User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch69

Protection of Main Page article

Do you have any thoughts on whether or not the current Main Page article wife selling ought to be semi-protected? Has consensus changed about this? See here and here. Paul August ☎ 20:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I do. As someone who's had to spend the entire main page day when one of the articles i"ve worked on is on the main page, I'm all in favor of semi-protection. Most of the time, IP edits are just vandalism at that point. If they do see something that needs fixing, it can be brought up on the main page. Certainly, it's easy to tell when school lets out in the US, as the IP vandalism ratchets up on the main page article. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection, which has been cited in related discussions today, is only a guideline. If people think that vandalism is too high and risks degrading the article, as some clearly did, they are allowed to use initiative. Nev1 (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's always amazed me that the examples of wikipedia's "best work" almost always contain the word "penis", even if only for a few minutes. Does that really make sense? Wouldn't new editors be more likely to contribute if they saw that the work of others wasn't vandalised? Malleus Fatuorum 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well at lead the English WP's "best work" only contains the word "penis" for a few minutes. The German WP, on the other hand... Colin°^Talk 16:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The guideline against MP protection is just one of a set of WP guidelines that seem to have the effect of facilitating destruction and vandalism. Many RC patrollers routinely go through four vandal warnings, so some vandals don't jump IPs until they get that 4th warning. At least four bits of vandalism and reverts before WP:AIV knows about it. "Anyone can edit" - even IPs who have vandalized in the last few minutes? If the "system" facilities or encourages certain behaviour, then that behaviour isn't likely to change until the system is changed. Gimmetrow 22:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Query

Hi Sandy, hope your spring is going well! I've set my mind to attempting to bring David A. Johnston to FA in time for the 30th anniversary of his death (and the eruption). It will need a lot of work in a very short time and will therefore require skill greater than mine. I've already pinged Awickert; do you have any other suggestions for copyeditors, technical specialists, etc.? I've never really done a "speedy" FAC before, but I would really, really like to do this in memory of the 60 or so people, including Johnston, who died in St. Helen's catastrophic eruption. Thanks, ceranthor 23:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Mav might be willing/able to help on that page-- ping him in! Always glad to see Awickert on board, and Ceranthor, your editing has certainly matured over the years-- you make me proud :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to believe I've been a part of Wikipedia for a little over three years now. Thank you very much; that means a lot to me. I will be sure to ping Mav! ceranthor 15:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you! :)

I saw you post to the 3r/edit warring page. You'd think they'd make it easier wouldn't you! :) The reporting a sock puppet page is just as bad to me. Keep up the good work Sandy. We don't have contact but I do see you around quite a bit plus have been given you as a reference for certain things to ask about in the past from another editor WLU who has great respect for you and I for the both of you. I hope you are well, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It's always good to hear from you and WLU, even if I'm less active-- gosh, I hate that page-- can they make it any harder to report an obvious 3RR to get them blocked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I liked it better before they added all these different boards to go to. Before, if I remember correctly, you could go to AN/I or AN and say what was happening with difs and boom, it was taken care of. Seems a lot simplier to me. :) Have you ever tried to report a sock? It's just as bad. Thanks for your kind words, you have no idea how much it's appreciated. :) --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thou

You might wanna take a look here. I'm snipping out some material that I don't think belongs, and I think that Johnbod is being unnecessarily snippy about his wholesale reversions. Look at the rant he unloaded at the FAR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Dropping by to say hello... you seem as busy as ever on here - I'd like to know where you find the time. Though I haven't really edited in awhile, I've still been on Wikipedia and keeping an eye on things. Seems like there's a lot of new faces around, and some of the old ones are still around. LuciferMorgan (talk) 13:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Until I saw your post on Ceoil's page, I didn't realize you were around again! Good to see you! Less and less new faces, more and more editors giving up and leaving, but ... on the upside ... now some of those old faces are friendlier than they were in earlier days :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope those old faces are friendlier, though judging by your work to your sandbox in terms of building a case so to speak, it seems discontent is still rife on Wikipedia. Surprised you haven't been driven away yet... 23:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Closing the Nobel Prize FA Page

Hello! I recently nominated Nobel Prize for FA but during the review I noticed it will need a peer review. So I am asking if you could close the nomination (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nobel Prize/archive2) for me? Thanks, Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Done, hope to see you back at FAC soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) I get help from some more experienced editors now so hopefully it will be back and pass soon enough. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Spring gardening

I have been busy in my garden too. These are for you.

To Sandy, thank you for the thousands of hours that you have generously given to Wikipedia.

Graham Colm (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Graham, you are such a dear, and always cheer me at the most appropriate times. The flowers are lovely and I really appreciate them. Thank you so much and Happy spring !!!

But, where oh where has our Eubulides gone, and how will we get by without him?

Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tell me honestly

Do you think that I'm a mysoginist, or that I treat women or feminism topics unfairly? I've laboured under the delusion that I've had at least as productive relationships with female editors as male, and I'd be mortified if anyone accused me of being sexist here on wikipedia; there's no sex barrier to my scorn for stupidity, or admiration for cleverness.

Here's the deal. If you publicly state that I'm not a woman hater, then I promise to write an article on husband selling – one day. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 23:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that some people didn't read the article and have no sense of humor. Wife selling let the wife out of a lousy marriage! Who's gonna complain about that? Don't write an article about husband selling-- Just Do It! I'll even let you keep half the profit, if you can make one! To the best of my knowledge, you are not a woman hater ... but then, I saw what you wrote long ago on WR about your wife ... I could be biased :) And I'm not the best person to ask ... I like having doors opened for me, chairs pulled out for me, and someone to help me with my coat ... in spite of my ball-busting career days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thing is, as I can attest from my study of 18th-century humor, people don't really agree on what is humorous and certainly, what is humorous doesn't remain constant over time. Perhaps some of us are arguing for a change in what is considered funny in relation to women. Here are a couple of examples of 18th-century jokes that most 21st-century readers no longer consider funny.

Ex 1: A Woman prosecuted a Gentleman for a Rape; upon the Trial the judge ask'd her, if she made any Resistance? I cry'd out, an't please your Lordship, said the Woman. Ay, said on e of the Witnesses, but that was nine Months after.

Ex 2: One Easter Monday, an arch Rogue meeting a blind Woman who was crying Puddings and Pies, taking her by the Arm said Coome along with me Dame, I am going to Moorfields, where this Holliday-time, you may Chance to meet with good Custom. Thank'e kindly, Sir, says she. Whereupon he conducted her to Cripplegate Church, and placed her in the middle Isle. Now, says he, you are in Moorfields: which she believing to be true, immediately cried out, Hot Puddings and Pies! Hot Puddings and Pies! come their all Hot! &c which caused the whole Congregation to burst out in a loud Laughter, and the Clerk came and told her she was in a Church: You are a lying son of a Whore, says she. Which so enraged the Clerk, that he dragged her out of the Church: she cursing and damning him all the while, nor would she believe him 'till she heard the Organs play.

If 21st-century readers don't laugh at these jokes, does that mean they don't have a sense of humor? I don't think so. I think it just helps to illustrate how humor is rarely intrinsic and constantly changing. Awadewit (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I see it differently-- there are two different issues: the way we try to dupe readers with our April Fools blurb (which was extremely successful this year, since many missed the point-- that it wasn't a hoax), vs. the actual article. I think those who missed the dupe didn't read the article. I don't see an issue of a joke at the expense of women, rather a joke at the expense of ignorant readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think its implied by the tone of the article and the TFA blurb that the idea is farcial to modern eyes. Awadewit is correct though, nothing dates as fast as houmor. Even comics seen as edgy in the 90s are dated now; eg Bill hicks, Steve Coogan; shifting cultural refernece points and the fact that they were diluted through weaker imitations. Ceoil (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Two thoughts:

1. Meh. If people talk bad about you, screw 'em. It's a key motto in my life.
2. But discretion is the better part of valor, no sense borrowing trouble, insert similar platitude. I personally wouldn't do a similar article again if I had been accused of misogyny etc. because of that one, simply because I wouldn't want people's malicious imaginations to begin to believe they see a trend (once is an incident, twice is coincidence, thrice is conspiracy, etc.) • Ling.Nut 14:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got absolutely no intention of doing a similar article again, there are far too many witch trials and early computers to get through. I just thought it was an interesting bit of almost forgotten history. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

sounds good...yes... I probably should dig up that witch execution anecdote I told you about while back and put it on a relevant pge... • Ling.Nut 14:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Alien Nation

Hi Sandy. I noticed on the discussion page for Alien Nation's FAC, you put in a comment wanting to know who made the fixes/comments. That was me. I'm sorry if I forgot to sign my name. Do you have any other questions? Theatrickal (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, just noticed that on my run through ... please remember to separate and sign your comments, so I know who's doing what on the FAC without going back through the diffs ... thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok! No problem. Yeah, that was me responding to those queries. I had forgotten to put my signature. But I will do so in the future. Thanks. Theatrickal (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow!

I have to say I was expecting, at the best, another week of battling with this. Where the Hell has Moni3 gone? She should be here to take a bow. Malleus Fatuorum 01:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We can't rely on primary sources ... but I suspect y'all can find a way to work that out, with statements like Primary source says x, but secondary source says y. Good luck with that :) Where the hell has Moni gone? I miss Moni like hell ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by FAC?

Not transcluded to WP:FAC, but a pure drive-by which is even admitted in the actual nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cathay Pacific/archive2, also it appears that archive 1 was also a drive-by but it is not in the article history. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Foreign journals

Sandy, it has been my practice at FAC when referencing a foreign language source to give its original title plus a language indicator. I have recently been asked to include a translation of the title (see ref 6, Kirkconnell et al. in Zapata Rail), something I've never done before, and has never been queried. Is there actually a policy on this? I don't mind doing it, but I'm not sure it's necessary. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary, and it's rarely requested or done, but WP:NONENG does say "When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors ... ", so there is a basis for the request. If someone asks for it, it doesn't hurt to supply it, but it shouldn't be considered essential. In this particular case, I find it kind of strange, since the translation is so simple and uncontroversial, but I could be biased because I speak Spanish ... it's the Japanese ones that get me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak Spanish, and even I could translate the title. A good point about less accessible languages though. Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject NINES and 18th Connect

I thought you would be interested in this. Like all things academic, it will move slowly. Awadewit (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No personal attacks!

Please, stop your personal attacks! Nothing good can come of this behaviour. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 19:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You might want to rephrase and clarify what it is you want SandyGeorgia to stop doing; there is not a personal attack to be found in that diff. Perhaps "please don't respond every time someone personally attacks you" is what you meant? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that Sandy was responding to a post that specifically characterizing Sandy's behavior negatively, I don't see how calling the previous post a "smear" is a personal attack. Karanacs (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who Antique Rose is but she could benefit from a big dose of clue; I have long said that Nancy should be blocked the next time she makes unfounded charges about Karanacs or me, and continues her failure to AGF or understand adminship or FAC delegacy, but there you have it-- no warning for her to knock it off! Hence, the problem on CC ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Further, now I understand the calls for Sunray to remove himself from participation on CC issues. 19:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in seeing Nancy's response to Sunray. If she refuses to agree to stop making false accusations, then I'm prepared to either open another RfC or take it to AN/I. I'm very, very tired of that nonsense. Karanacs (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm more interested now in seeing Sunray's response to me :) I don't expect a change in heart from Nancy, but I do expect those trying to mediate the dispute to get her to stop doing this. I don't think another RFC is needed, though; this one already pretty clearly calls for Nancy to take a break from the article-- whether any admins will have the guts to enforce that is a different question. When those who are supposed to be helping solve the problems are actually furthering them, Wiki is in a world of hurt! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bully!  :) --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Takes one to know one :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never understood this "personal attack" nonsense, and I doubt I ever will. When did "attack" become a synonym for "comment"? And why are flattering personal comments not equally deprecated? Welcome to the saccharine world of wikipedia, where you're only allowed to say nice things about the idiots around you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That explains why Malleus has never said a nice word about anyone, he is afraid he'll be blocked!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case, we have a personal exemption: one editor can continue lobbing unfounded charges, smearing other editors, but when someone tells her to that behavior needs to stop for the article to advance, it's an "attack"! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have an RFC and you've made your case.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We also have an enormous case of IDidntHearThat, even with a clearcut RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I read it, before starting work on Ashford v. Thornton (possible future FAC). I saw no easy answers.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt simply once again underlines the discrepancy between what administrators get away with and what others are hauled over the coals and blocked for. Is it not a "personal attack" to claim that I have never said a nice word about anyone? It may be true that I've never said a nice word about Wehwalt, but that's only because Wehwalt is an out of control loon who ought to be desysoped. Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm after bigger game, Malleus and have no time to stop for rabbits.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• I keep making the same point – although it unfortunately flies directly against the core impetus of Wikipedia history: the only way around this toxic environment is to exclude some editors from editing. Pick the most unacceptable four from both pro-RCC and anti-RCC... or... whatever you want to name the "factions"... there's that word... and freaking ask them not to edit. Pick six or eight people who represent either both sides or (preferably, but perhaps unrealistically) neither side at all, but who are constructive and civil (and who are skilled enough to tackle a topic so complex) and appoint them as a sort of Trustees Committee. Let them edit. Then... and only then... can progress be made without all the hatin'. But I am a fool, because this painfully obvious solution will never happen. So... what will happen? two possible outcomes:

1. Do you see what we have now? Expect it to continue ad infinitum.
2. Someone blows their stack and gets either topic-banned, or banned outright. That will change the dynamics, but will not solve the systemic problem.

• That's all. • Ling.Nut 05:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Good in theory. Two problems: if the strongest partisans can find supporters to do their work for them, it will not be effective. If some of the partisans are "vested contributors", the contest will not be equal.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, all of this is just chit-chat and a pleasant distraction, because it will never happen. But actually, I was considering something that could be set up to handle cases like this... not just for RCC, but permanently. With a more-or-less (loosely) permanent crew to handle such cases, then putting ringers or vested contributors in the Trustees would be difficult. • Ling.Nut 15:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by FAC

Hi Sandy. Horses in World War I has been drive-by nominated by an editor who has, to my knowledge, never edited the article. The FAC page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horses in World War I/archive1. I have been a main editor on this article, and while it is close to FA quality at the moment, it is not all the way there, still needing a bit of research and final copyediting. I do not have the time to finish the research and polishing work right now, so I request that you remove the nomination. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• For reference: List of editors the nominator isn't on it. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation (season 1)

Hey Sandy. Over at the Parks and Recreation (season 1) FAC, you had made a comment that the prose might still not be quite ready. I wanted to bring the page back to your attention because DocKino, a user noted for his copy editing prowess, gave the article a top-to-bottom, thorough copy edit, to the point that another user who had voiced some prose concerns has now changed his vote to support. I was hoping you could take a quick look and see if he has addressed your concerns as well. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 12:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have an admirer at the BBC

Tickle Cock Bridge and Sandy Balls were two of the answers on Have I Got News for You today, which seems beyond coincidence. Someone, post a jokey double-entendre here and see if it makes it in next week. I note that Tongue of Gangsta is still a redlink (yes, it is a real place, near Nether Button and Mid Ho). – iridescent 21:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not answering 'til you tell me, "What was the question?" And then I'm waiting for Malleus to make a funny, since Moni (on whom we can most count to take this to town) is MIA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Little bit of guidance needed

There are a few psychology articles I'd like to do some work on, but I'm a little confused by the primary/secondary sourcing issue. Cognitive dissonance, for instance, which uses Festinger's papers. Can you summarise the policy on sourcing in words of one syllable, or point me towards what I ought to read before making a fool of myself? Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Only after you display your budding sense of humor by answering Iri above :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching it now, I'll let you know. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It was in the "odd man out" round. They showed pictures of Tickle Cock Bridge, a sausage roll, a Marathon chocolate bar, and the English Channel. The answer was that they'd all had their names changed, except for the English Channel. "Sandy Balls" came up as another site that maybe ought to consider a name change. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, Iri asked for a jokey double-entendre about the two of them appearing on the same show-- you don't really want me to give my views on Sandy Balls and Tickle Cock Bridge in public, do you? Do I need to put my funny hat on? WHERE is Moni when she is needed? Surprise me, Malleus! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that Sandy Balls were never reported under Tickle Cock Bridge. Malleus Fatuorum 00:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the places I could go with that ! Well, I shall just have to struggle on without Moni. OK, here's the deal on psych articles-- they're a mess across the board, because psych editors seem to prefer to rely on what they know (or think they know), or what they see in primary studies, rather than seeking out secondary source high quality reviews, to avoid recentism and undue weight issues. They tend to want to add everything and the kitchen sink in to the articles, particularly primary studies that haven't been replicated or examined by secondary sources. The key is to rely on high quality secondary reviews, as those help avoid recentism, unreplicated primary studies (often based on small samples or poor controls), and keep due weight issues correct. Finding secondary review articles at PubMed is explained at WP:MEDRS-- you can see the extent of the problem in many psych articles, which have extreme lists of sources, because individual editors roll in every primary study in PubMed, rather than writing articles around high quality secondary peer reviews as explained in MEDRS. Is that what you need to know? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bus transport in the Republic of Ireland is looking more tempting by the minute, amirite? – iridescent 00:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It's a different way of thinking about writing psychology articles than I'm used to, but I guess it makes sense for an encyclopedia. Secondary sources, not primary. Got it. Malleus Fatuorum 02:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oopsie, I misspoke-- how to locate secondary reviews is not in MEDRS-- it was explained by Eubulides and TimVickers at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. Yes, it is a different way of writing psych/medical articles, particularly if you know a topic and know what needs to be said (as I did with TS), but one that if you adopt rigorously, will help keep out recentism, cruft, hobby horses, quackery, unreplicated primary studies with small sample sizes or poor controls that haven't been examined by independent reviews, and undue weight to everything and kitchen sink that other editors tend to want to add to psych articles because they read it in the lay press (alto to be avoided!). Secondary reviews give us due weight and discuss the primary studies that enjoy professional consensus, putting them in context. When I first wrote TS, I used primary studies-- because I knew all of the literature and the secondary reviews thoroughly, and I knew which primary studies were widely cited, high quality, and enjoyed professional consensus, and I also knew the drawbacks of each primary source, having read the full text of the journal reports. I could write TS from primary studies, I thought (back then, before MEDRS was written). Once Colin and Eubulides wrote MEDRS, I had to go back and replace all of those primary studies with secondary sources that mentioned them-- wasn't hard to do, since I knew the literature well and had cited primary studies that were mentioned in secondary reviews and had used the studies that enjoyed medical consensus-- but you rarely find that in psych articles. Instead, we find a whole lot of undue weight and recentism, because they weren't built to begin with around high quality secondary reviews that reflect professional consensus. Some of the most troubled psych articles (and some of those are FAs) have hundreds of sources, because they rely on primary studies, and have real problems of recentism and due weight and the use of unexamined primary studies. The articles that Eubulides worked on were scrupulously built from secondary reviews of the highest quality, so when newbie editors with a hobby horse try to add some recent primary study, it was easily dealt with, and "his" articles are clean. Almost everything in the psych realm needs cleanup-- Fainites might be an editor you want to work with-- I'm not aware of many other psych editors who understand how to write these articles correctly, as Eubulides and Colin do. By the way, I once discussed this with G guy, but didn't have time to follow up during the GA sweeps-- most of the medical/psych GAs should not be GA, because they overrely on primary sources, have undue weight and recentism issues, and are lacking the most recent high quality reviews. Something should be done about this at GA-- I started a sandbox somewhere but never found time to help out there. It would be good if GA reviewers were aware of MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• OK, thanks for your guidance. All of the psychology articles I was interested in are choc-a-bloc with primary sources, so I think I'll give them a miss. You know how much I hate any unpleasantness. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Royal National College for the Blind/archive1

I notice the FAC review seems to have been closed as not having been promoted. Just wondering if you've seen this discussion which appears to have given the sources the go-ahead. Thanks Paul Largo (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The nomination had already been up for three weeks, without gaining consensus for promotion-- it's best to get everything in order before bringing it back for a fresh look, as reviewers are unlikely to engage a three-week old nomination when sourcing concerns were expressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, me again. I'm now pretty confident I've managed to verify or change the majority of the sources which were an issue at the FAC. There's now just one outstanding - the Leisure Opportunities Magazine - which, although widely used in the Leisure industry, seems to be less well known on the web. If pressed I can remove this, although I'd personally prefer to keep it as it references some important information. I'll nominate the article again in a day or so (once the required two weeks have passed) and see what sort of response I get. I might also ask again for advice at WP:RSN. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

15-day rule ruling

An issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Michelle Obama/archive2 regarding my eligibility as a nominator given a recent FAC fail. Is it possible to get a consideration of this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TTT, it's important for you to read and understand the FAC rule put in place for just such a situation. Reviewers are worn down by nominators who treat FAC as peer review, bringing article after article to FAC that requires extensive work, and then putting up another nom as soon as the previous one is archived, then bringing back the former nom as soon as that one is archived. FAC is not peer review, and nominators that bring articles that consistently bog down FAC with lengthy reviews-- while giving little back in terms of reviewing other articles-- is precisely what contributes to the backlog. Perhaps you could take advantage of the 15 days to either address the issues in your previous nom, or help out with some much needed reviews of other articles at FAC. Reviewers are stretched, and constantly working to get articles up to snuff for experienced editors who should know the FA standards demoralizes them, wears them down, they get no reward for the work, and it backlogs FAC. FYI, here is the RFC which added this new "rule"; you might want to review Ealdgyth's data to see if any of the FACs mentioned in her data were yours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TTT, I'm confused - are you saying you want to renominate an article that you admitted you did not have time to properly research? You said you didn't have time to read the published books - if you don't have time to do the work, don't nominate the article. Awadewit (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Scripts

Scripts seem to broken right now. There was an update to mediawiki that might have something to do with it. Gimmetrow 22:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be only affecting a select few (see here). Feel special! Steve ^T • C 22:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to some pywiki scripts. I don't really have time to fix them. I hope the system now is reasonable to do by hand. Gimmetrow 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Gimme, are you saying this is a temporary situation, or that you can't fix the script and we should close all FACs and FARs manually henceforth? I'm pretty sure Dana and YM follow my talk, so they should begin to add the {{FARClosed}} template when closing FARs now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This may not be an easy fix, so yes, you should close them manually. Gimmetrow 12:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, thanks Gimme-- I'll leave a message at WT:FAC to see who can help out. Will you still be archiving WP:GO on Sat nights? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Doubt it will work. The problem is with writing edits. Sounds simple, but an update to pywiki about a year ago was incompatible so I stopped getting updates. To fix the current issue, I may need to get the current pywiki library, and if so a bunch of other issues may pop up. Gimmetrow 13:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again-- perhaps Dabomb87 will take on Sat night archiving of WP:GO-- I believe the instructions are written into the page in a comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to general relativity

I'd be grateful for your thoughts and comments on TFA/R on whether the article is presently up to FA standards and should be run as TFA, for which it has been requested. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never been happy with any of our math/physics FAs, so in general terms, I don't even need to look at the prose ... but I do see it's largely uncited. I was a physics undergrad who switched to math because the department chair was sexist, so those articles should be a walk in the park for me, but they all suffer from convoluted prose, yet reviewers who don't know math/physics seem afraid to take them on, while reviewers who do know math/physics don't seem to recognize the prose problems, since the material is familiar to them. People with grad degrees in the fields either don't see the problem, or disagree that the articles should be accessible to someone with an undergrad level of knowledge, should be written for an encyclopedic general audience, and aren't able to hone in on the problems during review, in the way that a scientific editor with good prose (eg TimVickers) can, while my prose is often too poor to explain the problems I cleary see-- the flow in those articles should be natural to me, with an undergrad level, and they never are-- I shouldn't have to stop and think about what a General or Introduction article is trying to say-- they don't flow as an encyclopedic article or undergrad textbook should. On the other hand, I disagree that articles shouldn't be run on the mainpage just because they have problems-- sometimes running them on the mainpage is just the right thing to get editors to engage and fix them up, and in this case, might precipitate either improvements or a FAR. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. Then I'll leave it for the community's wisdom, so to speak. Although I did slice its claim to basic subject matter points. It may be about basic matter, in a manner of speaking, but very few junior highs send sixth graders to do reports on general relativity.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree-- and also agree that if TFA/R "voters" think it's bad enough that it shouldn't appear on the mainpage, they'll speak up (and then maybe do something about it)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully many will read beyond the blurb. But it has happened the people have gotten upset about the state of the article and voted it off. We'll see what happens.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There was an argument made once somewhere (can't recall where or when) that General or Introduction articles don't need to be cited because they are just a summary of general knowledge that anyone with a general background in those areas would know. I haven't checked the citation level in the article, but I suspect more citation is probably needed regardless-- if I were entering a declaration on that TFA/R, I'd probably take a closer look and Oppose, but you've convinced me that we shouldn't be entering declarations! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Especially since I opined on its points, I would rather not do so myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's Deja vu all over again

Hi Sandy. A little while back I submitted the Christ myth theory for FAC and it failed pretty quickly because of (I thought) some odd objections centering on POV issues. When I ask what I should do next, you mentioned that I should get the article a peer review since that could help strengthen it's credibility (assuming the requested changes were made, of course). Well, I did that, but it doesn't seem to have made a difference. An editor just opposed the article's candidacy on POV grounds, citing the lead as an example of bias--a lead which corresponds to the suggestions of the PR. Now I know that one oppose vote does not a failed FAC make, but considering the lack of interest in the candidacy this time around I'm getting a sinking feeling. Any advice? Eugene (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Although this is not my talk page I saw your note here Eugene. I do not want to be prejudiced but by looking at your user page I see that you are a pastor. Instinctively for me that is perhaps the wrong person to write such an article (not to say you can't do it anyway). I haven't gone through the article but I suppose if you are intent on following it through you could always ask the people who oppose to help you fix it if they are interested, perhaps offer a co-nomination or something. (sorry for robbing your talk page SandyGeorgia) Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

CC

Many thanks, Sandy, that's appreciated a lot. I'm glad it led to a consensus that will let people move forward. Best of luck with it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: archiving

[1] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Yamato

Hey, SandyGeorgia, would you be able to take a look at the FAC for Japanese battleship Yamato to see whether consensus has been reached? It's been open for approx. 3 weeks. Thanks in advance; cheers. Cam ^(Chat) 05:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs usually goes through FAC on Tuesdays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. My bad then. Cam ^(Chat) 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

just posting here 'cause Sandy's page has lots of lurkers.

Heh. I'm just posting here 'cause Sandy's page has lots of lurkers. Maybe... two or perhaps three weeks ago I just happened to click through to a user page, and I have forgotten whose (the main point). It was a reasonably familiar name, but.... I think it must be someone whom I personally haven't had much contact with. Anyhow, somewhat near the top of the page was some text sorta roughly along these lines (as nearly as I can recall): "Here's the only editorial about Wikipedia you'll ever need to read" and an external link to a newspaper editorial.. I think it was a link to the NYT but not sure. I have been searching for that page since, because I skimmed the editorial and it looked good... sound familiar? anyone know whose page I was probably looking at? thanks for your time and trouble... • Ling.Nut 14:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, but I should start charging rent-- send chocolate! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

TFA

Hi Sandy. I know Raul takes complete responsibility for TFA, but I just wanted to ask your opinion. Awickert, Carcharoth, and I have been preparing David A. Johnston for FAC, and were probably going to submit it at FAC within the week. I went to TFA recently to see if the date was still open - it was, but TonytheTiger has an open request for the date. Is it possible to share the date? I had to be in the same position I've put him in with 1968 Illinois earthquake, so I don't want to come off as rude or overly aggressive, but if the Johnston article is promoted at FAC in time, I'd really like for it to be on the main page May 18. It is the 30th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens and an extremely relevant date for volcanology, geology, and even United States history. What do you think we should do? ceranthor 17:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nom it anyway. You'll probably have more points than the Crown Fountain. We don't have dual TFA's, the Obama/McCain one was unique and according to Raul, not going to be repeated.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What he said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

FAC nomination

Thanks for letting me know that there was a maximum length for FAC nominations. I've cut my nomination down to a more typical size (about three lines) and moved most of the extra details to a section on my talk page, so that reviewers can read them if they choose. Hope that helps. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no maximum length, but reviewer fatigue sets in when FACs get too long. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Stonemason89 (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No need to revert

at TFA/R, both articles are on the page, let the community decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I just realized that it is just over a year since I became an FAC delegate. That means this is especially appropriate:

		All Around Amazing Barnstar
		Thank you, SandyGeorgia, for your patient guidance in helping me to learn the FAC ropes and for your willingness to pick up the slack on the increasingly frequent occasions when I'm otherwise distracted. Your efforts to define the FAC delegate role and your attention to detail have helped the process to function smoothly, and I'm proud to follow in your footsteps. Karanacs (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for everything you do. I know I've been distracted by content work, dispute resolution, and that real-life thing for a little while, and I suspect it will be that way for the next few months. Without your help I'd been drowning over here. You are much appreciated. Karanacs (talk) 02:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hi Sandy. Another user has drawn my attention to User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#Work in progress. As it seems you have not added anything in a month to this (what looks like) a collection of (what you presumably think is) evidence of wrongdoing on my part, I wonder if you could consider removing it, or, of course, continuing to another stage of dispute resolution if you feel that is merited. Either way, as I am sure you are aware, we are not permitted to keep (what look like) "shit lists" long term in our user space. Please take your time and do whatever you think is best for the project. Best wishes, --John (talk) 00:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I will remove it, in the hope that you will stop using such tactics on other editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. I thought, in a spirit of collegiality, that this might possibly also interest you. Cheers, --John (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Statute of Anne

You were suggested as someone to contact about this article getting the attention needed to make FA.

I've sent an email to the account associated with your wiki login laying out why.

Can you take a look at it, or drop me a note - preferably on my Wikinews page. I am a 'crat and FA content contributor over there, I just rarely contribute to Wikipedia, and don't know all the ins-and-outs on this. --Brian McNeil /^talk 00:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Even for an experienced FA writer, getting that article through FAC in under three weeks-- considering that it's had no peer review or GA nomination-- would be a stretch. I suggest a peer review, followed by a Good Article nomination, but it's late in the game to make the deadline you suggest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FAC closure

Hi, you closed an FAC a mere 9 hours after a editor criticized the sourcing. Doesn't the FAC guideline merit longer time to respond to critique? Sandman888 (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the WP:FAC instructions, particularly that articles should meet the criteria before nomination. When sourcing issues (uncited text and non-reliable sources) are raised early on, issues will be best worked off FAC or via peer review. FAC is backlogged and reviewers are lacking, and poorly sourced or unsourced articles place too much burden on overworked reviewers. Hope to see you back in a few weeks or so! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Medicine and molecular cellular biology Wikiprojects announce collaboration with Google.org

Announcement of the first stages of a project to peer-review, improve and translate medical and biology articles so that material can be transferred from the English Wikipedia to other Wikipedias that are written in languages used in developing world. Maybe something for Signpost? {also posted on User:Phoebe's talkpage). Tim Vickers (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Donner Party

Thanks for keeping an eye on this article. I wish I'd never heard of it to be honest. Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate timing for that news report. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It says nothing new; no archeological evidence found at one of the camps for cannibalism. We already knew that. And we know why that probably is. Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep-- but that report was splashed across Yahoo's main page, so now everyone and their brother will want to add it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Robert Lawson

I see that you have substantially contributed to Robert Lawson (architect). The article has been nominated as a good article, but needs some attention to ensure that it meets the standards. The assessment is here. In particular, the article needs strengthening in its referencing. Can you help to improve the article to the required standards, so that it passes as a good article. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Adabow (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I only did citation cleanup when it was at WP:FAR; I don't have any sources, and don't know anything about the fellow. Sorry! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Get well soon barn star

		The Editing while Injured Barnstar
		This barn star is awarded to SandyGeorgia for her continued cheerful and constructive help despite injuring her back. Please get well soon. --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Main image required for FA?

I am thinking about renominating Bob Chappuis. It does not have a main image. Is that required. Are there FAs without main images?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Sandy, obviously, but certainly Tunnel Railway went through with no main image and no-one mentioned it as a concern. – iridescent 22:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as biographies are concerned, Keith Johnson (cricket administrator) has no main image, and Brian Booth doesn't have a picture of its subject at all; I don't think the issue was the issue raised at either FAC. Nev1 (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Help

Sandy...I know you're busy, but I am overwhelmed just trying to update refs and etc to the Glacier NP article to get it mainpaged on 5/11/2010...if you find plagerized material in that article can you link me to it on my user talk page? I will be checking this as soon as I have some more refs in place and get that issue resolved, but may miss some of these finer points. I gathered from your comment at the mainpage FA nomination that you already see issues with this issue....--MONGO 17:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll chip away at it over the next few days, since Glacier is just about my most favorite spot on earth. I mentioned the plagiarism issue because many of the old National Park FAs were taken directly from PD text-- haven't looked at Glacier yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oooh...I see...that shouldn't be the case here, yet I will welcome your insights as always.--MONGO 02:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Tourette's clip

I've heard nothing from the Tourette's Association about permission yet. Sorry to get your hopes up like that. Very weird, indeed. Do you know about this Tim Vickers coup? What a man. Anthony (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Tim let me know-- I wish I had more time to pay attention. Do you want me to e-mail some people I know who might be able to light a fire under the TSA? I have no contact with them, but do know some people who do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Please give it a shot. Anthony (talk) 21:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Do you have any idea what happened to Eubulides? I just noticed that he hasn't edited in about a month. That would be a huge loss - he's one of the few people around here who's basically irreplaceable. MastCell ^Talk 23:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know, but I do agree that he's irreplaceable. Speculation-- he disappeared right after the alt-text dustup at FAC, but I have no idea if that's related. I don't know how we'll hold down the fort on autism spectrum disorders without him-- or for that matter, epidemiology on any medical article. And ... we lost Malleus, Moni, Karanacs is out for two weeks, and Ealdgyth is out 'til the end of summer = FAC is backlogged again, over 40 FACs all lacking reviews. I think they're all irreplaceable ! Worried. If we were to lose Colin or GrahamColm, might as well shut down! You should figure out how to drag Orangemarlin back in here-- I need to buy a new cocktail dress-- who will help me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You're too kind, Sandy, and I'm not nearly productive or wise enough to deserve it. I'm not going anywhere. I'm saving my pennies to buy a new book out later this month on tuberous sclerosis.

I think you may be right about Eubulides and alt text but I have no way of knowing. He just disappeared without any drama, which gets my admiration and frustration in equal measure. He kept such a cool head and showed us all how to write and defend articles on controversial subjects. I miss him greatly and hope it is just a Wikibreak. I've just finished reading "Autism's False Prophets" and it confirmed to me what a remarkable achievement those ASD FAs are. Colin°^Talk 22:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of Autism's False Prophets, there was a bit of to-do at the National Vaccine Information Center article recently, revolving around whether that organization could be properly characterized as "anti-vaccine". I seem to recall that the book contained some material on the organization which may be suitable as a source here, but I don't have a copy. If you come across something topical, relevant, and notable in the book, would you mind stopping by the National Vaccine Information Center talk page and leaving a note? MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

@Sandy: Now is probably as good a time as any to reveal that Orangemarlin was my bad-hand account. Or maybe I was his good-hand account? :P Not really. MastCell ^Talk 22:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I can force the GA reviewers in the drive to help out at FAC once the drive's over. I have no idea how they'd carry over from GA to FA, I know they're quite different in what they look for, so maybe that's not the best idea (the drive went perfectly though so it does free up some users). If nothing else I'll try to start reviewing FACs again, you guys seem to need help pretty badly over there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the best thing GA reviewers can do to get in good habits from the very very beginning is to go look at the original sources that are cited, checking for copyvio, misquotes and/or omission of key facts... Anyone and everyone can check the surface of the text for violations of the latest version of MOS; across the board, content reviewers in Wikipedia need to develop the habit of verifying that Wikipedia's text is an accurate reflection of the original sources... Only after that should folks read Tony's essays, and then the external links on Philcha's user page re readability... • Ling.Nut 08:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleomenean War

This featured article candidate appears to be ready for promotion; it has received 3 supports and no opposes, and there appear to be no problems with it that haven't been fixed already. I'd say it looks like consensus has been reached on this one. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm just keeping you busy

I'll move it again tomorrow so you don't get bored. Yomangani^talk 02:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A few dozen admins here pls. Or a bunch of bureaucrats; or one good arb. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, could you please tell Ceoil I'm sorry I made him blank my talk page and his out of embarrassment that JNW mentioned our talk pages in a FAC? Clearly his swearing and character assassination were my bad influence. I also apologize for putting him in a position to refer to me as a 'bastard', 'prick', and worse, on his user page. Hopefully this will mend relations. Thanks! Hope all is well. Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

First mediation task: you and Ceoil go off and sort the difference between plátanos and cocos. No fair asking Yoman; he already knows, and he doesn't want me to get bored. Report back as soon as you figure out which "big things" you're talking about-- the problem may solve itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

If my labor-of-love Spanish sentences were that readable then I succeeded. :) Riggr Mortis (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You and I both know that you know that I know what you are talking about; I had to wait until he fell asleep before I acknowledged. Yoman didn't know, bless him, but he does now. Cœil (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Note

[2] (previously submitted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vanilla Ice/archive1). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I'm not sure if it is proper WP etiquette to thank the promoter of an article, but I'll chance it and say thank you for promoting Adrian Boult to FA. - Tim riley (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hebe Camargo

Hi, I've seen this edition in pt.wiki, so I came here to confirm if this article really is a FA here. In the article there is the tag of FA, added by the same IP, but I really think it isn't true. Despite this, I don't know the system of featured content here very well, so I would like you to confirm if this really is a FA here. Thank you. ThiagoRuiz (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. No, it is not a featured article, I have removed the {{featured article}} tag, it has not been through WP:FAC, and it would not even make WP:GA in its current state. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Neglected FACs

Hi Sandy,

Thanks for your note here on the failed Featured Article Candidacy for Paramount Television Network. I understand that your hands are tied and that a lot of articles are now falling through the FAC cracks. Unfortunately, I don't think I could get editors to review this article if I paid them; GA and PR took many months, due to lack of reviewers willing to look at the article, and I figured this might be the result at FAC before I nominated it. Although I had placed some neutrally-worded notices on several WikiProject talk pages, specifically asked a few editors to take a look, added it to the FAC urgents list, and mentioned the article at WT:FAC, there was only one serious review. Still, the one serious review was encouraging.

I'm not sure I'll bring the article back to FAC; there was some improvement, so it wasn't exactly a waste of time, but nominating an article for FAC is a lot of work for one review. I appreciate your closing comments on the candidacy page, and I hope that the current situation at FAC will change. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 15:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do bring it back in a week-- these kinds of closes are a real concern, and if it comes back, I'll leave it on the page as long as needed. Something has to give. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ping me when you bring it back, Firsfron—I've got a lot of stuff on my plate but I owe you a decent review for your help in the past :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Afiuni

Knowing of your interest in Maria Afiuni, there is an article on her in today's Washington Post, here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much-- will have a look now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Gustav Mahler

Sandy, the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gustav Mahler/archive1 page is becoming a bit congested with largely minor comments. I have no problem with that, except that if many more reviewers join in, the page will soon be of unreasonable length. I am suggesting to reviewers that the minor points (punctuation, odd prose glitches, links etc—which account for about 98% of comments) should be posted on the article's talkpage and resolved there. Is it OK to do this? I welcome all comments, but I'd like to keep the FAC page within bounds, and I imagine you would, too. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine-- you can also move sections to the talk page of the FAC once everything is resolved, but be sure to leave a link to the talk page. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have no objection to my detailed comments being moved there. I've now supported. This took me several hours, Sandy, and Brian's articles are well written, small wonder we are running low on reviewers for lesser works.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

At least he's getting review ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

and doing them, too Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Good writing and bread cast upon the water?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you call a "lesser work"? Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, mine? But if I put in the work Brian does reviewing, and had his writing skills ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Pepper v Hart

Can I request that you un-close this before the bot removes it?

1. There has been a recent surge of interest in the FAC, implying there are likely to be opinions posted soon.
2. I'll ping the people who have previously posted to take a look at how I've addressed their concerns.
3. The "concerns still" you commented about in your edit summary were posted barely an hour before you chose to close it. I'm an activist at a political office less than 2 weeks before a general election; I didn't have the chance to address them at the time.

Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Or, since that's inappropriate now, can I have your permission to open a new one? Ironholds (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pepper v Hart/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the FAC so I can get to queries quicker and easier. The nomination had run for three weeks without gaining support; FAC is backlogged, and we need to give other articles and nominators a chance, and reduce the load on reviewers. One way you can help reduce the FAC backlog is by reviewing other FACs while you wait the two weeks to re-nominate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So I'm being blocked from re-nominating because.. what? Because it didn't get adequate reviewing, something being remedied in the hour before you closed it? Ironholds (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Disappointing, I know, but I think the article still needs a bit of tidying up, so SandyG's decision probably isn't so far off. With a little bit of polishing over the next week or so it should get through its next nomination much more sweetly. Depending on which political party you're campaigning for, I'll offer to help get the article in good shape for another assault at FAC. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had put in an exception to the two week rule when an article was not opposed but failed to attract support per here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Fhe first comment on the FAC is "I'm not sure that this is quite ready yet"; that isn't a good start. When I archive a FAC with limited but no negative feedback, I tell the nominator to bring it back in a week; when there has been a less enthusiastic reaction, two weeks is better, to work on issues, review some other articles, and contact previous reviewers to see if they are now satisfied. Bringing a FAC back right after it was archived serves no purpose. I also try to grant extra leniency to nominators who also help reduce the backlog by reviewing articles at FAC. As long as there is a backlog and a lack of reviewers, articles with negative feedback will need to wait two weeks before re-appearing; without reviewers, we have to give others a chance, and reviewers are stretched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else you can recommend?

Thank you for recommending User:Jappalang to do a second image review. As I said I've also invited User:Awadewit to take a look. So far neither have responded. Who else have you seen do image reviews at FAC in the past? I'd like to ping a few more people if you have any recommendations. Thanks! --SkotyWA^T_C 23:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Skoty, I think you should wait. Unfortunately there is a dearth of reviewers at FAC, and since those are two of the best, you should probably wait for their input. Best, ceranthor 02:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Bert T. Combs

Regarding the FAC you recently closed for Bert T. Combs, had I been able to get four supports, would the article have passed, or would the image issues raised by User:Fasach Nua have derailed it anyway? This is the second FAC where that user has raised these issues, and I don't see that we are getting any closer to a resolution of them. The Combs image already survived an FfD as fair use and possibly free. (The source gives no authorship attribution to the image.) The article was promoted to GA, so that editor apparently accepted the fair use rationale. Also, several editors have explicitly commented that they believe the fair use rationale to be valid. None of this has been sufficient to cause Fasach Nua to withdraw his/her oppose. I want to know your thoughts before I waste my time with another FAC. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

When a FAC gains support, but has outstanding image concerns, I usually ask that another image reviewer be pinged for additional input. You might query User:Jappalang. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw your post there, looks good, if you get clearance or resolution from Jappalang, feel free to bring the nomination back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Gustav Mahler FAC closure

I've made the Volume commas consistent. As to the "Authority control" line, which I hadn't noticed, I've no idea what this is. It was put there by User: Hekerui during the FAC, without explanation or an informative edit summary. I don't know how these links are supposed to be useful; my inclination is to remove them from the page until some explanation is forthcoming - might even save a kilobyte! Brianboulton (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

If you get any followup from Hekerui, please let me know what that's about. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hekerui has explained thus: "Authority control is a tool for unambiguous allocation. On the German Wiki authority control was extremely successful in that it allowed for the correct sorting of 100.000 pictures from the German Federal Archives to their respective biography articles - this info is valuable for the English Wiki as well (it's added to bio articles alongside Persondata in the German Wiki). Authority control is also an independent source for basic data about people. I will make sure that the Library of Congress Control Number is put first in the English version from now on since that one will be the most useful for English language readers." That leaves me none the wiser, I'm afraid, but I'll leave it to you to decide what to do. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

hmmm ... Greek to me ... I guess my real question, then, is where it should be placed (External links?) ... it looked strange at the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to under External Links, but it still looks strange. Is this the only WP article with these links? Brianboulton (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've never encountered this template before, but see here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sandy asked if I would comment:

Authority control in general is like our decision of what to use for an article title and what for a redirect. Author authority control , which is what we're talking about here, means deciding what name to use for an author, in order to bring all their works together despite the different ways they appear on the title page--for example, whether to use a middle initial. I think all of this will sound familiar to a Wikipedian, for we frequently have discussions over this sort of thing. It's much easier in libraries: a small committee at the Library of Congress generally makes the choice, and everyone else lives with it--it having been decided about 50 years ago that it is better for a user to find things under the same heading in whatever library they might use, than each library doing it the way they individually think best, or , even worse, bothering to argue about it. The Library of Congress when it decides on a name, gives it a LCCN, just like it does for books. For example, the record for Gustav Mahler is n 80067106 and is found at [3], where you will see that their standard for the English language spelling and especially the birthdate is the New Grove, which we use here as our most reliable authority in the subject also. Each country does its own; the equivalent German library does similarly , and calls it Normdaten ; their record for Mahler is [4]. There's an internation cross listing, the VIAF, and their record for Mahler is at [5]. The template at the bottom is just a way of bringing these together.

Now, we do try to match good external standards. One example is in fact people's names: our persondata system is meant to link into a developing network of such records. If you don't see a box with it at the bottom, you need to change your user preferences--see WP:Persondata. This will all link with multiple projects--see [6].

I'm not sure who's organizing this at the enWP, but the use of this template should probably be brought under control of the WP:WikiProject Persondata. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Passive–aggressive behavior

Nice job, your edits improved the article a lot IMO. Ward20 (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Kantor appears to be the best source for completing the article, but it's very expensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oryzomys couesi

I think I solved the whitespace issue you brought up for Oryzomys couesi (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oryzomys couesi/archive1) with this edit. Ucucha 18:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good from here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

medical marijuana page

Hello,

Why is http://newsbowl.org ok?

when my suggestion, http://medicinalmarijuanausa.blogspot.com is not ok?

Thanks for any clarification.

Withdrawn FAC for Ethan Allen

Hi. I recently passed a GA review for the article Ethan Allen, and while adding the {{ArticleHistory}} template, I noticed references in the talk page revision history to this withdrawn FAC. Do you think it is worthwhile listing this in the ArticleHistory template? –Grondemar 21:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah-- I put a db-g6 on it. Thanks for asking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ucucha! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I saw it because the FAC was still on my watchlist (I commented), though, not because of some nasty stalking. :) Ucucha 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "nasty" :) I appreciate my TPS admins! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! –Grondemar 21:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Heads up: FAC of July 2009 Ürümqi riots

You archived the above yesterday; I guess it's probably because there is a severe shortage of reviewers.

I note that it spent only two weeks at FAC, the nomination had not yet reached the "Older nominations" section, and there were no opposes. As far as I am aware, all stated issues were dealt with. The WP:FAC says "If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating—typically at least a few weeks." So I hope you don't mind me renominating it again immediately, since I believe there's nothing outstanding to work on. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would mind (and likely, so would the overstretched FAC reviewers); there would be no point in archiving a nomination just to have it brought back immediately. Here is the message I left on closing; please take a week, and you might consider helping to ease the backlog at FAC by reviewing some other nominations in the meantime. If others pitched in, the backlog wouldn't be such a problem. The timing of each FAC is determined by the director and delegates, taking many factors into consideration. Also, the nom had been on the Urgents template and in the "older noms" section for quite a few days-- in fact, was near the bottom of the older noms list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, it looks like slp has made some further comments at the article for us to work on, so a week or so would be fine. Sorry to look like I'm haranguing. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edison would be proud

Best use of vinyl recording ever. --Moni3 (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, Moni. You should either block yourself for cruelty, or turn Bessie Smith into an FA-- that youtube led many places !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Self-block pending, although Bessie Smith is more than a worthy topic for FA. But see this first: [7] --Moni3 (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you're making productive use of your time ... my "see this first" will have to via e-mail :) Be prepared !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheater. --Moni3 (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You betcha !!! You let me know what you think ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your video fantasies of that weird Russian Trolololo dude [8]. I don't care how creepy he smiles, I really don't need to see you go on about what you would like to see in his teeth. --Moni3 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

All I could think about is Homer Simpson allowing some bimbo to make him a sandwich and him telling her, "Use both hands". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

South Park (season 13)

Please note my question at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park (season 13)/archive1. — Hunter Kahn 01:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted per well-established precedent, per Sandy's request, per Dabomb87's request, per your request. Just to make that clear in case Nyttend comes along. Steve ^T • C 07:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Autism article

Hi Sandy. You pulled out my addition of the PBS FRONTLINE documentary "The Vaccine War" aired April 27 2010 which had a huge section on the controversy surrounding vaccines and Autism.

• "The Vaccine War", PBS FRONTLINE documentary, April 27, 2010

FRONTLINE, although not a medically peer-reviewed journal, is a significantly reachable presentation for many people. Not everything needs to be high powered. Would that there was some place in the Autism article to put it without causing a stir. Bests. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find a place for it in MMR vaccine controversy, but it doesn't really add much to an already well-cited featured article like autism, and putting it there gives undue weight to the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for your reply. Food for thought. Bests. --- Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iravan/archive1

The article is currently at the position 2.6 (older nominations) in FAC with 2 Supports, 4 comments and 0 opposes. I am expecting to be busy at least from 2 May to 6 May, which may extend to 9 May. In this period, I would not be able to edit Wikipedia. As per the current status of the article, I expect this FAC to reach the closing stage in this period, when additional comments pour in. I do not want to withdraw the nomination. What can be done? Please reply. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Would you please elaborate on the MOS breaches and the specific areas where you got lost. I request to do so tomorrow if possible since I would busy from Sunday afternoon (IST). Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added a "Note from nominator" in the FAC page to indicate my absence and with formal request to the closing admins to give me a chance to answer comments, that are added in my absence.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 08:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Blabbermouth.net

At every heavy metal related FAC, I have to go through the same old rubbish of explaining and defending why Blabbermouth.net is a reliable source (which it is), and I am getting 110% fed up of it. As we speak, I'm treading through ground I went over three years ago, and I'm not the only person to have to go through this. In fact, someone is citing false concerns from an old successful FAC of mine as validating their concerns about Blabbermouth.net. Is there any way this rigmarole can be settled once and for all, without this crap happening at every metal FAC? It's a total waste of my time. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Refer to Ealdgyth's list and this old discussion. (PS, if you'd given me a link to the FAC, I'd add it myself :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

FAC is here. Should apologise to the user since I've been a bit short with them, but it does get a bit frustrating at times treading over old ground. The thing is, I can't refer to that discussion since the user themselves referred to a slightly older discussion where a FAC of mine was successful and someone raised issue with Blabbermouth. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)