User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch82

Edit conflict

Hi Sandy, I had an edit conflict here [1]. I hope you will let me off. PS. You have forgotten my birthday again :-(( It will be over at midnight. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Airbus A330 FAC

The Airbus A330 nomination that you just close, I think that you could have waited another week or so. I've got one support, and (I think) it was a matter of days before more people will show up. Anyway, I have requested an independent copy-edit; once it's complete, can I re-nominate it straight away? I mean, the problem was a lack of people and a minor copy-edit, since the article had gone through a thorough one during the first FAC. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 21:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Trade? If you'll submit any article that has a good chance of passing to Milhist's A-class review, I'll copyedit both that one and Airbus A330 for you. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I decline. I'm not an expert at military history (does that include aircraft though?). Sorry. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 07:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

MILHIST is happy to review plane articles that have a military connection. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, right. OK then. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 02:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Flickr Licenses

Dear Sir or Madam,

You misunderstand the license here The license here is "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike Generic" OR "cc by sa generic" which is acceptable for use on Wikicommons/Wikipedia because it IS Copyright Free. This image is from the World Economic Forum and they license all their images this way. I am trusted on Wikicommons and I tell you the truth. It would only not pass flickr review if it was licensed as "All Rights Reserved" or had "Non-Commercial" or "No-Derivative use" restrictions. Here are two other images here and here with the same cc by sa generic license that both passed flickr review. It is a copyright free license that asks for attribution to the author. Any new derivative images made from this original image must have the same "cc by sa generic" license which is also acceptable to wikipedia and the Commons project. If this license was unfree, the flickr review bot would never have passed these 2 photos.

The Administrators designed the flickr review bot, not me. But, if you wish, you can contact Admin Matt Bisanz just to confirm that images with "cc by sa generic" licenses can be freely used here. There are hundreds of WEF images used on wikipedia with this license. PS: Once an image passes flickr review on Wikimedia Commons, it is considered passed for life...and the permission cannot be revoked. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The image itself says nothing but Some rights reserved, where you are getting the rest of the info to claim the photo is free is unclear to me, it seems to me that info should be included on the image page, I don't care about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on other images as errors are frequently made on Commons, most of the competent and knowledgeable Commons admins I trust are no longer around, and "considered passed for life ... and the permission cannot be revoked" makes no sense to me considering there are errors on Commons, and finally, I will contact MBISanz to see if he can shed further light on this and try to make sure the photo is properly documented so we can all understand its status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a TPS butting in, but if you look at the Flickr page for the photo, the Some rights reserved links to the specific Creative Commons license being used. In this case, it's CC BY-SA 2.0, which is one of the Wikipedia-compatible licenses. Imzadi 1979 → 15:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, the image is fine for Wikipedia, it is under a copyleft license. The "some rights reserved" refers to the fact that the image must be attributed and that any derivative images must fall under the same conditions. The commons image has the attribution data and as such it is good to go. It is under the same license (albeit an older version) that you or I release all of our edits under at Wikipedia. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both -- I didn't realize the "Some rights reserved" linked to anything, so that clears it up! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Late to the party...but what they said. Glad it worked out. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm sorry I was unable to make a brief reply but I was busy with work and my studies the past few days. What Admin Matt Bisanz, Imzadi1979 and Woody say is correct. The images are compatible with the Wikimedia Commons (or Wikicommons) and Wikipedia project because the copyright owners at flickr removed the Non-Commercial and No-Derivative use restrictions on these images. So, they're basically copyright free. Thank You. PS: Here is my Wikicommons user page: [2] I'm trusted to mark (pass or fail) images but I'm not an Administrator and don't wish to be one. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Update ...

... on our FAC editorial in the Bugle, including your comments, here. The idea for this editorial was to give a lot of brief statements by a lot of different people to convey the idea that there's broad support for the idea that anyone can (and more should) review at FAC. After we see if the editorial has any effect, we can try to do something less scattershot in another editorial. Please let me know if you are (or aren't) happy with any effect this might have at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ernst_Lindemann/archive1

Replying to your requests at the time of closing. Someone went through and inserted all those hyphens after I reviewed; I've gone back through and I think I got them all. On the WP:NOICONS point, Kaldari has submitted a bug request that may allow us to keep the code and remove the icon. On the other two points, I asked for help at WT:MIL (and got as much help as I expected), and I'll ask MisterBee to look at those when he gets back from his hiking vacation (Germans and their vacations ...) - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

2012_phenomenon

Just saw your comment in the history that you had "no idea wht this support means", which I didn't see through the diff viewer tool. Well, in aid of making the delegate's job easier....I said "The scientific side of the astronomical information all checks out to me. Support there." By which, this is an article heavy on astronomy: the level of scientific detail is both accurate and sufficiently comprehensive for the topic. I was explicitly not checking the New Ageist or the archaeological detail in the article. Iridia (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Florida Marlins

Probably should be the FA of all time given that they are one of the top teams in the MLB. And where are those Bosox? After years of abuse, that bordered on just plain mean, it's time for me to brag a bit! You may bow towards South Florida and give proper honor to the Marlins. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Karim

I agree, a royal favourite would be in the Royalty section. Thanks for the promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

FACClosed template?

Sandy, it looks like you haven't yet added the FACClosed template to the recent batch of promotions -- at least, you haven't added it to the Science Fantasy FAC. In the future if I see an omission like this, is it OK if I go ahead and add the template, so long as you've added the article(s) to WP:FA? Or are there nuances to the way the template is added that mean it's best left to the delegates? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a courtesy we do when we have time (or when we know GimmeBot won't be through soon)-- once we've moved FACs to the archived or promoted log, anyone can add the template (and it's most appreciated if anyone does this kind of work ... I'm doing all of FAC by myself these days). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it. OK, I'll know in future. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes Night

Have you had time to read the talk page of the article? If so do you think that comments by Malleus Fatuorum and Parrot of Doom have always remain within the bounds set in WP:CIVIL?

Within the last 24 hours all my edits have been reverted with no comments on the talk page, despite requests that they are given and the only comment to a revert in the article history is "undo nonsense changes". This is why the article as it is currently structured and the interaction between the editors editing this article do not meet the requirements for an FA. -- PBS (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi PBS. I haven't been following, but the particular diff you're citing may be a simple misunderstanding; "{{who|date=May 2001}}" is what was reverted. It's possible no offense was intended, they just meant to point out that the date was nonsensical. - Dank (push to talk) 11:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT, PBS. Most of your edits within the last 24 hours have been adding various maintenance templates, particularly {{who}} and {{citation needed}}. You're obviously aware of where the talk and review talk pages are; use them. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: dispute has been taken to AN3. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, that kind of tips it over the edge for me. I've left a friendly reminder to play nice on PBS's talk page. I see PoD is getting an RFCU ready; I'll stay tuned. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't read the talk page archives, for two reasons. First, they don't exist (will someone please fix that NOW?) The archives links go to Gunpowder Plot in the archive box- absurd. Second, I shouldn't have to read the talk page to sort why opposing reviewers refuse to add high quality reliable sources to the FAC-- I'm not going to read through a lengthy talk page, when it's apparent on the FAC that WIAFA is not even being engaged and no source has been given for any complaint. Post sources you want considered to the FAC, where reviewers and nominators can engage them, and stop disrupting the article. If someone would like to reinstate the article's archives, I *may* eventually read them, but not unless the FAC is being engaged correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Done, I hope, at Talk:Guy_Fawkes_Night#Archiving_was_wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The archive links are still going to the GunPowder Plot-- this means anyone trying to sort this dispute will likely be confused or give up. Doesn't matter much to me (yet), since it's apparent on the FAC that no opposer has given actionable items based on sources, but eventually I may need to read the talk archives to see what led to the dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen Cluebot archive to one set of pages and display links to a different set of pages before, so I can't solve the problem. I did the next best thing: I made the archivebox go away, and added an infobox giving the correct links. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The editing dispute at Guy Fawkes Night has been reported at Wikipedia:AN3#User:Parrot of Doom reported by PBS (talk) (Result: ). I hope it is obvious why regular 3RR admins would lack enthusiasm for closing this. If it were up to me all the parties would try to negotiate this at User talk:Iridescent#User:Philip Baird Shearer. Getting advice from User:Iridescent about what to do would be sensible. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in, EdJohnston ... there seems to be a messup in the talk page archives, that I'm disinclined to sort until parties start behaving on the FAC and on user talk. By stepping through a few of the diffs on article talk, I see name calling, misbehaving, personalization, but no high quality sources to back the proposed text additions, and no reasonable dialogue, so it looks like a rather lame dispute over personal opinions about what should be in the article has escalated to attempts to disrupt the FAC with tag bombing, and name calling over something that should be easily solved if all parties will start supplying sources and examples of issues that need to be addressed on the FAC. If I were an admin, I'd probably be making liberal use of the naughty box, since most of them should know how a FAC is conducted and should know how to conduct themselves collegially. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dank ... I'm obviously rather disgusted at having to deal with such childish behavior when I'm the only delegate around, after having posted that I would be very busy through June-- I appreciate everyone's help here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully I can summarise things for you Sandy. Essentially, I rewrote the article, choosing to base its structure on the sources used. Initially that was an essay by David Cressy, with additions from other minor online sources. Latterly, I bought a book by Sharpe and used that to expand the article further. None of the main sources devote much attention to the modern celebration, either in the UK or abroad, and the article therefore reflects that. Here's where the focus of the dispute, and edit warring, lies - some editors believe that the article should not be about the day's history, rather it should be about the day as it is celebrated today, with a foreword about its history. Some believe that the article should be renamed to History of Guy Fawkes Night, and Bonfire Night be expanded. None of those complaining about such matters have offered any reliable sources to support their position, and as far as I'm aware, there are no reliable sources which would allow for the expansion of the modern celebration. I can only presume from this lack of information that most scholars view the history of the day as being far more important than what occurs today, and I therefore posit that this is exactly how Wikipedia should present 5 November.

The rest mostly regards stylistic preferences and claims of impropriety. I'm sorry this has spilled over into the FAC, but I've tried as best I can not to get involved with those comments. I know only too well how frightening walls of text can look to potential reviewers, and so I'm responding only to constructive criticism that I can act upon, and not unsupportable opinions based on personal preference. Parrot of Doom 08:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Editors here, and particularly Parrot of Doom, may be interested in This discussion at MILHIST which proposes to require history articles in generally to be structured off and reflect the HQRS in order to avoid SYNTHESIS by collation. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Philip Baird Shearer

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer. -- Parrot of Doom 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Parrot of Doom 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured Lists on the main page

Hi Sandy, I can see you're incredibly busy right now, but I wanted to let you know that the proposals for "Today's Featured List" and "... Sound" are reaching the stage where they will be ready to go live soon, thanks to Edokter taking over the coding after Adam left. I understand if you're too busy to comment, but I didn't want you to feel that you had missed out on the process this time around. The discussions that I'm aware of are at Talk:Main Page and Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list and there's a demo version at Wikipedia:Featured lists/Main Page preview. Regards --RexxS (talk) 12:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC...

As the FAC I'm currently on as a co-nom has one support (and no opposes) can I be free to nominate another article or would you prefer me to wait? FAC is here Ealdgyth - Talk 13:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead ... as a co-nom, you're allowed another anyway! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Autism#Study says 47% recovers from autism

Hi SandyGeorgia, I started a discussion here. Can you reply with your thoughts? Thanx. ATC ^{. Talk} 23:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Question

Bit of a trivial question, but I was wondering, on the Watchlist, there are numbers in parens next to the time of a posting for an article. What exactly does that signify?

Homo Logica (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi HL, if you refer to the (+1271) or (-2098) - or whatever the actual numbers happen to be, they refer to how much content was added (+) or removed (-) since the last revision. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 01:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it's the number of bytes change with the edit. Green means added size, red is reduced. Or do you mean some other numbers? Everyone sets up their preferences for watchlists differently. I recognize your name from something recently. Can't remember what though, dealing with 5000 or so articles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was talking about. You and I were talking over at Evolutionism. I have some source material on my Talk page, and I'm going to add a bit more there, before I start forming stuff up. Homo Logica (talk) 01:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Could some kind person please tell me why Wikipedia is suddenly e-mailing me every time someone posts to my talk page, causing my Blackberry to endlessly beep at me during a time when I am swamped in real life with my head in a gazillion tedious decisions that must be made under time pressure (there's some old Russian saying about not wishing construction upon your worst enemy)? Can I make it go away, and then maybe have it come back when I'm not so busy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah the cute message sez 'E-mail notifications for changes to your user talk page have been enabled. This feature can be disabled under "E-mail options" in your preferences.'

P.S. omg what is that huge purple thing with a flower in it --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)]

It's a message nobuddy ever reads !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Special:Preferences, and unclick the next-to-last box. Annoying, isn't it? - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both-- yes, annoying as all heck when you're busy IRL, but I can see that I might like it later on. Thanks again ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I can update the urgents while you're busy, if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

That would be most kind of you, Dank-- in fact, I was just looking at that, but need to get out the door soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Dank, I try to keep them in order, with the oldest on top so they'll get (hopefully) first review (and keeping them in order makes it easier for me to update as I'm running through). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, didn't know. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Permission

Hi, Sandy, I realize you and the other delegates are intensely busy IRL, and I respect that. Since Jefferson nickel I believe has consensus to promote, but you have not had time to go through FAC, can I ask permission to nominate my next FAC candidate, Koninginnedag? It's all about orange beer if that helps.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

yep, go ahead ... don't let OrangeMarlin know about Orange beer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will avoid. Hic.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC

Hi SandyGeorgia, I'm here to ask for your opinion about the article Airbus A330, which is currently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Airbus A330. It has been two weeks and yet no-one has seem to know that the review exists; I've tried notifying everyone at WT:Aviation and WT:Aircraft, as well as some users, without much success. The article has since gone though a copy-edit by the helpful Jjron, the third since the first FAC. I think the article has met all the criteria required for the star. Could I instead by-pass (close) the A-class review, and head straight for FAC? Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 10:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Normally, I wouldn't recommend a premature closure to another review process, but 1) A-class isn't required prior to FAC, 2) not all areas of Wikipedia have A-class reviews, and 3) you've had it up long enough with no feedback. In other words, there's nothing preventing you coming to FAC-- I haven't looked at the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean a green light? Looking forward to the FAC Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 22:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that SandyG was quite clear, so have at it! Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you restore the delete page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Airbus A330/archive3 that I disobidiently created when it was only 5 days after the FAC closure? Thanks Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 04:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed link, restored. You still need to add it to the list, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a heap :) Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Email

You haz it. Raul654 (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Got it, catching up still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC/U

I did think there should be no further cause for allegations about procedural flaws, particularly when the subject is absent, and that things should be consistent across RfC/Us so DR can be used with a little more faith, but apparently I'm not helping. It's bad enough that things are being chipped away slowly in DR, but it's bound to get worse when admins themselves are the cause for its downfall because of poor judgement and laziness to think things through beforehand. SlimVirgin was involved up to her ears and has demonstrated an utter unwillingness to permit uninvolved users who do know how RfC/Us are run to bring the comments in compliance with the instructions. The rules are pretty fair in that they apply to all disputes and involved parties, but apparently her dispute is particularly special so she doesn't need to make a proposal to change the instructions across the board like others would. It's all news to me I guess, but clearly there's little point in me continuing, so it's back to you (or someone else...or maybe nobody again). In any case, good luck with it, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been able to keep up there, Ncm-- not sure what's been happening there, didn't know the subject was absent, and probably won't find time to look until the weekend. I know you generally do a good job of keeping RFC/Us in order, so am concerned that something has led you to give up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Permission?

Hi Sandy - I'm co-nom here which has supports, and I'd like to nominate another article soonish. Is that okay? Hope you're well btw. Thanks. TK (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead ... I will be able to look at FAC in the next 24 to 30 hours, once I catch up around the house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about FAC. It's not as though we have a deadline here! Anyway, just noticed your post on the FAC talkpage - I'll review another page or so first. Take care. TK (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Much appreciated ... the age-old message about lack of reviews at FAC never seemed to get through, and I do so appreciate your (and others) reviews. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

As a co-nom on the same article, I will take this as applying to Holy Thorn Reliquary too if that's ok - it has an exhibition opening to catch. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

yep ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Urgents

I'm sorry, I misunderstood the assignment ... I thought I was doing the formatting so that it would be easy for you to pick and choose. I admit that I don't really get the distinction between a FAC that's had enough reviews and one that hasn't, but that's something I'm trying to learn as I can. - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

FAC- Federation of Stoke on Trent

Hi Sandy, this being my first FAC nomination I'm not totally au fait with the process. I understand you closing the review due to lack or reviewers but I'm not sure where to go now. There's a small matter to follow up with User:Dank but then there isn't really anything. Does your edit note mean that subject to the conversation with Dank the article can be resubmitted in a week or so?

Also I've seen the discussion about lack of reviewers, I'd love to help but I'm still cutting my teeth on GA let alone FA. Thanks for all the hard work you put in on FAs. NtheP (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers can often be frightened by walls of text, especially on an article whose subject might not appear at first glance to be that interesting. Give it a while and then renominate it, but next time, include in your "reason why this is FA" a proper description, something to hook people. For instance, look at the reason I gave in this FAC nomination. And give me a shout, I'll review it for you. Parrot of Doom 09:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

As a lawyer, I found the article interesting, but did not have time to review it due to other commitments and an ill-timed attack of bronchitis which I am happy to say has gone away. When you bring it back after a few weeks or so, I will be happy to do a review, just drop me a note on my talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks people. Watch your talk pages in 2/3 weeks time. NtheP (talk) 10:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I closed three FACs only for lack of review after a month, and indicated that none of them needed to wait the usual two weeks to come back-- they may come back in a week if the nominators think they are ready. I'm sorry your FAC got no attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. As Arnie said "I'll be back". NtheP (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Arnie's days are over :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Terminated! NtheP (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm almost always happy to look through UK articles, so give me a shout as well when it goes back up at FAC. In fact I took a look at it yesterday, a few hours before the review was archived, and I was pondering on the article title (which I don't think is right) before I offered an opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Nickel

Your comments addressed. Danke for the promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad your bronchitis is resolved-- it can sometimes turn nasty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It was mildly scary, and forced me to drop off my current band tour, alas. However, I'm resting up today (the hospital is right across the street just in case) and I expect to be good to drive tomorrow. I am reluctantly concluding that I am actually mortal.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Red Badge FAC

Re: this, the punctuation has been checked and checked again by yours truly, first during the GAC, then again during the PR. It's A-OK and follows LQ guidelines. Many of the quotes don't appear to be full sentences, but the punctuation is correct regardless. Thanks for promoting! María (habla conmigo) 13:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ... without accessing the sources, it can be hard to tell, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The Autobiography of Malcolm X

Thank you for promoting the article.

Most of the books included in the Further reading section are books about Malcolm X, but they're referred to in the text of the article. If you think that's unclear or unnecessary, I'd be happy to cut them out. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 14:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know ... my concern about Futher reading is that they can tend to grow over time, as others try to add things when they see a long list ... if they are mentioned in the text, it is sometimes possible to switch them to citations, but whatever you think best. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

FA images question for SandyGeorgia or her TPS

Can anyone offer any insight as to what this is all about? --Moni3 (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Moni, the editor in question is tagging loads of files for deletion at the speed of light. This came to my attention because of the Stonewall image. There is something going on, I can't explain what, but it doe not seem in keeping with our collaborative ethos. Graham Colm (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Damiens.rf has some further discussion. Woody (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Request to have The Story of Miss Moppet de-FAd because of problem with banned User:ItsLassieTime

Hi Sandy, I scrubbed The Story of Miss Moppet from the plagiarism introduced by User:Susanne2009NYC, but I'd like to have its star stripped because of ongoing harassment by User:ItsLassieTime socks. See on my user page: [3], [4], [5], and [6]. On my FAs, see [7], [8], and [9]. Also see this ANI thread: [10]. I think trying to salvage the page, though done with good intentions, validated their work and was a mistake. Ruhrfisch helped a lot in the scrubbing and agrees, [11]. I suspect eventually we'll bring it back, but at this point I feel strongly that it doesn't deserve a star. Of course I have no idea whether a star can be stripped, but this might set a precedent. Also want very much to emphasize that all FACs need to be spot-checked to avoid stuff like this happening again. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't you have to go to WP:FAR?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say the exact same thing. In what way does the current version of the article not meet the FA criteria Truthkeeper? Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We can take it to FAR - but it doesn't deserve the star. The star was given to a serial plagiarist who is now harassing me. I don't want this person's work to be validated in this manner. Figure out what needs to be done, but it's wrong. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The article must be judged on its own merits. The actions of editors associated with it are irrelevant. Hitler could have written the article with Pol Pot, that wouldn't make the slightest bit of different to its status. Parrot of Doom 22:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict - The article could have gone straight to FAR, the edits rev - deleted and be stubbified or even completely deleted. It was full of copyvio - sentence after sentence. That's what should have happened, but it occurred at a time when another page made its way through FAC, it's my subject area and I decided to scrub. I think it doesn't deserve a star. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact we could still rev - del all of Suzanne's edits and it would interesting to see what that would do the content. Maybe that's the thing to do. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether it deserves a star or not depends on whether it meets the FA criteria or not, not on who wrote what. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I understand that you think it should keep the star. But the actions of the editor are important. I reverted content from one of their articles yesterday which caused harassment. If I hadn't helped scrub the article it wouldn't have a star and I think if we rev - deleted all of Suzanne's content it wouldn't be FA-worthy. At this point there's a pretty good argument to rev-del this editors edits on sight. Validating that kind of behavior is wrong if it results in having other editors driven away from the project. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The actions of the editor are utterly irrelevant. The article either stands or falls on its own merits. If you think it should fall, take it to FAR. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Parrot of Doom 22:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we could all point to lots of articles that without our scrubbing wouldn't still have their stars, Roy of the Rovers springs immediately to my mind. But it's not about who wrote what, as PoD says, it's about "does the article meet the FA criteria"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict - The problem is that bathwater enjoys having their baby. If Raul, Sandy, Dana, and Nikkimaria think it should go to FAR, I'll take it to FAR. I'd hate to ask Moonriddengirl or MuZemike to rev -del all the previous edits, but will if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, I didn't even get a star for it. The point I'm trying to make is that validating serial plagiarism is a bad idea. Giving a star a worse idea. The minute we find plagiarism, especially to that extent, in a page the star should be stripped. We can't ever run that page on the main page because the copy vio is still in the history. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then get someone to tidy up the history; the only thing that matters is what the article looks like now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

PS. I've worked on loads of FAs I don't have a star for, that's not what matters. I'm afraid that what this looks like to me is that you want the article to be demoted so that you can claim the credit for its subsequent promotion. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict x two -Throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be if I walked away for being called a pretentious little bitch. Which I'm about to do - FAC or no FAC. Universities fail plagiarism - regardless of the author or student - and we should do the same. Post edit conflict - I know you have. I don't care about the star. I do care that the person who continues with the plagiarism project wide got a star and is obviously happy their star was saved. That was a mistake. After second edit conflict - you are so far wrong you can't imagine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you care what they think. I certainly don't care to know the thoughts of anyone I don't like. Why does it matter to you what some random nutter on the internet thinks? Parrot of Doom 22:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If I'm wrong then I apologise, I'm simply saying how it looks to me. Of course calling you a "pretentious little bitch" is indefensible, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this article. If you can make a case at FAR then go ahead, otherwise I'm afraid that you'll have to live with it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that SandyG has no authority to remove FA status, that's the remit of FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That is true. Once the bot is sent out with the star, that is not revocable. And Raul has prescribed a process for the removal of the star, FAR. Even with Grace Sherwood, that route was taken.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then it goes to FAR, like Grace Sherwood. That's the easy answer. Accusing me of being vindictive wasn't necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct-- I have no remit to remove a star, FAR is where that is done, and it's on the merits of the article, nothing to do with editor behavior. It could have been FAR'd before, but it seems you fixed the article ? TK, if serial sockpuppeteer LassieTime is harassing you, admins should be helping you on that. I suggest getting MoonRiddenGirl on board, and asking several admins to help address the harassment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take it to FAR. Beyond that though, I think we need to have clear guidelines regarding the consequences of plagiarism. If a page passes FAC, then should it always go to FAR (at this point I think so), should it be scrubbed, should the edits be removed from history via rev-del? Do we have a clear process for this? We had two plagiarized articles pass FAC in a short period - Grace Sherwood and The Story of Miss Moppet They were dealt with differently, and I think the point I'm failing to make, is that they should have been dealt with exactly the same. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It would have been more correct, in hindsight, to FAR Miss Moppet at the time ... I can't recall exactly, but I think you decided to try to fix it? MoonRiddenGirl should always be brought in ... and FAR is the correct action ... but I'm not sure it's correct now. I suggest asking MRG if the article history needs any further attention or scrubbing, and asking admins to help you with the harassment (which is probably accomplished by the number of them that read my page, but MRG and others should specifically help you out since you are being targeted). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I am dismayed at the number of FAC noms that no one is spot checking-- we don't need to spotcheck noms from editors whose work we know well and whose work has been checked before, but we sure do need to do more serious checks on editors whose work has never been checked before, in addition to random spotchecks on everything. Again, I am concerned at these calls for more delegates, when what we need are more reviews, so that when delegates sit down to read FAC, they find complete reviews leading to consensus to promote. It's frustrating as hell to spend six hours reading FAC, only to find so many incomplete or lacking review-- more delegates won't solve that problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself I do spot check what sources I can, especially for editors I'm unfamiliar with, but one can only do what one can. Malleus Fatuorum 00:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

My specific concern is FACs from first-time nominators, where Nikkimaria specifically indicates "spotchecks not done", yet the FAC receives multiple supports. When I read through last night, I found three such examples: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RAF Northolt/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sack of Amorium/archive1, and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fluorine/archive2. I'm not passing 'em without spotchecks-- that doesn't mean we need to spotcheck, for example, Brianboulton or editors whose work we know very well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Northholt one is interesting, as I lived about 5 miles away from the airfield and used to drive past the place almost every week. So far as that one is concerned I'd be checking for stuff that seemed implausible to me, not randomly. In fact that's my general MO now I come to think of it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I did spotchecks on both Northolt and Amorium - found some issues with Northolt based on a minimal check, there's something going on with pagination in Amorium that's making spotchecking difficult (plus most of the sources are offline). While I'm here, could you or some sourcing-oriented TPS weigh in on the discussion SilkTork and I were having about sources at FAC for Covent Garden? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria-- you are a gem, and all your work is noticed and appreciated :) I won't have time to revisit FAC until Monday or Tuesday, so I hope TPS will weigh in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I did offer to scrub because it's in my content area, but I think that was a mistake. That's the point I'm trying to make - we should have a clear process, like always taking a plagiarized page to FAR. Anyway, I have been in contact with MRG and will ping her specifically about Miss Moppet. The ILT situation is such an incredible mess that I really think the only thing to do is delete or revert all of their edits. I thought it was a shame to have that done to a FA, but that's just being soft. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

IMO, we do have a clear process, and we don't need more process for a situation that should (hopefully) not recur (I'm not passing FACs from editors whose work I don't know if reviewers haven't checked sources). The process is-- initiate a FAR, and bring in the copyvio people. In hindsight, it was probably a mistake to try to scrub the Moppet, as that did reward the plagiarizer, but now we have to look at the merits of the article, not the editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we're agreeing and that's the answer I needed because truly I wasn't clear on the process. All of Suzanne/ILT's edits need to be removed, either before or at FAR, and then we take it from there. Thanks also for understanding my point that scrubbing rewarded the plagiarizer. I'll contact Ruhrfisch and MRG. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

BTW - just so you and everyone knows - I have a kidney stone. No drugs yet though; I'm being stoic. But obviously I'm not in a great mood, and I'm stuck at home. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my, I had one of those this year, and it ranks right up there with a dry socket after wisdom teeth removal. I Laughed Out Loud when the (male) urologist asked me how the pain compared to giving birth ... let 'em think that giving birth is as awful as some make it out to be, but the kidney stone is the worst pain I've ever been through. Good luck ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember that scene at the end of El Cid when the dead Charlton Heston rides out at the head of his army in full armour to defeat the Moors? Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No-- got a youtube? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm one of those people who gets them a lot, so I tend to try to ignore them. But it's not fun. But it does make me cranky to say the least. And the ILT situation really annoys me. Malleus, I don't remember, so that flew right over my head. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The urologist assured me I'd never get another one ... hmmmmm ... crystal ball? I can understand your frustration and annoyance at the ILT harassment ... when I've had similar problems, I've found that helpful admins help preserve sanity, particularly via e-mail. Find one who is also a checkuser who is willing to help you. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I had my first one when I was seventeen and have lost track of how many since. The second in two months. According to Wikipedia, I'm in illustrious company. Haven't a clue how your urologist knew you'd never get one again. Anyway, thanks for helping me get this sorted out. I'll take my drugs so I'm not in such pain, and quietly fade away, and then when I'm better take Miss Moppet to FAR. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, he said that if it took me x years to form one, it would take me x years to form another, and I'll be dead by then. Fill in the blank-- I'm not revealing my age :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

As always:[12] The Moors believed that they had killed El Cid during the previous day's battle, which they had. But the Spaniards lashed him to his horse the following day to lead his army to victory even though he was dead. Malleus Fatuorum 02:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

After lots of edit conflicts and a thunder storm knocking out my internet, let me try to explain how I see all of this and try to help explain why Truthkeeper88 (TK) and I thought the FA star should be removed. The Story of Miss Moppet passed FAC without anyone catching the plagiarism (myself included). User:Susanne2009NYC added me as a conom to the Miss Moppet FAC after GimmeBot closed the FAC. See article history. A few weeks later another of Susanne2009NYC's articles was at FAC and was found to have lots of plagiarism and too close paraphrasing - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher/archive1. I felt very bad that I had not caught the plagiarism on an FA where I was (belatedly) listed as a co-nom and worked with Truthkeeper88 (who did most of the work) to literally check every source cited and every sentence in Miss Moppet. I wanted to make sure it was up to the FA standards, but at the same time always felt uneasy about it. While we had done our best to scrub the article (and I think improved it along the way), the article had never faced the scrutiny of the community it should have had it gone to FAR, or had the copyvio problems been discovered during its own FAC. Then too, once it became known that Susanne2009NYC was really a sock of ItsLassieTime, there was the whole uncomfortable "sockpuppet gets an FA aspect of it" - by WP:BAN shouldn't the article have lost its content as well as its star? Although I was listed as a co-nom, I never added the article to my user page list of FA conoms (and yes, there have been a few articles I have worked harder on and did not get a star, and a few I have done less on and have a star for). Truthkeeper88 and I also cleaned up Mrs. Tiggywinkle (with help from others, including Malleus IIRC) and Truthkeeper88 did much more cleanup work on many of Susanne2009NYC's contributions. So as I see it, Truthkeeper88 has been willing to do an awful lot of work for almost no recognition, has been nastily insulted multiple times by the sock whose work Truthkeeper88 has cleaned up, and now, that same sock is attacking articles TK has been a major contributor too. When we realized that Miss Moppet probably should have lost its star way back when, we were not sure how that should be done (and it seems to that Truthkeeper88 has been chided for not knowing how FAR works). I blame myself and apologize to Truthkeeper88, but I do agree that the standard should be made clearer for cases like this. Hope this helps and so sorry about the kidney stone. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch, you can revert that edit where ILT added your name if you wish-- it had no effect anywhere (that is, since it was added late, it wasn't added to WP:WBFAN; See log. It seems that ILT was messing with you-- ya'll shouldn't let it). I hope there won't be another case like this :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy - I undid the edit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Another request

Hi, Sandy. Would you let me withdraw Koninginnedag and nom Mercury dime in its place? Ucucha has been kind enough to point out a couple of Dutch language sources it would be helpful to obtain and review, and while it is possible to see if I can get them within the course of the FAC, it strikes me a better course of action to do it at greater leisure. The dime article is fully ready for FAC, although I just obtained another image I need to insert. If this is acceptable to you, please feel free to archive the FAC, if not, I'll wait and see what other reviewers think of the situation before making a final decision, as two reviewers have indicated that they are minded to support (at least before Ucucha's comment).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Whack with a wet noodle -- you didn't give me a link to the FAC (but I went there anyway). Considering that Ucucha speaks Dutch, I believe, your proposal is most practical, but it sets up a precedent problem for me vis-a-vis future, less experienced nominators who may request same, with the result that FAC could begin to look like PR with serial withdrawals. I'm inclined to grant the request in your case, considering the circumstances, but would you mind waiting a token five days to help with the precedent problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

PS, because it has a valid oppose, I would still have to archive it, indicating though that it was withdrawn. Let me know ... it you decide to withdraw, anyone can add the FACclosed withdrawn template, and move it to archive (since I'll be busy the rest of the day). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will wait until Thursday US time to nom the dime. Most likely Thursday evening. Thank you. I did appeal for help during the GA and afterwards at the Netherlands WikiProject. This won't be back for a couple of months, I'm shuffling it to the bottom of the stack.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Is that a "yes" to archive? I'll be back in a few hours ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Useless Knowledge

I appreciate you pointing out the low quality of the references I was using. Thanks for reminding me about the quality of sources expected here at Wikipedia. Have a great day! Kthapelo (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

More disruption?

Sorry Sandy, but I have to draw your attention to this. Parrot of Doom 18:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I'm recused there, I'm trying to stay out-- did Nikkimaria address your concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

By moving it, yes, but to be honest Moonraker needs to be reminded not to do it again - right now his continued interference will go mainly unnoticed. Parrot of Doom 13:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I will have a look as soon as I find time (I just spent an hour and a half cleaning up one FAC), but it would be better if an uninvolved admin did that instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I cannot even decipher what MR2 is trying to say, or imply, there. Maybe someone who has followed more closely can spell it out for me, in the Dummies 101 version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I had an erm "exchange of views" with Carcharoth about the modern version of Guy Fawkes Night, in which the subject of a couple of lines of "in New Zealand this happens", "in this country that happens" came up. I told Carcharoth I didn't really want them there but wasn't prepared to move them because of the dramahz that page had seen. Nikkimaria took it upon himself to move them to Bonfire Night, which I think is fine. Moonraker thinks people are expanding Bonfire Night to sidestep the argument of whether or not GFN should include more on the modern celebration. In short, tl;dr version is "Moonraker thinks people are using FAC comments to justify changing scope of GFN, and he's reiterating his earlier (and unactionable) comments.". Parrot of Doom 20:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In other words, the FAC is still being used to register unactionable issues and none of them have yet given sources to back their concerns?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Only Moonraker. Carcharoth has been very constructive. Parrot of Doom 21:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Edit warring now, not that I'm blameless in that regard but at FAC? Parrot of Doom 20:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Noted. When an editor is hell bent upon disrupting a FAC, I think it best not to give them the pleasure-- leave it there. There's probably an RFC in Moonraker's future, too-- that is the unfortunate part of misbehaving admins (others think it's OK to emulate them). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Article history changes

Hi Sandy (and her TPSs) there is a discussion now open at Template talk:ArticleHistory#Garish style changes about some potential changes to the template. Opinions welcome. Thanks, Woody (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It's ugly-- I hope that discussion will end at that :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused...

About your comment on WT:FAC. I've always interspersed my replies to comments by reviewers, although I do sign each reply - you've never complained at my FACs�? I'm unsure what I should be doing ... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The key is that you sign them, and you add a subhead on sources review ... I'm seeing now long line by lines that get convoluted and messy, so I can't tell who or what I'm reading. Some folks know how to intersperse and keep it readable-- most don't. I'm going to harp on this for a few days to retrain the masses :) I do wish lots of FAC regulars would sit down and try to sort the whole page in one sitting, so they could see what it's like! Our instructions say:

Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary.

Some who break up commentary keep it readable-- most don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming I'm one of the good guys on the reliquary - you'd better tell me if I'm not. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Diberri template for citations

It appears that the tool is dead, like a zombie with its head chopped off. Do you have any suggestions? I have no time for doing citations from the ground up, like the pre-Diberri days. Any advice you can give will be greatly appreciated. Go Bruins. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen this one --> Template:Cite doi --> I have been impressed. Takes some time to auto-do it so queue jumping is prudent. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I hate the doi template-- because it can be manually filled, I've found errors, and bad ones. Didn't know Diberri was down ... that is really bad news. Glad I did citations manually on TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been finding errors in the cite pmid, and cite doi templates too, but I just hate manually entering citations. What's "TS" SG? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, none of 'em are reliable as Diberri was. Tourette syndrome. TSA existed before Osama. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you inquired at WT:MED? How long has it been down? No Diberri will be the death knell of good medical sourcing. Someone should pay Diberri to get it going-- he's always asked for donations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandy. This worked OK for me on a PMID citation a couple of days ago. [13] Apparently it does ISBN and www too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice that it does more than one at a time, horrid author fields, not consistent with Diberri, no endashes on page ranges, no doi. Sample:

• {{Cite journal | last1 = Leckman | first1 = JF. | last2 = Zhang | first2 = H. | last3 = Vitale | first3 = A. | last4 = Lahnin | first4 = F. | last5 = Lynch | first5 = K. | last6 = Bondi | first6 = C. | last7 = Kim | first7 = YS. | last8 = Peterson | first8 = BS. | title = Course of tic severity in Tourette syndrome: the first two decades. | journal = Pediatrics | volume = 102 | issue = 1 Pt 1 | pages = 14-9 | month = Jul | year = 1998 | doi = | PMID = 9651407 }}

which produces author field gobbledy-gook:

• Leckman, JF.; Zhang, H.; Vitale, A.; Lahnin, F.; Lynch, K.; Bondi, C.; Kim, YS.; Peterson, BS. (1998). "Course of tic severity in Tourette syndrome: the first two decades". Pediatrics. 102 (1 Pt 1): 14–9. PMID 9651407. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I 'spose it's better than nothing, but I hate the author field, and someone should fix the endash. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

If you use a Windows machine, I will send you the tool I hand-coded to do this in Diberri's absence. If not, it would be very easy to write a standalone tool in Java that would run on Macs/Linux. It requires only an active Internet connection (and the PubMed server needs to be up and running). It outputs fully formatted citation templates, like Diberri's tool, so you don't need to depend on the {{cite pmid}} template. MastCell ^Talk 03:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

MC !! Who knew you were a techie as well as charming, suave, handsome, de-boner, and all that! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no limit to the number of things I'm marginally competent at. MastCell ^Talk 04:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Malagasy cuisine

Hello SandyGeorgia, I was surprised to see you'd archived the Malagasy cuisine FA nomination. I've been actively responding to all points raised by the editors since the process began. The last person to provide feedback (immediately before a holiday weekend here in the US) had identified four points but stated s/he had not finished their review and would provide additional comments shortly. I had decided to check back after the holiday to see if their review had been completed, but it had already been archived. This article had one vote of support and was still actively in the process of being reviewed. Could it be reinstated so the process can continue, please? Lemurbaby (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Lemurbaby, take a look at the edit summary. I know it's frustrating, but when there's a backlog older noms that haven't gotten enough of a review to be promoted are frequently archived. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Lemur, please review the instructions at [[[WP:FAC]]. When a FAC is archived, the nominator is asked to wait two weeks before nominating another. Because the Cuisine article was archived for lack of review, I granted you an exemption, whereby you only have to wait one week. You have nominated another article, when the week hasn't yet passed, and re-added it after I removed it once. The aim is to reduce the backlog and strain on reviewers, so that your article will get reviewed next time; please remove your second nom until a week from the archival of the first has passed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall from my reading of the Flashman books that the Madagascarans were big into cannibalism. I'm hoping for images.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

BMD FAC

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brockway Mountain Drive/archive1's talk page. Imzadi 1979 → 22:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks-- I watchlist FACs after I comment on them, no need to ping me unless I specifically request it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Logarithm

Ping! Images done at FAC for Logarithm. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, SandyGeorgia. You have new messages at WT:MILHIST.
Message added 03:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)