User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch71

A new draft ATT proposal

Hi SG, I am working on a new draft ATT proposal in my user space. I have also created a rationale page for it. Your thoughts would be very much appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Will look once I return from travel-- pls ping if I forget! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Will do. Crum375 (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi SG, just a reminder in case you are back. Crum375 (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of users watching your RfA

+------------------------+----------+---------------+
| RfA_subpage            | Watchers |     Notes     |
+------------------------+----------+---------------+
| Malleus_Fatuarum_3     |       50 | Renamed       |
| TenPoundHammer_8       |       24 |               |
| Durova_2               |       20 |               |
| Off2riorob             |       19 |               |
| A_Nobody               |       19 | Banned        |
| SandyGeorgia           |       18 |               |
| Cla68_2                |       16 |               |
| Giggy_2                |       14 | little active |
| Coppertwig_2           |       14 |               |
| Arcayne                |       13 |               |
| Ncmvocalist            |       13 |               |
| Majorly_3              |       13 |               |
| Roux_2                 |       13 | Renamed       |
| MONGO_3                |       13 |               |
| Collectonian           |       12 |               |
| Calton                 |       12 | Renamed       |
| Dihydrogen_Monoxide_4  |       11 | Renamed       |
| Malleus_Fatuorum_3     |       10 | Renaming dup? |
| TreasuryTag_3          |       10 |               |
| William_M._Connolley_3 |       10 |               |
| Ottava_Rima_2          |       10 | Arbcom Ban    |
| Malleus_Fatuorum       |       10 | -- -- -- --   |  
+------------------------+----------+---------------+

The list (right) was generated by the Toolserver with the criteria of red link pages that were not deleted. It is only for amusement. Your RfA is the second most watched among those who have not run once. Cheers! — Dispenser 16:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How flattering to see myself in that list three times, and right up there at the top as well. Interesting to see that I've got 50 enemies all itching to have their say in some mythical future RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not all enemies. I have it watchlisted. I bet a bunch of colleagues/admirers of yours do also. --Moni3 (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Only 49 enemies then. Or am I presuming too much? Just out of interest, if that redlink had ever changed to blue—it never will—how would you have voted? I still wish that I'd voted against myself at my last RfA, what a hoot that would have been. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 20:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hahah! Holy shit! A challenge, poker style. Ok, let's deal with honesty, which is rare around here because it's either masked by "Be civil, children!" or "Shut up, assface!". I think I would want you to have a serious discussion about how you would deal with very trying users who are non-admins either not knowing what they're doing, or doing something they know is wrong. It's really freakin' hard for me to be human-civil (as opposed to Wiki-civil) sometimes, and that's like...my credo...other people's skin, Grace...it's wrong to use words to hurt...I have to tell myself that really, really often lately and more often than not, I just leave things alone because no good can come from any interaction I can imagine. I think most people's major fear is that you would shoot from the hip and scare away potentially useful editors who either haven't quite caught on to all the cultural mores of Wikipedia or haven't come to the good side quite yet. Admins should deal with users with a greater amount of patience and forbearance. Warn politely, warn simply, block only when no other alternative seems possible, explain civilly. But act honestly and truthfully. I think I just described maybe 10 admins...and I might have left myself out. If you were able to convince me that you took admin interactions seriously enough to promise you would treat problematic editors with courtesy, I would have no problem supporting you. However, I've been around long enough to realize when someone is yanking someone else's chain just for the hell of it and has no intention of (or ability to) seeing that issues are colored with a spectrum far outside the human ability to perceive things online instead of treating issues as black and white only. It's pretty depressing to reply to someone "We're speaking the same language and understanding nothing." That's my version of "Fuck off". There's a time and a place for civility and another for calling a spade a spade. I think the general concern is the spade calling comes first with you. Make sense? --Moni3 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a very fair summary I think. I'd very likely have been a kind of Judge Dred administrator anyway: "prepare to be judged". :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 21:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, I don't recall if I have it watchlisted, but I would support. On the other hand, I wonder who the 18 deluded souls who think I would stand at RFA are? Thanks, Dispenser! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not all of us are deluded, although I admit some of us are... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Tito, deluded? Never! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Malleus, you have 60 70 lying in wait (to support or oppose I cannot say) if you count the ten twenty who noticed your name change. And if you ever do run again, I hope you won't vote against yourself too soon - might ruin the fun of it all.--~TPW 01:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Seventy is it now? I hope none of them are holding their breath, because it'll never happen. Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I ran it again, Malleus is now at 69 cumulative, while Sandy's now at 25. — Dispenser 04:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

An FAC to withdraw in the next go-around

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Paul Krichell/archive1 - wish I could find time to fix it but alas, burnout combined with the article actually not being very good equals it's better I withdraw it. I'll find a hall of famer to work on and bring to FAC to make up for it, heh. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Karanacs got to it in my absence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

confoozled?

I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who can invent new words. I'll have to remember this one, I may be able to put it to use soon when and if I get back into school for my masters. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I frequently get confoozled by that page :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dash question

Can you or one of the MOS types watching answer this one? (TLDR version: if a book title includes a hyphen/dash/emdash, should it be changed in references to match WP:MOSDASH, or should it be left as formatted in the original.) – iridescent 2 18:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The MoS is silent on the issue, but I always change the dash to match WP:MOSDASH. My view is that consistency is king, and we don't, for instance, worry about rendering a book's title in a different font from the one used on its cover. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus, but you might want to ask Tony1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fwink

Bloop. --Moni3 (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain: I have plenty of use for good friends, but ... underwear, condoms and viagra? Who needs em? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Image specialist needed

Hi Sandy, do you or one of your talkpage watchers know of an image specialist I can consult. An editor is removing the JFK Library attributions to images in Ernest Hemingway and my understanding is that the images the library has that are PD can be used only if the library is credited because they host them. Discussion here and here. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

YOu can query Elcobbola (talk · contribs), Jappalang (talk · contribs) or Stifle (talk · contribs) (but Elcobbola is traveling and his response may be delayed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Attribution would be OK even if the source did not require it;[1] where the source does require it, it should be given, out of comity if nothing else. Kablammo (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Not an image specialist, but my understanding is that if something is public domain, no one has any rights to it, and no one has the legal (as opposed to moral) right to demand any credit. Ucucha 15:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We can take to my talkpage so Sandy's orange bar doesn't keep lighting up. All the Hemingway books credit every image to the library. Will ping Stifle. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The orange bars don't bother me, if you'd rather keep this in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea if you don't mind. Here's the credit information on the files I've used. Each is the same. If the JFK library didn't host the images we wouldn't have access to them. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As Kablammo said and I hinted at, even if the library has no legal right to demand attribution, common courtesy may still lead us to give the credits. Also, even if there is no attribution in the article itself, it's still on the image description, and that's the usual way we give credit. Ucucha 16:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that because the Hemingway material was donated to the Library and is jointly held with the Hemingway Trust they may well have the right to demand attribution, and certainly it does no harm to attribute the images in the article. That said, I don't want to get in an edit war over this. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Madonna FAC image issue resolved

FYI: We've resolved the image issue at the FAC for Madonna, and Moni has switched from Oppose to Support. Karanacs (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not switch. I've always been this way. --Moni3 (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

[2] Now we understand. Kablammo (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You more than anyone eh? Got some pineapple vodka and 15 minutes? --Moni3 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

CFM56 FAC

Hi SandyGeorgia -- I noticed to left a note at the CFM56 FAC page saying that the article needed more review before it could be promoted. This is my first FAC so I was wondering if there was a standard venue to request another review or two. I think the article is pretty much there, so I'd like to get however many more eyes I need on it to finish it up.

Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 04:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of the Yosemite area/archive1

I'm getting a bit stressed by a rash of delist declarations on this article given that I'm doing a considerable amount of work to address concerns. Is my prose really that bad? Should I just not even try to save articles at FAR anymore? --mav (reviews needed) 23:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That article's been at FAR a long time now, and it's still got serious problems. Its chronology is all over the place—what's the agenda behind starting it off with the native Americans if its history goes back to the Stone Age? Here's one prose example chosen at random. Can you really see nothing wrong with this sentence: "The Park Service now emphasizes education of park visitors about proper storage of food"? "Emphasizes ... education ... Park ...park ... about"? Why not "The Park Service now emphasizes that visitors should be informed about the proper storage of food"? It's better, but I still don't know what "emphasizes" means here. Are they saying that someone else should do it, or are they doing the education? Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

With the exception of the ==Human impact== section, which I've already noted at the FARC, I don't understand the remark about chronology. There is no "agenda" behind starting the article with information about Native Americans; that is just a reflection of the fact that Native Americans inhabited the region well before European Americans. I revised your example sentence. Also, there is no set time limit for FARs when there is somebody who is addressing FAR concerns. Let's continue this discussion somewhere else. --mav (reviews needed) 02:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you really do need to look at the whole article again with a more critical eye. Another example chosen at random: "The California Gold Rush in the mid-19th century greatly increased the number of non-indigenous people in the central Sierra Nevada region." That's the third sentence of the lead, but we haven't yet been told that Yosemite is in the Sierra Nevada, so why should we be caring how many non-indigenous Americans moved to the central Sierra Nevada during the Gold Rush? Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sentence fixed. I read each word of each sentence backwards to look for spelling errors and then each sentence in correct word order but in reverse sentence order to force myself to look at the text with a more fresh eye. Some more issues found and fixed that way. I previously used each of your edits to the article as examples for types of issues that needed to be fixed, and I looked for and fixed those type of issues. Another round of that would be helpful. :) --mav (reviews needed) 02:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hi Sandy, I haven't come across you for a while. I hope you're well. I hope you understand that I haven't pushed or asked for Anthony to be blocked, and have stated my opposition to a reblock for the remaining duration. The situation has been made worse by unilateral actions and (ironically) misleading statements (unintentional this time, standard ANI peanut gallery). It seems to be going downhill again, despite my agreeing with Anthony, so hopefully some saner heads will prevail. All I wanted, and got, was the warning. The rest was nothing to do with me. Best, Verbal chat 10:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to keep up, it was hard to follow, and smells like a classic ANI cock-up-- I didn't intend to assign any "blame", but if there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to try and avoid commenting again, although I think the question about templates is legitimate (based on number of edits and his talk page I didn't consider him veteran, although his account has been active a while). He doesn't seem to have got the message, but it seems that it's unlikely to come to any good now. My recent posts were to try and correct mischaracterisations of my actions (heh, venting here rather than ANI - sorry!) If you know him well and can pour oil on these waters (if that's still an allowed good analogy) I'd be grateful, but if you think it's best to drop it I'm fine with that too. As I said, I got what the action I wanted, but it hasn't had the desired effect. Thanks for understanding. Verbal chat 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words at the ANI. All sorted now. The template Verbal used didn't link to the information he/she and the admins thought it did (the relevant stuff had been deleted 6 months ago). Them: "He's read the guideline, why does he keep doing that?" Me: "Morons, can't they see I'm in compliance?" Classic. No harm done, though, that I'm aware of; and it's nice to let my righteous indignation roar (very) occasionally. Anthony (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ping

email – iridescent 23:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to catch up-- but not succeeding! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dennis FARC

Wow, thanks for catching that. Alright, I relisted it. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TPS

I am way behind here after several weeks of travel, and catching up soon is looking more and more remote. Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles hasn't been updated since sometime in May, and May stats haven't been added. Updating that page involves checking the FAR keeps, delists and noms since my last update; is anyone able to do that until I can catch up? Much obliged! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Chester Cathedral

Hi Sandy, we're having a bit of a push (well gentle shove really) towards getting Chester Cathedral ready for FAC - it's actually likely to take a few weeks, as I'm redrawing the plan and need to take some more images. Would you mind terribly casting your eye over it and letting us know if there's any glaring no-no's that we'll get hauled over the coals for? - or any other comments you might have. Thanks --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could help, but I'm going to be terribly busy until the end of August, and will only be able to keep up with FAC. Perhaps some of TPS will glance over the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem - you do have a better class of stalker than most. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer stuff

Hi Sandy - I've posted a little rant over on Malleus's talk page, but I want to repeat it here. The Flagged Protection trial is going to be starting very soon, and non-admins who have had access to edit semi-protected articles since roughly Day 4 of their editorship will now have their edits going into a vetting queue unless they are granted autoreviewer and/or edit reviewer permissions by an administrator. This will have a significant impact on editors who have, for years, been working on quality content. It's my intention to automatically grant this permission to every editor I can think of the moment I have the ability to do so, in order to reduce the impact of this change; however, any help you or others can give me to identify editors would be greatly appreciated. Risker (talk) 02:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

So, without autoreviewer status, long-time, good editors won't be able to edit semi-protected articles under flagged revisions? Where should I park for you a list of non-admins who should have autoreviewer? Here, or someplace on your talk, as I come across them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Added to section on your talk-- will add others as I come across them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. Please note to Sandy's TPW's - you should also feel free to add folks. Anyone who has worked on a featured article, or good article, for example, would be a prime candidate. I'm hoping to see a couple hundred names there. The pages covered by flagged protection will be slowly phased in, but one of the intentions is for flagged protection to replace semi-protection, so eventually this will have a huge impact on people who are just here to make quality edits. Risker (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Confused-- I've been adding only names of editors who 1) aren't sysops and 2) don't currently have autoreviewer. But the post on your page mentions edit reviewer in addition to autoreviewer-- will they be two different things? If so, I need to add a ton more names! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point, it doesn't look like autoreviewers will automatically have edit reviewer included in their permission. Things can change, but in the interim, it's probably better for everyone to add that ton of names. I really don't want to miss our genuinely valuable contributors. Risker (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Risker, your impression that it will significantly impact quality editors is wrong. All autoconfirmed users have their edits automatically reviewed when they edit flagged protected pages, except in the rare cases were the latest edit was not reviewed or it's protected at the reviewer level. In any cases, experienced users will have reviewer rights granted automatically by the software or semi-automatically based on database reports, see my reply here. Cenarium (talk) 03:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The database reports are generated automatically, there's no need to manually make lists unless the users were not in the reports, and this is not urgent. Cenarium (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cenarium, I disagree quite strongly with your interpretation of that discussion. There is no current configuration to automatically grant edit reviewer rights to anyone except admins. Autoreviewer permissions, while all well and good, have truly absurd requirements (more than 90% of admins would not qualify unless specially granted, nor would most GA or FA writers, who tend to improve existing articles). I do not see any consensus at all to automatically include any existing non-admin group. And yes, I do think there is urgency to this; some of the articles on the list of those most likely to be covered are FAs and GAs that are semi-protected, and the non-admins who regularly improve and maintain them need to have access to them without having to jump through any hoops. Risker (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Read again, autoconfirmed, not autoreviewer (autoreviewer is entirely unrelated). Since I am the one who proposed this method I think I know how it works. We had reached consensus back then for it. I repeat, all autoconfirmed users (10 edits, 4 days) have their edits automatically reviewed, except in rare cases. And we're going to automatically generate lists of users with e.g. more than 1000 edits, 1 year since first edit to whom we're going to give reviewer rights, then diminish the requirements and so on. The granting of the rights, which allows to review other users' edits, is at the 'discretion' of admins, the basic guideline is to grant if the user is experienced enough and has not recently made obviously inappropriate edits such as vandalism. You should know better than having started this moral panic. Cenarium (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm completely confused: if "all autoconfirmed users have their edits automatically reviewed", I don't know what good flagged revisions do-- that leaves out only IPs and new editors? At any rate, there are numerous very productive editors who don't even have autoreviewer status as of now, so if there's going to be a difference between autoreviewer and editreviewer status, I'm lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm set with autoreviewer, but if I need something more done, someone throw my name in? I'm in beautiful ... RAINY ... Copenhagen today... rain rain rain everywhere! Ealdgyth - Talk 11:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mermaid's more at home then ... I don't see edit reviewer on the user rights management page yet. I will start making a list of non-admins to immediately grant edit reviewer status to when it is implemented, I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mermaid's not here though.. she's in Shanghai at an Expo! Ealdgyth - Talk 11:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope she's having a good time there. Must make a change from an eternal diet of Danish.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me for the autoreviewers rights. I just want to let you know I've received them from Kanaracs who saw my name suggested by you Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation bias

Have your concerns about citation consistency in this article been adequately addressed? From the discussion about names I'm not sure if I've sufficiently addressed the point. Thanks in advance, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC removal

Hey Sandy, can you close this FAC? I saw that the editor did not made any edits before or after he submitted the article into Featured Article candidatcy. Also, he called me a racist! GamerPro64 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer?

I have been too busy at work to do much more than glance at my watchlist for days, but I see from Malleus's page that there's some kind of shitstorm going on about autoreviewer rights. I don't keep any of the village pump or related pages on my list so it looks like I missed something. Can you point me at a nutshell explanation? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell-- I have no clue either :) Go read User talk:Risker (and please don't enlighten me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I get it. I think I can ignore it, so I'm going to try. Wish me luck. Mike Christie (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Without the talk pages of Risker, Malleus, Moni, Iri, Giano, and me, where would we all be? (correct answers include "at the beach"!) Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Holy guacamole, my watchlist is going bonkers! Request for reviewer status are at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Reminder

Hi SG, a reminder about the ATT, in case you missed my message above. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 23:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

PSTS

Hi, I am currently involved in a proposal for a guideline on primary, secondary and tertiary sources. I have just discovered that you were once involved in a similar proposal a while ago - either in contributing to it directly or in discussing it on its talk page. You may wish to get involved in the current proposal and I would encourage you to do so - even if you just want to point out where we have gone wrong! Yaris678 (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Need advice about a FAC review

I need some advice. I reviewed and opposed Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao/archive3 yesterday. The nominator is pushing back and spilling it over to other pages. I would like to remove myself - how is that done? Can I strike all my comments? FWIW, from the books I found with a quick search, I stand by my opinion that the article is not comprehensive. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly about it, you can remove your comments to the talk page of the FAC, but be sure to leave a link on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Am a little annoyed is all, and didn't know what to do. Will think about it. Thanks - hadn't thought of moving the comments to the talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, will delete it all and move to the talkpage. Also, fyi this essay about fac reviewers. As I overlooked the red instructions at the top, I'll also alert Karanacs to this conversation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi SG, thank you for your review and comment. All the best with RL, Crum375 (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome-personal template

There is indeed a problem when the template user does not substitute the template. The best solution is probably to remove the section header from the template, and have the user start a new section manually (rather than having the template create the section heading). In any event, I am working on it and I have fixed the particular transclusion that caused you problems earlier. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking care of that and for letting me know! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars FAR

You edit-conflicted me as I went for a "speedy close, please read the instructions" call. As you've removed the FAR from the talk page and it won't therefore be in the article history, shall I delete Wikipedia:Featured article review/Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back/archive1 for you? Bencherlite^Talk 19:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

A speedy close causes Gimmetrow to have to run the bot and include it in ah; a housekeeping delete avoids that step, and saves everyone time when the nom is out of process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but thought I'd check with you first. Done. Bencherlite^Talk 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! There's some kind of award for you in having beating Dabomb87 to the task, but someone will have to invent it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

<cheesy accent> "No, ma'am, you can keep your rewards. It's all part of the service. And, anyway, having bragging rights over Dabomb on a housekeeping delete at FAR is all I ask." <salutes, remounts horse, rides off into sunset and gets back to work. And cue music...> Bencherlite^Talk 19:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in a cheesy mood! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

<Faints, falls off horse...> Bencherlite^Talk 23:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Watch out for the birds! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Retro diagnoses

If you're around, do you mind weighing in here about how you and OR handled Tourette Syndrome and Samuel Johnson? --Moni3 (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey I think this should be FAC's new theme song. Funny, yet strangely hypnotic at the same time... --Moni3 (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I like this better: I’m the girl with the good ol' boys who don’t mean you no harm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hoxne Challenge

Hi SG,

You may have seen what we're up to over at the article Hoxne Hoard - here's the event page: Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Hoxne_challenge. Thought you might be interested to know and potentially give advice or assist if you can. All the best, Witty Lama 21:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

What is the policy for moving someone's work form their user subpage, to an article page? User:Fpigulski/Mike Denklau, the user hasn't edited since March, I left a talk page query, but just in case they don't respond, I'd like to know. Thanks, CTJF83 pride 03:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know! Sorry, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Any ideas on who would know? CTJF83 pride 04:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

By saving the work on that user subpage, Fpigulski has released the text under CC-BY-SA, so you can just move it to mainspace provided you credit him as the author (for example, in your edit summary). Of course, out of courtesy it is best to ask him first, as you did. You can also try e-mail. Whether it's good to move a page to mainspace that's sourced mostly to the subject's campaign website is another question. Ucucha 09:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Touché, a clean up and finding of better sources, would be warranted, thanks for your help, Ucucha. CTJF83 pride 16:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship

The fair-use image that was the stumbling block on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sovetsky Soyuz class battleship/archive1 has been deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello stalkers

Tell me, talk page watchers, is there a tool that removes the unused parameters from citation templates in articles? Where would I find such a thing, if it exists? Also, could a friendly admin move Wyld's Globe to Wyld's Great Globe...it's so great it that deserves the title. But don't move it to A Great Article on Wyld's Globe, that would be too much. Yomangani^talk 11:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved. No idea on the tool/script.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (and thanks to Sandy for hosting such a useful clearing house). Yomangani^talk 11:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a script that removes unused parameters, but I can't remember who has it ... either Gimmetrow or Dr pda or Dabomb87. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, done. It's User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js (the "Sprk: Wki/LinkRepair" function). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

How did you know it was that article? It could have been any of the three million odd. (Thanks). Yomangani^talk 14:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Now if the developers would figure out how we "trusted reviewers" can move over a redirect! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't you know? Ucucha 14:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Booby prize! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia/archive3

Greetings Sandy. In your edit summary, you put "Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia/archive3‎; 12:19 . . (+147) . . SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs | block) (→National Anthem of Russia: three weeks, no support, try again in about ten days after all concerns addressed." I do have a support and the only oppose was struck out at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FNational_Anthem_of_Russia%2Farchive3&action=historysubmit&diff=368784137&oldid=368441907. So there are no actual "oppose concerns" to address and any suggestions given at the FAC have already been implemented. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies! I've restored the FAC now. It would help if nominators and reviewers would help me keep FACs readable and in order, so I don't miss things on my first pass.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC today

Hi Sandy. I'm fighting a nasty cold today and don't know if I have the energy to run through FAC today. I know you are crazy busy right now - if you don't have time to get to it I'l just postpone until tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Today is completely crazy for me, but if I get a chance, I'll close any that are obvious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

PS, if any TPS want to leave a list of obvious ones for us to check here, that would be most welcome! My time should be better by this evening (around 18 or 19 UTC). Feel better soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I just finished thorough review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao/archive3 and moved to support, but am not sure where the image review stands Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone ping User:Stifle? Thanks, Truthkeeper88-- I know that one was a long haul for you, and your diligence is laudable! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I see Jappalang has already been there (unsigned). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Am still picking up the pieces - need to strike a few more comments. I think there's much to be said for good GA and PR reviewers - which help prevent under-prepared articles showing up at FAC. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Broken record alert: FAC is not peer review, and FAR is not dispute resolution (but that's a whole 'nother topic that I don't have time to deal with-- apparently, FAR *is* dispute resolution these days!!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

In fairness to the reviewer, the peer review was outstanding; and had the recommendations been incorporated, the FAC review would have been easier.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Want to note here for the record that at that peer review, the reviewer made 25 recommendations. 18 of them were incorporated after the review, and 4 of them are still not incorporated, for various reasons. That leaves 3. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just looked, and there are a ton of FACs at the bottom of the page with no or limited feedback ! arrrgh. Does anyone have time to update the Urgents template? Otherwise, with the page at 45 FACs, those will have to be closed-- no complaints please ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Karen, there were almost 50 FACs, and nothing promotable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that with the World Cup on, most people outside of North America are going to have severely restricted spare time for the next couple of weeks (four hours per day for a month, multiplied by 700 million – 1,200 million people, adds up to a lot of lost hours). You might want to leave them live for longer than usual; once the summer holidays come along, the number of submissions will presumably drop so it should even itself out in the medium-long term. – iridescent 10:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you been reading my texts or listening in on my phone calls to the girls in South America? We gringos are such ignorants for not being glued to the TV!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that explains why I can't get an Australian (or non=Australian) to review 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, stuck at 2 supports. If you archive it, you archive it and I'll put up Hoover Dam, now at PR. Shrug.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In the past, I've been known to promote FACs with no issues from experienced editors on two supports when FAC is backlogged. We could call it the World Cup Option. On the other hand, maybe some of those editors raging over at FAR could take the time to do some reviews; of course, I understand that one-line Delist declarations are much easier than FAC reviews :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

John Vanbrugh FAR

Can we please move on and try and discuss the article? If you want to discuss how outrageous the whole process is can you do it somewhere else, so we can try and get something constructive out of the process beyond the obvious that the article is under-referenced. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting that we should "discuss the article" now is a bit late-- the FAR has been open for months (record setting), has been way off track all along, and it was rudely continued while Bish was sick, she's still sick, and the FAR should be brought back in a few months if necessary. Sorry if you (or others) don't agree, but that IS the issue. FAR is backlogged-- the silly delayed FARs should end, particularly when an editor is sick. There's nothing to be gained by having it open now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

But while it is open we may as well try and gain something useful out of it rather than going into vast detail about the state of FAR. Additionally it hasn't been going on that long compared to the other current FAR's as its only about half way down the list at the moment. Besides there's even the possibility that if the referencing is sorted that the article could pass as a keep... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, many FARs are dragging on too long now-- you have precisely identified one of the many current problems, which doesn't excuse it. If you think "something useful" can be gained from putting a productive editor through this, we're from different planets. Nothing can be gained for the article that can't be accomplished outside of FAR. FAR is not dispute resolution, and shouldn't be used as such. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Vanbrugh

As the nominating editor of Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Vanbrugh/archive1, I resent your accusation that this was "an abuse of the FAR process." I nominated the article after finding it on WP:URFA, a page which (if I recall correctly) I have seen you link to in the past. I had no idea that Bishonen was in the hospital; all I saw is that the current referencing standards—which you battle so hard to keep up on FAC—were not met with the previous sourcing. I did not simply count the number of inline citations, but I took note of the multiple paragraphs that did not contain references. At FAC, an article like Vanbrugh would have been failed quickly after multiple opposes. I can not comprehend why you believe FAR should be different, nor why Vanbrugh should be allowed to remain featured in its current state. If Bishonen wants to work on it, it should be delisted now (while it is not compliant with FA standards) and she can nominate it at FAC whenever it is ready to face the current criteria. While this action is somewhat cold-hearted, the content criteria do not contain double standards for well-connected editors. However, as I decline to engage in wiki-politics, my view way be in error; please correct me if this is so. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

SG, I'm also quite confused over the Vanbrugh FAR. I keep seeing you claim at FAR that you don't want the noms to "drag on", but then I also see you claim at FAR that you want people to rescue the articles (as used to happen in the "good ole' days") rather than delist them. However, the more work that goes into rescuing an article, the longer an article will be at FAR. To properly source an article like Vanbrugh would take months, if someone hadn't already done the research. Even if they had done the research years ago, it would take a long time to remember where the facts were. Please decide what you want, as your posts at FAR are rather discouraging and confusing. Awadewit (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is going to work on saving stars in the current environment at FAR, and when it was a place where featured status was restored, it didn't take three of four months (because it was a place where knowledgeable editors engaged). What we have now are pages filled with content dispute, misinterpretations of policy and guideline, and ... there is no need for a FAR to continue when the editor who knows the sources is in the hospital. No wonder we lose good editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've fought pretty hard to keep Roy of the Rovers's star, so I'm not sure you can say that "no one is going to work on saving stars". But then, maybe I'm just a nobody. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) SG, it is partially about the subject matter and the change in FAC standards as well. We require a lot in FAs now. To rewrite old FAs to those standards requires a lot of research. You don't just have to be knowledgeable - you have to be willing to put in months of work on a topic that you yourself haven't chosen to edit. Not many people are willing to make that commitment. In the past, you had some good content editors who happened to know something about the subject matter at FAR and FA standards that were not quite so high - it was easier to restore the star. While I sympathize with Bish, I don't at all understand the "close as keep" action you made. Why not simply say "Hold until Bish is better" or "Close as delist" since Bish simply can't work on the article. There is no shame in having the article delisted and Bish clearly has problems with the new FA standards anyhow. Someone else may have to do the work, in the end. We can wait - there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, after all. Awadewit (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

We agree that there are no deadlines; FAR is not dispute resolution, the page is absurdly backlogged, and moving FARs off the page until an ill editor can work on it won't break the Wiki. The default at FAC is archive; the default at FAR used to be keep. Now the default is "haggle for four months". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

FARs drag on for far too long, I agree. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Awa's observations. Things change on Wikipedia, and one of them has been FAR; as the standards have risen, it is [normally] harder to keep the articles. The wiki will not break if we close the Vanbrugh FAR as keep, but in my opinion it would be absurd to leave a star on the article indicating that it is one of "the best articles in Wikipedia" when it clearly does not meet today's criteria. I can't see a reason why this shouldn't be delisted, worked on when Bishonen is healthy again, and sent to FAC (or putting the FAR on hold [again] until she is better). In the end, what is the difference? Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

As I told someone else, if you don't think losing good editors because others care more for process than articles or people isn't a problem, we're from different planets. As to WP:URFA, there are boatloads of really poor articles there; I do wish people would focus on those that truly need attention and actually are an embarrassment to FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not that I am caring for the process more than people; I simply care about the quality and reputation of the FA designation. How do you argue that this page wasn't "an embarrassment to FA"? With its severe lack of citations, it was an embarrassment. To compound the issue, it was the only 2004 FA that hadn't been reviewed—weren't you the spearhead of an effort to get all the pre-2006 FAs reviewed? Seems like a double standard... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 12:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Only to those who determine the quality of an article by counting superscripts could it be considered among FAs worst embarrassments. No, I wasn't a spearhead of that effort; I wasn't even an editor when the citations requirements changed. When FAR was a well-oiled machine, I maintained the URFA page, and still do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Sandy, while I understand your concern for a Wiki-friend, do you think you might be a little biased on this article? If an editor lambasted good faith, experienced reviewers and content contributors at FAC like you are doing at FAR, you would be all over them. The ed17 made a good faith nomination of an article he considered to not meet the FA criteria, and he was correct that it didn't (and doesn't) meet the current FA criteria. While I'm sure it was written with brilliant prose and fully met and most likely exceeded the FA criteria when it was first passed to that status, it doesn't meet the criteria as they have changed over the past six years. There were at the beginning of the nomination and still are unsourced quotes and opinions, as well as missing page numbers, which you yourself argued was a valid argument for delisting in a recent FAR. There was already a mix of parenthetical and "ref" citations when the article was nominated for FAR (see this), so Eraserhead's confusion over the referencing style was understandable, and again good faith. If I were to close this article right now, it would be as a delist, because the people "voting" delist have provided valid reasons (lack of references, lack of page numbers, etc) that show the article is not up to par, while the keep votes have either been "sympathy" votes based on Bishonen's illness or based on the assumption of further work being completed (in Tony's case). I don't plan to close the review right now, as work is still ongoing, although YellowMonkey is of course free to do as he wishes. The FAR page is not backlogged right now (it's under 20 nominations), several are being worked on the collegial editing environment you so want (so the page is not completely without hope), and the Vanbrugh article is still a ways from the bottom of the page (so there's no pressing need to close it). Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sandy Given that WP:V is one of Wikipedia's core policies along with WP:NPOV and WP:OR. It certainly seems like an embarrassment if one of Wikipedia's featured (and best) articles doesn't meet one of Wikipedia's core poilcies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dana, I don't know where a "Wikifriend" is coming in to this (I'd say the same for any respected ill editor), nor do I know why Ed17 has anything to do with this discussion-- as far as I can tell, the misstatements about citation policy, and the issues with Bish's health that surfaced after the nomination, have nothing to do with him. I'm confident you'll do whatever you think right, and I'll support whatever you do, but I will say that if Marskell were still around, he would have closed this FAR the minute he knew Bish was sick, suggesting it come back in a few months and that in the interim issues could be worked out on talk. FAR is backlogged in the sense that there are too many in FARC, and not enough new noms in FAR of those that really warrant attention. Bish/Giano FARs have become a hobby horse, and everyone has to put their two cents in: the article itself becomes a sideshow, and FAR becomes not a fun place to work. I hope none of the editors who feel so strongly about this particular article ever find one of their articles before FAR while sick. As to pressing need to close it, longer and longer FARs, with little progress, are becoming more and more the norm, when they used to be the exception. As I've said before, if the current attitude is going to prevail at FAR, it would be more expedient to just put up all the old FAs for a "vote", as was done years ago in "Refreshing brilliant prose"; that's basically what's happening there now anyway, and since some editors want to wipe out all old FAs, better to stop putting FA writers through this torture, and just vote 'em all of the island. Unfortunately, a lot of what's going on now has very little to do with FA quality, rather counting superscripted citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite the problem that I see SandyG. Sure, FARs go on for far too long, as do GARs, and this "brilliant prose" issue doesn't help. It's rather difficult to write "brilliant prose" if every single sentence has to be attributed to someone else. I read this article some time ago, and I thought it was well written and enjoyable. Would it get through FAC today? No, of course it wouldn't. Does that matter? Not to me it doesn't. Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sandy's reply to me above, I don't think I worded my previous post the way I wanted to. My original intent was to assert that I had not just 'counted the citations' before nominating, but I didn't quite get around to making the point. I nominated it because entire paragraphs, quotes, and assertions were unreferenced, which by today's widespread interpretation of the FA criteria is unacceptable. Re pre-2006 FAs, my memory tells me that you were pushing to get all the pre-06 FAs reviewed sometime in the past (2009?), but memory has failed me before, so I apologize. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

St. Michael's Cathedral

Hi, seeing as I've taken Jappalang's suggestion on the first image, and he hasn't been around to answer my responses to his questions regarding the second image, could we close this FAC if I just pulled the image in question? Then when he gets back, we can either put it back (with his approval), or use the other image he suggested. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a reasonable way to address the image issue (but I'm not sure when one of us will next go through FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, its been done. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Tagging on here, Sandy. The map issue has been resolved. The old church photo has been removed (so it should be kind of considered resolved as well) but I guess it can be "safely" put back if desired once Noraft records some further information as detailed in the FAC in the image description field. Jappalang (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ! I'll start through FAC as soon as I've had dinner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

CFM56

David Fuchs is too busy and said so on the FAC. What does that mean? A pass? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it means delegates must look at the issues and determine if they're resolved-- I found that some of them weren't at the time I looked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

umm, what happened?

Uh, since this was my first FA nomination I don't quite understand what happened here. Why was the nomination archived? It is (was) a still new nomination (so there hasn't been enough time for consensus to be reached), the concerns raised by Ucucha and Brianboulton were already addressed and the issues raised by Mm40 were in the process of being addressed/discussed, and no reviewer suggested that the nomination be withdrawn. Can you explain why it was archived?radek (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate an at least short explanation in due time since I don't think my request is unreasonable and I have devoted a considerable amount of my own valuable time into the project and this article in particular. Thank you.

Add: I note that the commentator below has very similar concerns to mine. What's going on? radek (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul Kelly failed FAC

Could you please clarify the reason(s) for the failed candidature of Paul Kelly (musician), see archive?

Work had been done in response to review comments by Hamiltonstone with the user's last comment, "I'll come back to the article later - just a quick comment to say that negative as well as positive comments should be included, as long as they reflect the balance of views across the literature as a whole. Might be a few days before I get to do a proper read-through." To me this is an indication that the decision of opposing the promotion was pending a reappraisal. Consensus had not yet been reached and I was awaiting the results of the "proper read-through".

Concerns raised by other reviewers, Tony1, Ucucha and Brianboulton had been addressed. I had the feeling that things were going okay.

A recently added comment by Y2kcrazyjoker4 appeared seven hours before you closed the debate and failed the candidacy. I don't believe that this is a reasonable time for a response to those comments.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC archivals

General response (independent of particular reviews-- Talk Page Stalkers may want to add specifics); please see the instructions at WP:FAC regarding timing of FACs and delegate discretion-- we have to manage the page the best we can. FAC is backlogged, reviewers are lacking, and the page is running about twice the optimal size. FAC is the place where it should be determined if articles meet WP:WIAFA-- not a place for peer review or for addressing concerns that should have been addressed prior to nomination, like sourcing, images, MOS, citation, dead links, dabs, etc. When a FAC gets too long early on, it will have a better chance by coming back in a few weeks, clean. Experienced FAC nominators bring nominations that have few or no sourcing issues, clean MOS, no dead links or dabs, etc., so that review can focus on prose, comprehensiveness, neutrality and other major concerns. FACs are not "failed": they are "archived" when a subsequent nomination will give them a cleaner chance at success. Reviewers are unlikely to devote attention to FACs that get too long early on or have unresolved issues, and delegates must decide which FACs have a better chance at success. Nominators can help reduce the backlog by contributing reviews of other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The review in question had few or no sourcing issues, clean MOS, no deadlinks, etc. (and what there was was quickly fixed). The only problem was a reviewer demanding the inclusion of irrelevant sources which s/he him/herself has obviously not bothered to read, for no obvious reason what so ever, and making prose suggestions that fly in the face everything that is generally accepted as good writing style. My response was not given time to be addressed. The FACs did not get too long early on. None of the 4 criteria that are sitting on top of your page in purple as I write this were met. Perhaps the backlog of the FACs has something to do with the quality of some of the reviewers and their general apparent cluelessness?

Quite honestly, since the FAR process seems to be as dysfunctional as I've been warned, I'd rather have a good non-FA article then denigrate its quality by incorporating blatantly ridiculous suggestions of some reviewers, just to get the FA-trinket. So thanks for your time.radek (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC and FAR are two different places-- you appear confused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the information before the -- communicated all that you needed to say. "You appear confused" is neither necessary, nor does it add to a collaborative editing environment. To Radeksz, you don't have to put up with "blatantly ridiculous suggestions." In the FA I just had promoted, I had several suggestions from several reviewers which I thought were inappropriate. Some were not incorporated. Others, they changed my mind on. And still others, it became clear that although I thought they were inappropriate, the community consensus was otherwise. My point is that you can push back: just make a good case that has more substance than simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If a suggestion really is "blatantly ridiculous," then the community should back you on that. If they don't, maybe it isn't so blatantly ridiculous after all. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 15:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

I haven't been active on FACs in a while, but I was surprised to find this closed so suddenly - it looked to me like it was in need of more discussion (it had one vote - oppose - to which the nominator replied in a fashion that I believe addresses the concerns raised). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the general response above; FAC is severely lacking reviewers, many nominators never review, the page is backlogged, FAC is not a vote, delegates decide the timing, and those that appear they will have a better chance if they come back clean in a few weeks are archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe I should come back to reviewing... PS. I have to agree with nominator above. If FACs are being discarded because we are backlogged and a single bad review (bad not as in oppose, but bad as in unreasonable objection) can sink it, we have a problem :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we do have a problem (as does all of Wiki); content review processes, dispute resolution, vandal fighting, RFA-- everything is lacking participation. Without reviews, the default at FAC is we can't promote, and delegates must archive those that appear least prepared. I hope you'll come back to reviewing ! Also, FACs don't get "sunk"-- they can come back when they are better prepared. More important is that we maintain standards on those that are promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I fail to see how the existence of a back log justifies incompetence by reviewers in the review process or a rushed archiving of a nomination after a single unhelpful comment. Why not just flip a coin next time? That will quickly eliminate the backlog and we won't run the risk of articles being damaged by inane and harmful suggestions made on the review page (if a nominator is actually dumb or weak willed enough to incorporate them).

The point is that at some point you got to ask yourself which, given the time constraints we ALL operate under, is a preferable situation: to have a backlog but to do a thorough quality job with each nomination, or to rush things, do things incompetently all in the name of eliminating the backlog. Other than that the whole issue of a FAR backlog you bring up is nothing but a red herring and an excuse for (others) lack of qualifications and skills to participate in the process.radek (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Which reviewers are you accusing of incompetence? FAC isn't a peer review; articles should be pretty much ready when they're taken there, but many clearly aren't. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming he means the reviewer of his FA article - check out the review (I agree with the nominator that the reviewer objections shouldn't be actionable). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor comment here - while I agree with points raised, don't be too hard on Sandy. She is one of the most overworked editors here, so if she makes an error every now and then... we are all just humans. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW - SandyGeorgia and Karanacs, like the rest of us, volunteer their time here. I'd suggest maybe bringing this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, if you perceive the process itself is at issue. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Catching up-- this FAC was not closed "suddenly"; it was closed after 11 days. Disparaging reviewers isn't the best stragegy for advancing goals. It should have a better chance if it comes back in two weeks. Also, Radeksz, please note that WP:FAC is not WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

My mistake on the confusion between FAC and FAR (sometimes I get lost in the whole Wikipedia alphabet soup). Being critical of reviewers, when they deserve it, is not the same as disparaging them for no reason. In particular I though the comments by Ucucha and Brianboulton to be relevant, constructive, and helpful. For most of those 11 days nothing happened. At any rate, since Truthkeeper88 has made extensive and very useful recommendations on the article's talk page, I'm happy to consider the whole thing moot at this point. However, the folks involved in doing reviews may consider a bit more seriously the trade offs involved in doing reviews quickly, but sloppily, in order to just eliminate the backlog, and to letting a backlog persist but taking care and being serious with each candidate, that I refer to above. Thanks.radek (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like that's cleared up then. How many FACs, FARs, GANs, DYKs, etc. have you reviewed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a whole bunch of DYKs. I've participated in several FARs and FACs for other people's articles though. And yes, I might be willing to help out when I have a bit more time (I have quite a number of project planned atm).radek (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ping....

ping.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

All fixed

Thank you. That completes my Australian bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting right on it (I knew you would-- already promoted-- well, after I finish the bookkeeping, anyway :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, thanks for going through FAC this weekend - I was just getting ready to do that when I saw you had beaten me to it. I am well again and should be able to pick up all the slack for the next few weeks. Karanacs (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It's crunch time here, but I'm doing what I can in between chores. Thanks, Karen! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool

I've corrected the italics on The Political Cesspool and responded to the other issues at its FAC. Thanks for all your help! Stonemason89 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

water fluoridation

Please explain each of your reverts to that page in detail in its talk page. Many of your reverts replaced sections that are grammatically incorrect, factually challenged, etc. Petergkeyes (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the 3RR. Thank you. Petergkeyes (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand WP:3RR (you might also want to look at WP:SPA and WP:TEND). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

CFM56 FAC

Hi Sandy -- If you get a minute could you come back by the CFM56 FAC? I've added a couple links as you've requested, and another editor changed the bolded notes heading into italics. I think we're just about there, so if you could take another look when you get a chance we can hopefully wrap this thing up! Thanks! -SidewinderX (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I left a note for Karanacs (talk · contribs), who will likely go through FAC today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. Thanks for your help! -SidewinderX (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Pei'd in Full

You asked me to ping you when Awadewit responded. So ping! She has struck her oppose vote. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 23:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please ping karanacs, thanks ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Faith

You and I seriously need to work together in good faith. Petergkeyes (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A good first step in collaboration would be to refrain from misrepresenting sources, edit warring, and continuing to add text against consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I would never intentionally misrepresent sources. I am not the least bit interested in warring with anybody in this project, and it is clear to me that consensus is not a prerequisite to bold editing. Having said that, I am quite keen on seeking said consensus, as that is one of the main thrusts of this project. I urge you to assume best intentions, and to be welcoming. Petergkeyes (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)