the notes section, the note begins with, "in an engagement with the..." Should the "I" in "in" be capitalized like "[I]n an engagement with the" should it be written with leading dots like "...in an engagement with the..."? The quote is not in a full sentence.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"...in an" makes more sense here since the quotation is not a full sentence. Seems like some of the other notes may need to be cleaned up as well. TwilligToves (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:FAC supports

Although I obviously want these articles to pass, I don't just drive-by support. I do read the entire article before commenting, and if you look at other edits I have made copyedits for the whole article. They may be close together because I also read Oklahoma City bombing the day before. My FAC comments are not always very long as I would rather just make the simple copyedits myself rather than take up my and the nominator's time to write them all out, and I might not notice something other reviewers do. I am also sure to check back on the FAC later to see others' comments if I was an early reviewer. My comments might not be as in-depth, but I do give a thorough reveiw and give an honest support or oppose. Thanks for your concern, Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

This group was created as the result of this discussion. It is intended more for the convenience of New page patrollers. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If I'm reading it right, it sounds like I can now do moves over redirects ... a problem I often encountered on malformed FACs??? If that's what it is, great ... although the new FAC/FAR archiving process means I no longer need it often. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this discussion. Ruslik_Zero 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK, it's not what I thought. Thanks anyway! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey stranger

Hope you are well. Seems like our paths rarely cross these days. --Laser brain (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy IRL ! But always watching the good work of you and others at FAC. All the best, S

Image galleries

At Talk:Vincent van Gogh/GA1, I am meeting with resistance on moving images from the Vincent van Gogh article's gallery into the article's main body because there are so many. I have attempted to encourage use of a {{multiple image}} template, but the editors are using mini galleries in the sections to move the articles from the gallery at the end of the article. I am sure if there is a good reason to not break the text with mini galleries these guys will abide by such a policy. I am hoping you can give me some guidance on what the best way is to incorporate images into the main text when there are so many.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Valkyrie FAC

Hey Sandy, how do I remove the valkyrie article from FAC? I do not have the time to deal with it at the moment and I would like to remove it from consideration. If you can do this, please do. Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you withdraw ...

The FAC for United States Senate election in California, 1950? Demand is being made for some stats I can't get until next month, and I don't want to keep it open like that. Fair enough. I want to nominate Matthew Boulton ASAP as soon as I polish off the rough edges, since there are celebrations for his 200th anniversary of death in August and I don't want to hold it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hepatorenal syndrome

Dear SandyGeorgia, if you had some time, I was wondering if you could look over hepatorenal syndrome. Specifically, I worry that it has been written with too much jargon and will get destroyed at WP:FAC as a consequence. Greatly appreciated. -- Samir 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I may be able to get to it towards the end of this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much -- Samir 05:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Layout

Hi there,
About a week ago you dropped by Wikipedia_talk:Layout#proposed_stylistic_changes with some critiques. At that time, I was relatively new to the page, but I had recently made a proposed revision [4] to the section Wikipedia:Layout#Standard_appendices_and_footers that was well-received and has stuck.

Since then, I have tried to propose some other changes [5]. I'm a relatively new Wikipedia editor, and I inadvertently frustrated some people by making my changes without discussing them first. OK, that makes sense, I'm happy to work towards a consensus. However, I've discovered that it's not really possible to make a reasoned contribution to the discussion there -- I feel like the page is being dominated by a very finicky/territorial/taxing character. I'd really like to stay involved in improving this page, but not under these circumstances. I'm wondering if you could review the talk page, tell me whether my complaints are justified, and advise me on how to proceed. Thanks. Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 23:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Did I post on your page?

Sandy, what do you make of this accusation [6] that I posted on your page trying to derail the Benzodiazepine FAC? I do not remember posting anything on your page before, do you? Thank you The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sceptical please stop going around wikipedia trying to find admins to turn on me like ANI and now here. You are not without sin.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a simple misunderstanding. SC: "posted on FA director's page requesting it be closed" is a reference to something he did. LG: your wording was imprecise, enabling misinterpretation. Now can we move on? Maralia (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I apologize for misunderstanding it. LG does get in trouble with commas often. I should have known. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Shortened notes?

Are there valid objections to using shortened footnotes? If you take a look at Jonestown#Notes, you'll see several sources repeated over and over simply to list the page number. Wouldn't a Footnote/References format work better here? I've proposed changes on the talk page, but the editor wants to keep them this way. I think it would save a lot of space and make it easier to read if I converted it to shortened footnotes. What's your opinion about this type of referencing style? Viriditas (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter as long as the article is consistent on the usage, I think. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bold

Please explain why you undid my edit. At the very least, Ten Commandments should be in bold. Thanks. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 04:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MOSBOLD#Boldface: "If the article topic does not have a commonly accepted name, but is merely descriptive (e.g., history of the United States), the title does not need to appear in the first sentence, and is not bolded if it does." Tne Commandments in Roman Catholicism is a descriptive name, not a commonly accepted name. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that. However, in the article's title is Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism. Ten Commandments is in teh first line of teh first sentence. It would make sense, at least, IMO, that that should be bold. It may not be commonly accepted, but its in teh article title and first sentence. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 04:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a descriptive title: it's one church's interpretation of the Ten Commandments. It is not The Ten Commandments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for explaining! --Spotty ¹¹²²² 04:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC to keep an eye on

You may want to keep an eye on the FAC for Rocket: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rocket/archive1. The nominator has been striking issues when he feels they have been satisfied instead of the person opposing. When asked not to do this, he stated his intent to continue. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You may want to revisit this one, there seems to be an issue with WP:OWN and an unwillingness to follow suggestions, see this edit: [7] -MBK₀₀₄ 01:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Re: your note on Ruslik0's talk page. Having the "autoreviewer" flag on your account simply means that pages you create are automatically marked as "patrolled". As someone who is quite active new-page patrolling this is quite helpful as it cuts back on the number of good pages that I have to mark patrolled and frees me up to concentrate on pages that may or may not meet Wikipedia's standards. Hope that this answered your question. :) Happy editing! -T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 01:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore

Thanks for your help at the FAC. Question: Why does the MOS (and you) require a space *before* ellipses? That seems like bad typography to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ask Tony1 (talk · contribs) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

SandyGeorgia,

I must apologize, I was unaware of the style manual until you mentioned it to me. Rest assured, for I have now studied it and have a new understanding of what Wikimedia guidelines are currently explicit.

You are so kind to have actually responded to my humble editorial suggestions.

71.218.58.34 (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri FAC

The nominator of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri/archive2 would like to withdraw the FAC. Just wanted to point it out as I don't know the proper procedure for removing a withdrawn FAC. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. Steve ^T • C 21:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/February 2009 tornado outbreak/archive1

I've decided to withdraw this nomination so when you have time it can be archived. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Tommorow's FAC promotions

Hi Sandy. I'm going to attempt to promote/archive at FAC tomorrow. I'll make it as far through the list as I can :) Karanacs (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am going to stay away from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Time Traveler's Wife/archive1 - my mother-in-law just lent me the book and until I have a chance to read it I don't want to be spoiled on the plot. Would you mind making the decision on this one this weekend?Karanacs (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Got it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

MOS question

Should web magazines be italicized? Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispatches

Has a decision being made to scrap them? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I think Sandy's just very busy and no one has stepped up to coordinate them in her absence. See this. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

something about the revamped 1c could be useful, expecially enforcing it at FAR where things are lagging. I am afraid if I wrote it, it would turn completely activist about weak articles being kept seeing as I am supposed to close the FARs YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I could think of several editors who could help out, but four stand out in my mind: Laser brain (talk · contribs), Awadewit (talk · contribs), Cirt (talk · contribs) and DrKiernan (talk · contribs) (the latter two are pretty active at FAR from what I see). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)