User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch59

FAC Image Reviews

Hi, I'm quite happy to help on these - at the moment I just tend to scan down the list of FACs and zero in on any that clearly have problems. Is the image review done as part of FAC, or is it a separate process? Black Kite 15:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

When I sit down to read FAC, my first pass is to archive non-promotables, watchlist problems, and locate those that might be maturing towards promotion, meaning they have enough Support, no substantial Opposes, a source review, and an image review. It's helpful if things like Image review, Alt text, Dab check are bolded so I can easily spot whether that work has been done (and it's helpful if someone indicates if that was done in a previous FAC). On my next pass, I go back and read each mature FAC and article in detail. On my first pass, I always find many maturing FACs that don't have image reviews, and I list them at WT:FAC ... example ... Wikipedia talk:FAC#Image review needed. The need for image reviews is currently adding to the FAC backlog, as there are always about half a dozen held up for images only. Karanacs and I typically promote on Saturdays and Tuesdays, so it would be helpful if someone would hit the almost mature FACs on Mondays and Fridays (if not sooner), before we get there. I look for an image review on the FAC from any of the editors I know to be knowledgeable about images (I'm not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Marfan

Wrote this bit of text, but couldn't decide whether to include it in the article. What do you think?

Other animals

Marfan syndrome can also occur in other animals such as cows (Bos taurus). In one study, 7 calf siblings showed classic signs of Marfan syndrome including "long, thin limbs, severe joint and tendon laxity, microspherophakia, ectopia lentis, heart murmurs and aortic dilatation." A mutation in the bovine FBN1 fibrillin gene was detected.

WriterHound (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Diseases.2Fdisorders.2Fsyndromes, it should be, In other animals. Because I'm convinced I have a dog with Marfan, I find this very interesting. But ... OMIM is plagued with less than reliable information, and I'm not sure if OMIA is any better. That's why WP:MEDRS recommends using review articles (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches). You would be better off if you could find a Review article somewhere that mentions Marfan in animals, to make sure there is widespread medical consensus on the issue, since OMIA probably reports on primary studies, as OMIM does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

ah, darnit. And now you've reminded me that I never added equine Tourette's to Tourette syndrome. PMID 18541393 , PMID 11642235 , PMID 11530424 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Review article mentioning bovine Marfan's and mouse models. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't know how you found that, but nice ... thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Article layout

Hi SandyGeorgia,
I wanted to know if their is ways that I could improve the introduction section for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie; if you could take a quick look that would be good.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 00:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I just did a major job with the layout; tell me what you think... :) ATC ^{. Talk} 02:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Heads up...

I'll be gone from Thursday afternoon through Tuesday evening. Big reunion and get together, and although I'll have internet, I'm not going to be messing with Wikipedia, too busy drinking and catching up with folks! I trust you and Karan to figure out if something has been resolved while I'm gone. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cathay Pacific/archive1.
Message added Aviator006 (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Accessibility question

Please see [1] and clarify, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, for Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cat's Eye Nebula/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Augusta, Lady Gregory/archive1, Black Kite was kind enough to check the images. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, any ideas on how to fix the problem here without screwing up the layout completely? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh ... don't know how to fix that (other than pretending I didn't see it). What I usually do in a case like that is post a query to the nominator, something like: "Is it possible to move the left-aligned image out of section whatever to avoid the text squeeze?" On the other issues, since I've never read Wiki on an iPod, Blackberry or screenreader, I just have to rely on Graham87's feedback, as I've never seen the problem in action. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on article talk pages - Rock Springs massacre

Would you explain on the talk page how my edit is point-of-view? It is helpful to other editors to know what someone disagrees with, and, when you call something pov that was pulled from within the article, it can be confusing to the other editor. Maybe you don't see it within the body of the article, or it's only pov when in the lead? Whatever the reason, please explain as the lead is hard to understand without that information. Usually a massacre does involve murder, but maybe that's the word you object to, "murder," and it should be replaced by "killed?" Then it should be replaced within the article. I would be willing to rewrite the lead section to make it clearer, but I cannot do so when I am reverted without discussion or explanation.

I picked "murder" because that is used in the article. I would like other people to be able to understand the article and know what happened besides the article's writer, who says the entire article must be read to understand the first paragraph.

Could you please explain your reversion on the talk page so that I can rewrite the lead section so that the average reader of an encyclopedia could use it to gain a clear summary of the event? It would be nice to do while it is still linked on the main page and getting lots of readers. Thank you. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record I said no such thing as the entire article must be read to understand the first paragraph. Simply that the entire article must be read to understand the topic. The lead provides only a cursory understanding, we are discussing this issue on the talk page if you would like to join us.--IvoShandor (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Very sticky situation regarding possible deletion of FAs

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's going nowhere. I'd be more sympathetic with the mergers if the ship hadn't sailed so long ago and so much work invested in the articles. Too late, to my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree

I remember that there was a big stink on WikiEn-l when he was desysopped/retired the tools. Some said it was a loss to academics because 172 was apparently credentialed. He might have been a scholar, but on this site he was a prolific and adamant warrior. Cool Hand Luke 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

that wasn't a smart thing to do.

I had that up because no one looks up the editors names. they look up the articles. I put that up so that way people could read that and understand how people like me feel. the people need to read that. that would definitely make a difference. and because you did that, you are just like the rest of society. good day to you.

--Evilmaster23 (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)evilmaster23

Read the policy: Wikipedia is not a forum for your feelings or mine in article or talk page space. Our experiences as editors matter very little. It's what can be verified by sources. If you disagree with this, Wikipedia is not for you. --Moni3 (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance

Well, Sandy, I see that I have betrayed my ignorance. I've never closed a discussion before, and thought I could merely copy some stuff from other pages. Obviously, I didn't know what I was doing. So when I write the words, "The following discussion is preserved as an archive.", am I literally archiving it? Is it the same as the archives that I make on my own talk page? If so, why does it still show up on Wikipedia talk:Lead section? I thought this was just a figure of speech, used when one places a pretty colored box around the discussion to say "Enough already!!" Can you clarify things for me? Unschool 01:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not literally archiving, the bot will do that eventually-- a whole different beast than your talk page archives. But the bot size was set so small that it couldn't accomodate the thread. For some reason, the TOC is gone now ... maybe the hats need to go below the section heading? Not sure ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand (somewhat). As to the TOC being gone, I did that, though now that I think of it, I don't know why. Will suppressing the TOC mess up the bot? Unschool 02:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Images before templates

Hey Sandy, just a quick question about this edit. After skimming WP:ACCESS couldn't find anything about placement of images before this template; the guidelines for the lede section, written in that page and in WP:LEDE#Elements of the lede, appear to mostly say "put images after dablinks and cleanup templates but before navboxes; WP:ACCESS#Images doesn't really seem to say anything about placement (other than where images should be relevant to section headers), but is more about stuff like alt-text and prose descriptions. In this case, I had the image below the {{SpecialChars}} box, which is what I usually do (as per Template:SpecialChars/doc) to make the notice about character rendering support easy to find (since rendering support is also an accessibility issue).

Anyway, in this case it's not a very big deal because there's hardly any difference between the two versions. I was just wondering if you could point me to a relevant guideline about placement of images and {{SpecialChars}} or similar templates, in case this comes up again (since a lot of articles I write use this template at the top of the article). Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to me (by all means, change it back if you want), but my read on ACCESS was always that images come before templates. Maybe you can ask Graham87 (talk · contribs) if he cares (screenreader)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I mentioned it to him there. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

For a change

I see you get nothing but complaints, so thank you Sandy for promoting the 1946 article. It was a very difficult article to write, just because so many of the sources were vague and sometimes inconsistent, and it was much harder than the Senate article. As I can find little on the 1948 race (Nixon won it by winning both major party primaries), that should be it on Nixon congressional election articles. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Links

i have read that policy. it states that "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." that's why i added the links on other articles, which were then removed by jbmurray. the only reason he gave on the summaries was that it was a red link... so? on the notabilty question, i agree with what you said, but many afds start b/c someone says x article is an orphan. that's why i said it's a never ending cycle. still, what worries me the most is that jbmurray removed the link based on the fact that it was red... (which is clearly not a policy i've ever read)--camr ^nag 23:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Closure request

Is it possible to close this FAC? I am the nominator. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 12:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I will get it when I go through later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My research skillz

Sandy Sandy, you should know I am paid to be a researcher. I can find just about anything. :P

[2], [3], and [4], among others, where you request stubs. :P Seems like you have some kind of evil campaign to promote the creation of content or something! For shame! :P Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

July 2006 is quite a ways to go back to find "evidence" of my trangression. I was a new editor then: I was wrong. On Mt. Tam, the term is never defined in the article, and stubbifying it would be better than defining it in the article (that is exactly the sort of redlink that could be stubbified, as opposed to the redlinks at Icos, where full context is given and blueifying those links is unnecessary). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Sandy, I wasn't being serious. :P Anyway, in looking I found a lot of complaints against red links. Was there ever a discussion on WT:FAC to set a standard? And I don't like redlinks simply because I am the only one apparently interested in this specific topic and I don't like how they constantly nag me. Redlinks are uppity buggers. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I know you were kidding; I saw the emoticon. But since many people follow my talk, I have to clarify. Yes, there have been many discussions at WT:FAC; every time it comes up, I try to encourage others to dispel this notion about redlinks each time it comes up, but I often end up being the only one doing it. There are multiple discussions in archives; the guidance has always been clear recently (clearly, I was wrong back in 2006). Redlinks, as in the example of Icos (to clearly notable articles, which don't affect the comprehensive of this article) should be encouraged, as that is how new articles get written. 15:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, more accurately redlinks with intriguing enough titles that people do some research to see if anything with such a bizarre name actually existed is how new articles get written. – iridescent 15:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ah, aaarticleHistory

Question: do you think there is any way of getting people to use {{ArticleHistory}} correctly, at least most of the time? The instructions have always seemed clear enough to me, but I'm baffled by the amount of trouble users have implementing it correctly. Speaking of educational content, what happened to the Dispatch workshop? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the ah errors come from the GA process (the rest are vandalism, which is easily reverted), and for reasons beyond my comprehension, I haven't been able to make a dent in getting them to deal with it, or even to encourage editors to scroll to the bottom of the talk page to watch for the red error cat when done. Don't know what to do there unless you can be successfull at getting the GA process on board, and to have some sort of clearing house or checking process. I no longer have time to fix all the GA ah errors, I just revert 'em. On the Dispatches, they were my pride and joy, I busted my arse over them, and no one else noticed or cared, and few helped, so I let them go. And no one seemed to care :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

GA reviewers are all incompetent fools who ought not to be allowed to use any templates at all, so what do you expect? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As this topic came from something I did, I request this conversation go into long detail about what kind of fools GA reviewers are. --Moni3 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm one too Moni, although I often wonder why I bother. I was being ironic. As I'm typing this the song "What kind of fool am I" has started playing in my head ... don't feel sorry for me, I'm quite enjoying it. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer Elvis' "A Fool Such as I". Pardon me if I'm sentimental. --Moni3 (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

All GA has to do (since my proposal long ago for some sort of clearing house was rejected) is two things: 1) remind reviewers that they don't have to update the {{articlehistory}} template if they're not familiar with its workings-- all they have to do is leave the data in GA templates and someone else can do ah; or 2) if they do update ah, when finished, they should scroll to the bottom of the talk page to see if the red error cat is lit. It's simple !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

ITN

Hi. A couple of days ago we had a discussion about primary sources on ITN. Just two days ago, we got a nomination regarding a new species of rat discovered in Papua. The discussion makes me a bit careful regarding scientific topics so I'd appreciate some feedback from you at ITN/C at that item. Cheers. --Tone 07:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Moni's talk page

Sandy, my motivation is simply that Moni is the one who is sailing close to the wind re WP:LEGAL. I'm bringing that to Moni's attention and that's all. The blog referred to is a fraud and all efforts are being made to stop it's distribution. I assume that people representing Amanda are trying to get it removed from the Internet completely. The bottom line on that is that the blog concerned is a complete and utter lie. Further to your observation about Amanda's notability - Amanda was also featured on CNN itself. Twice. The first time in January 2007 during Sanjay Gupta's time (whenever that is) and again on Autism Awareness Day in early April 2008. If it helps, she's also making an appearance in Nashua in New Hampshire later this month (don't have the dates in front of me at present or the exact location - it was a university off the top of my head). GetDumb 12:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I flirting with disaster? How excellent. I shall do it again, and posting here on Sandy's page, btw, will bring all sorts of attention to this issue. The subject, Amanda Baggs, is an Autism activist. I was directed to her article by another editor who pointed out bot-deleted edits of external links that are blogs. People who claim to be in Baggs' past are saying she has made up her Autism stories and symptoms. As she gained her fame via YouTube, and I am the primary author of the Munchausen by Internet article, I was poking around to see if there had been any reliable sources about her, but no. Instead, there are simply the blog posts, which I am unable to link here because they are forbidden. If you Google "Amanda Baggs fraud" the top two blogs are the ones I am referring to. Try to post them here and it is not allowed. That is what I am protesting. Editors are allowed to direct others to the information by taking an extra step. Wikipedia forbids the link, and thereby, attempts to forbid discussion of the subject on talk pages. Yet here we are on the second talk page, still discussing it. Not if she is really a fraud, which for posterity I will restate that I really don't care, but the fact that links are not allowed for editors to ascertain their own ideas and opinions. --Moni3 (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Moni, for the MBI article, take a look at the quote at the end of the "Controversial speculation" section of People speculated to have been autistic; that should give you a fruitful line of research for the MBI article. Asperger's by internet may find a place in the MBI article if you follow up on it; Maralia or Eubulides may be able to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I just read that NYT article about the propensity to attribute Asperger's to everyone who was ever kooky. Such a need we have to label something, as if to label it makes it understood better. While I was working with gifted programs, I supervised the application and testing process for over 900 students a year. Clearly most of them did not qualify, and while some did on achievement alone (hurmph), some others still were tiny walking enigmas. Second graders so obsessed with sprinkler heads that they stole their neighbor's and slept with their favorite ones under their pillows. Third graders obsessed with vacuum cleaners. First graders who had deep interpersonal relationships with the moon and would hold complex conversations with it. Sensory integration disorder. Asperger's. Bipolar. Still with so many labels the education system has no idea what to do with kids who relate on different levels than everyone else. Regardless, I need a source to say that MBI is present in these folks. It does not appear that the people themselves are claiming to have something in order to manipulate others or get attention. --Moni3 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too know of many personal (anecdote) cases, including right here on Wiki, but finding a reliable source may be challenging. I suspect that there will eventually be one, though, particularly wrt Asperger's ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A point to consider, Sandy. If the person concerned (Moni's reference to each grade) has a formal diagnosis - that's not MBI.

I now have the link for that appearance by Amanda I referred to earlier;

Look for 4pm on Friday GetDumb 09:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it awesome you can link to an off-Wiki site from Sandy's talk page? Wouldn't it be even awesomer if you could link to all sites from Sandy's page? That way, people could be well-informed and make up their own minds instead of an unknown entity making it up for them. --Moni3 (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What's more awesome is that I can psot to you from 35,000 feet with wireless access on the plane ! I just had to say hi, and confess that I have no idea what use that link is :) Amanda Baggs is talking at a conference ... and ? Anyway, I strongly recommend that GetDumb post elsewhere, as I'm not interested in legal threats or issues being furthered on my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Who's issuing legal threats? No one, Sandy. I gave you the link because I believe it may help the notability issues you claim exist with Amanda Baggs, and for no other reason. And Moni's last comment is not helping this whole thing so I don't really blame you, Sandy, for wanting the thing to end here. Hope I've cleared that up and await a view on the link (as to if it helps - and if not why not. You are welcome to respond on my talk page if you don't want it here. GetDumb 02:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking at an event does not make one notable. Notability, in the Wikipedia sense, is bestowed when one is the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. (The link you provided does not constitute significant coverage, and it is a self-published website, not an independent source.) And yes, you have at the very least been skirting the boundary of violating the no legal threats policy by continually proclaiming that including something in the article violates laws/court cases/etc. I very, very strongly encourage you to read, ponder, and in some way develop a greater understanding of Wikipedia's core policies before you get yourself in trouble. Karanacs (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment isn't helping? My last comment there is fairly much the entire reason for my protest. You don't seem to understand that, GetDumb. I don't want a vague entity, an admin somewhere on Wikipedia, to decide for me what links are Good links and which are Bad links. God only knows their decision process. This is the only instance of a link being forbidden on a talk page I have ever seen. Christ, once I followed a link off of Iridescent's talk page to find a video of a couple of hoods murdering a poor guy. My mistake, as it stayed with me for days. I've followed source links to pornography sites, showing images of flagrante in numerous positions and in vivid color. Yet a blog is inaccessible!? And quite frankly, it makes no sense at all since I just told everyone how to find the information to skirt the inconvenience. How in God's name are some folks' opinions about an activist I had never heard of more disturbing that a man getting bludgeoned to death with a hammer? --Moni3 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The decision has been made, Moni. Accept it and move on. That should be the end of the subject on Sandy's talk page. If you want to continue it - my talk page or not at all. GetDumb 10:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the inspiration to take this further. Off to widely read noticeboards I go. --Moni3 (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC is working well (IMO)

I've been doing some updating on my older FAs (alt text, repairing drive-by edits, that sort of thing). Looking at these articles, it is clear that even in 18 months or so, FA standards have risen significantly. Reviewers are demanding more, and rightly so; the process may be imperfect, but the general quality of articles passing the FA barrier is a lot higher than it was. And in my view it's still rising. This has occurred on your watch, so take credit for that. Best wishes Brianboulton (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful input, Brian; coming from you, it means a lot. Of course, I happen to agree that the current crop of FAs are generally (with some exceptions) getting very good review from our hard-working reviewers, who really deserve all the credit, frequent complaints notwithstanding! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ping

You have email. Colin°^Talk 20:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

PANDAS

Speaking bluntly (as a friend should) can you please dial it down just a notch? This new editor seems to understand the topic pretty well and be willing to work constructively with others, it would be a pity to lose them. I know there has been a aggravating history with this article and some pretty cranky editors buzzing about, but this guy doesn't seem to me to be somebody I would worry about. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Now he seems willing, but it took some major chop-busting to get him to even read talk, guidelines and policy, and I do hope he'll read *all* of the research, not just selective pieces. (I do have to take some difference with the notion that he knows the topic well; it's a very complex topic-- as you know-- in which very few people and almost no Wiki editors are well versed, and he makes enough misstatements that I don't suspect he knows the full body of research.) I expect a change will occur in the editing now, and hope the article won't be damaged as it was by the other recent rounds of tendentious or biased editing. PANDAS borders on being a fringe-y topic that attracts tendentious editing, and I regret that I'm unable to devote enough time to full answers now because of my travel. I know that with you, Colin and Eubulides looking in, the article should stay sound. Thanks for the note, Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look back in the history. I've been spending far too much time recently trying to describe an interesting group called the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine in dispassionate, impeccably-sourced and completely accurate terms. Prompted by legal objections. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know ... I saw that mess, and it's a real biggie, and really unfair to you. Although PANDAS may seem low-profile in relation to that, the hypothesis has an enormous impact on children's health, through unproven and experimental treatments that internet-armed and desperate parents are willing to buy into (I think I ripped off that phrase from Swerdlow, but it could have been Singer or Kurlan or Yale, since they all say pretty much the same thing), and by extension, affects the health of all of us via the overuse of unnecessary antibiotics to treat alleged cases of PANDAS. It's not an unimportant article, and we need to get it right. Because it's such a complex and difficult hypothesis to prove, and hard to understand, it has always been a topic that attracts parents desperate for a "cure" for a genetic condition. Knowing PANDAS inside and out takes a lot of reading; I do not get the impression this editor has a thorough understanding, but I do think he's a good faith editor that can make helpful contributions if he reads the research and learns Wiki policies. The primary sources are so riddled with easy-to-spot methodological issues that even I can pick them out, but Kurlan and Singer have done a good job of unpacking the problems with all of the primary sources supporting the PANDAS hypothesis. And, I'm worried that Buster23 gets enough things subtly wrong that might not be noticed in my absence ... but there's nothing I can do about when I've got to pack. Thanks, Tim ... good luck with that other mess. I know my commentary there has been scattered because I'm trying to get out the door, but it's frustrating to see that article coming apart again, with many blatant and subtle errors, when I won't have access to my file drawer full of PANDAS papers ... I must have about five dozen of them by now. I'll try to find time to print the new ones tonight and read them on the plane, but I'm unsure if I'll even be able to peek in over the next few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wind

Hi Sandy, I really think wind should not be a FA. I've fixed a few of the more blatant factual errors (e.g., these) but there still are too many mistakes for a FA. The writing also is rough in spots. I'm really sorry to have to say this because some people have obviously put a lot of work into the article and I don't want them to feel bad, but the article really isn't up to the mark. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering that the article was promoted recently, I would strongly recommend taking it to the talk page if possible. If you really think it is nowhere near FA level though, you can submit it to WP:FAR. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Be specific about the article's errors. Point out examples. I believe they mention finer points of article review within the good article nomination/reviewing page. So far, the errors "fixed" within this article are extremely minor points which don't change the meaning of the article in the least. It's not as if the article said the death of the dinosaurs caused wind to exist. As for winds on other planets, even the other referenced articles within wikipedia disagree as to how strong the winds are, since only four planets have been surveyed more than once (Mars, Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn). The wikipedia and NASA references for winds on other planets can be contradictory, due to the limited data collected on other planets compared to the Earth. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your (friendly) TPSers

308, to be exact. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a cool tool. Apparently 76 people are watching mine...I don't know who they all are :( Karanacs (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Me, me, and 52 others of me. --Moni3 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What? I have 62... that can't be right. But I'm one of those TPS'ers. ceranthor 01:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also an (amateur) TPS, yet here I am with 27 of my own. Considering that nothing ever happens on my talk page, and I am only now emerging from a ten-month semi-Wikibreak, it is quite odd.

I do think that one must consider the number of watchers who have retired, their watchlists frozen in time for, well, none to see, really.

I also wonder whether, in my case, any of them is actually watching my user page. :-P Waltham, The Duke of 13:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, I have 172 watchers; however, I have been informed that there are two reasons for this. The first, that there is a great deal of potential for drama on my page, is a sad reflection on the reality of Wikipedia. The second, that posting on my page will result in a holiday greeting from me, made me laugh. I am hoping that more people are there for the latter reason than the former, but that's just the Pollyanna in me. Risker (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This comes in quite useful. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Crown Fountain FAC 4

The image reviewer for Crown Fountain has suggested consolidating the main image and an additional video into a single fair use image by replacing the former with the latter. Is it Kosher to have an .ogg as the main image for a WP:FA? Is there precedent?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. it may be good for the preserving the record if you put your opinion on this matter directly on the FAC discussion page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ponte Vecchio

Please see Talk:Ponte_Vecchio#Undoing_the_compromise? ... it has been suggested that the article be returned to a more standard format, as it has been a year since the compromise. Your participation may be helpful. ++Lar: t/c 12:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Would appreciate advice

Hi Sandy, I have another article ready for FAC, but I'm wondering about dear old Stanley Green, as I recall we're not allowed to have two FACs running at once. If that's still the case, do you think I should give up on Stanley? There's no enthusiasm for it, and there's not much I can do to fix it, because I think I've exhausted the sources. Or do you think I should ask those who commented whether they have suggestions for improvement within the limits of the current sources? I don't want to look as though I'm badgering them, but I also don't want to give up if there's still a reasonable chance. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Green has been up almost three weeks, and has attracted nothing, but ... I'm not sure why we have the Urgents template if we're not using it. This is exactly the sort of FAC I would add to the template, but I grew tired of maintaining it. *If* it had been up at Urgents for a week, and still had no feedback, I'd be inclined to close it ... since it hasn't been up on Urgents, I'm not sure what the best course of action is. Maybe add it to Urgents and see if anything changes soon ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Green has one support (one review). That is more than Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ode on Indolence/archive1, which is older. The rain is finally clearing up, so I can perform some reviews. I'll see how the page looks tonight. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, Sandy, I'll add it. And thanks for offering to look, Ottava. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have long felt that if no one is going to systematically use and update the Urgents template, we should MfD it. Reviewers think it's being used, and don't review articles until they show up there, but there are always dozens that should be listed there, yet when I updated it, I felt like reviewers just waited for me to add FACs there. I'd love to MfD it, and let reviewers take responsibility for the fact that FACs sit there for three weeks with no review, then Karanacs and I get beaten up for closing them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll always get your head chewed anyways... them's the perks of the job... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to thank you for your advice about this, Sandy. I had almost given up on it, yet now it's been (very helpfully) reviewed and promoted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC urgent

What goes on User:Deckiller/FAC urgents? Is it possible to add Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crown Fountain/archive4?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Per Karanacs (talk · contribs), I have added it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Gone again this weekend...

It's art festival time so will be on the road again this weekend, although will have some internet in the evenings. Both you and Karan know what to do if something I've commented on is taken care of but I've not marked it out, feel free to disregard. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Our dear Dr Johnson

24.5k page views today. Interesting? 36.9k for the main biography. :) I think it was a good call all the way around. Quark had a similar bump (actually, a better one). But Stanford Memorial Church or Harbhajan had just normal main page hits (20-25k instead of 30k+ jumps). :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, stop making me feel bad. My pride and joy got merely 11,000 on its main page date. ceranthor 01:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your article didn't fall on a school day in which hundreds of Universities were holding various events on the subject. :P You can see the gap between the early life and the main Johnson page that about 12.5k people came in that didn't look at the early life but went to Johnson. That suggests that about 12,500 people may have looked at Johnson on Wiki because they came -to- look at Johnson on Wiki for the event. Cool stuff. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC urgents (again, and again, and again)

I'm going to take responsibility for updating the FAC urgents list. What would you like to be on it? Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Sandy should be permanently listed as the third slot position on the "FACs needing feedback" list. ;/ Ottava Rima (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Sandy should be in the first slot of the unwritten list of People who should be admins and are too stubborn to accept a nomination. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I'd like to see that turnout. 900/0/0? :) ceranthor 22:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we were able to get Aitias desysopped through an RfC that basically said "Arbcom, desysop him", I wonder what would happen if we had a petition stated "Jimbo, sysop her" and get over 300 signatures? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Makes me think about how an RfA in January or March would turn out for me. Or how Malleus's will turn out. :D ceranthor 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Train-wreck comes to mind for mine. Many have it in their heads that I've decided to try and make some kind of as yet unspecified point, which is to simplify my real motivation to the point of absurdity. Why would anyone in their right mind submit to the ritualised humiliation that RfA has become ... ah, I begin to see the flaw in my argument now. :lol: In truth though I won't be the one making the point; it'll be those who oppose who make their points, no doubt quite vociferously. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. Your comments are welcome, as well, Malleus. ceranthor 00:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Just in case there's any doubt, I didn't mean to imply that you were a few pence short of a pound just because you're thinking of putting yourself forward at RfA early next year Ceranthor. Take the advice that I never could and I'm sure you'd be fine: keep your head down, don't upset any influential editors—don't upset anybody is even better—always try to be ever so 'umble, and if you ever feel that you absolutely must disagree with another editor be sure to preface your remarks "with respect". As happens in the Commons daily: "With the greatest of respect Mr Speaker, it must surely be obvious, even to Right Honourable gentlemen opposite, that the Secretary of State has enjoyed rather too good a lunch." So much classier than saying "He's drunk, and has no idea what he's talking about." --Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

For someone like you, Malleus, it should come as common knowledge that in considering to apply at RfA, one must be thick-skinned. So no. Additionally, the answer to that question you asked me the other day is yes. ceranthor 01:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I asked you a question? I'm getting old Ceranthor; I don't remember anything that happened more than seven seconds ago ... hang on ... wtf am I replying to here? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It rhymes with time. ceranthor 01:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

THANK YOU, Awadewit. Generally, after I promote/archive I look at the bottom 10 articles and see which ones don't have enough feedback yet to help us make a decision. We try not to include articles that haven't had the image check yet or have serious sourcing issues. Any articles in that bottom 10 that have no declarations (or no comments at all), or have 1 or 2 supports and few other comments would be good candidates. Again, THANK YOU! Karanacs (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you so much. As Karanacs said. I don't add anything that has serious unresolved issues, because there's no point in having others look in if serious things have already been raised and are not addressed, but I used to add anything that had been up more than 10 days and didn't have enough info or feedback for closers to make a decision. While you're looking, if you see FACs that are very close but haven't had an image review, it would be great if you also added those on WT:FAC. Thanks again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I was already doing the 10-day thing - I'll try to remember everything else, too! Awadewit (talk) 03:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sound editing

I've made a fairly comprehensive how-to on sound editing. It can be found here:

Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Episode_48

Can I also get it run in the Signpost? It, of course, is helpful to WP:FSC Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 206 FCs served} 00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick FAC query

Sandy, sorry if you're busy, but I'd like to ask about a current nomination of mine. The sole opposer thus far has raised a series of issued, but has stated that they do not intend to follow-up. Should I nonetheless continue working to address their concerns? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If you think the concerns are valid, please work on them and leave notes about what fixes you made. If you think the concerns are not valid, please say so on the FAC page. We'll read over them even if they aren't unstruck. Karanacs (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree w/Karanacs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Curly quotes

Hi there. A question regarding this edit... Why were the curly quotes incorrect? --Doradus (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MOSQUOTE; curly quotes are not recommended. Karanacs (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! --Doradus (talk) 21:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Mozart too

Did you know Mozart had it too? One wonders how Wolfie managed to compose any music at all, given that he had every disease known to medicine. (Except housemaid's knee of course.) Eubulides (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good gosh. Simkin again ? He missed already on the TS, now he can make more money on another book with a new topic. <groan> ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station

Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Peer Review as to whether you feel your original comments have been dealt with, if you see any new issues with the article, and whether or not you believe the article will meet the criteria for Featured Article status. Any new comments you have would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at Bsimmons666's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I am not worth a response? Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandy's traveling and her internet access is very uncertain. Don't take a lack of reply for a slight, it's more likely she either had very little time or overlooked your note in her hurry. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Sandy is on vacation... I would suppose she missed your comment? :) ceranthor 00:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast responses. I noticed Sandy was traveling. However, the traveling template at the top of this page was there at the time she left the note on my talk page. Furthermore, she has made two content edits, as well as one edit to this talk page since I left her my response. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Bsimmons666 ... I saw your response, have limited connectivity, was unsure what it meant, and didn't have time to investigate further. All I wanted to know is if fuuuuuuuuuu means f you, and I gather it doesn't? In that case, I hope my query is settled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response as well; I didn't see it when I responded to Ealdgyth and Ceranthor. I'm glad you now understand that what I wrote was not a personal attack. However, I do wish we could give Overman Committee another look, because I still believe it was unjustly closed. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but reviewers are lacking at FAC and when the page gets backlogged, FACs end up closed without consensus to promote. The only solution to that is more reviewers, and I'm beginning to wonder if we shouldn't ask nominators to do more reviews, as the few reviewers who do frequent FAC can't always keep up (as in all content review processes). FACs such as yours usually make it through fine the next time through, so I do hope you'll be encouraged to bring it back after a reasonable time, and help out with reviews at FAC. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a similar problem for anyone else, but the reason I didn't review any articles after nominating Overman Committee (or do any GA reviews after nominating my first one at GAN) was because I too afraid that I would getting something wrong. FAC feels just too WP:CREEPy and I don't want to accidentally sink someone's nomination. On the other hand, places where there are fewer rules, like WP:Peer review, I've done multiple reviews. Also, I don't see why the article would do any better a second time through. There's no reason it would get any more comments than it already did. Anyway, thanks for being so understanding. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Try and recruit collaborators. There are very few who can marshall an article through FAC on their own. It's a tough gig, everyone needs help. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No article I nominate is a complete work by myself and myself alone. I try hard to get folks to look over everything prior to bringing it to FAC. (Right now I'm begging for help on the next possible FAC nominee and have the following one up at Peer Review...) I assume I'll need at least two other editors to review an article in depth before I put it up to FAC, and really prefer to have five or six look it over for things I've missed. And that's for "small topics". Big topics (like Thoroughbred) take a whole pile of editors to work it over. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not like the article has any problems. It just didn't have enough reviewers. Bsimmons666 (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

People tend to review articles they know will be solid or review articles at the top of the list. I believe you said it wasn't an interesting topic, maybe that's why the FAC didn't garner comments. Regardless, I repeat what Ealdgyth said, but I stress that you get some good reviewers to do some work and give you feedback. ceranthor 01:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand. However, my point is that lack of reviews should not be a reason to close a FAC. Especially when the FAC in question had a grand total of zero opposes. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with you completely. However, since FAC has such a lack of reviewers (enormous lack), it's only logical that we archive the requests which aren't being reviewed. It's not really fair, but they can only improve that way and so the next time around, they'll pass easily. ceranthor 01:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, at least. Thanks for putting up with all my bitching complaints. Bsimmons666 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

For when you get back

Hi Sandy. I hope that you are not following FAC very closely right now (for heaven's sake, save the dial-up for important topics!). Just to fill you in, there are two nominations that I'm COId from closing. These are:

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/First Roumanian-American congregation/archive2 (I commented)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Alamo/archive1 (I nominated)

Time permitting, I may review a few more at the end of the week so we can move some of those at the bottom of the list. Karanacs (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I could close them. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for everything, Karen! No, I haven't been able to follow closely because of my slow and sporadic connections. I was able to keep up with my watchlist, though, so I should be able to get up to speed quickly on FAC on Thursday when I'm home. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The first one looks pretty obvious... too lazy to look at the second one right now. ceranthor 19:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nvm, it's obvious too. ceranthor 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ode on Indolence/archive1 (sorry). Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Karen. I'm on my way home, but don't want to try to promote from the wifi in flight ... too many tabs open ... I'll look at those three as soon as I'm settled at home. If there are others, pls let me know, so I can clear out some of the backlog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be promoting some later tonight - busy day today. Karanacs (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked ... does that mean that Awadewit's maintenance of the Urgents is working? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is too early to tell. Some of these have been on the urgents list a long time. Karanacs (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just checking here...

But in regards to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879/archive2, we've never required location information, right? Publisher is required, but not location, or such has been my understanding. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's always been my understanding too. Karanacs (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's never been required, but I'm not familiar with the validity of the argument made by the reviewer ... it's not that hard to find a source without the location, is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. And really, location is less important to us than publisher is. And the academic conventions on this aren't quite as cut and dried as its made to be. It's usually up to the publisher of the book/journal to set what standards they want, and there are a few that don't do locations. Location is helpful, but publisher is much MORE helpful for us as far as WP:V and all that. Just saying "London" without the publisher isn't going to give us an idea if the publisher is reliable usually. He's arguing for "academic usage" but the most common academic usage is to leave off the publisher ... which won't work for us. I think we're fine with what we've got and it's never been required before. Yeah, it's not hard to do, but I do think we're getting a bit too much "do this because I said so" going on with some of this formatting stuff, so I felt it was time to step in a bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

They've been added anyway, and the only other controversy is the bit about the large letter there. Or are you recusing yourself as you commented in the FAR? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What FAR? I was commenting on an FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879/archive2. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

YM is referring to my comments in the almost three-year old FAR. I'm home now, but haven't had time to read through everything yet. But I hope/suppose the issues that I raised in that FAR have been addressed (there was no source for several long quotes, IIRC). I won't be able to get up to speed until tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

there's no need to recuse because the way-old FAR has almost no citations at all, and has been expanded by about 30% as well. The only thing that is the same is the giant quotes YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My say

[5] (since I mention our editing history, you might want to know that your name may come up). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)