User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Edit summary

Hi. Re: this edit summary, I don't see where you've even edited that page three times. What do you mean "for the third time"? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I've fixed that ref at least twice, but I fix refs in so many articles, I've probably lost count. The specifics of how to ref are here. Sandy 14:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Shays

I finally got a chance to read through the article. As of your last edit, it seems to be in pretty good shape. I'm not so sure about those long paragraph citations... would like to see a link to the article online somewhere, if available, for verifiability's sake. But assuming those are accurate renditions of what was printed in the papers cited, I would say the article almost makes me want to vote for the guy, except for his gun-grabber leanings, and waffling a bit on his support for Iraq. :) Anyway, I'm keeping it on my watchlist for future insertions of garbage, but it seems to be under control for the moment. But try to remember, nobody is reading these articles to try to figure out who to vote for. (If they are, God help them!). I would say that almost the entire readership is partisans looking to bash, and partisans looking to unbash. So don't lose any sleep over these things. In another month, the losers will all retreat to their corners to commence mass wailing and gnashing of teeth, and we can clean all this crap up in peace. - Crockspot 00:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourette FAC

Don't you want to consider it? I'm ready to help, and as an admin, I have the tools to revert vandalism more efficiently. I watch the page now, and would watch more carefully if you'd nominate it. NCurse work 19:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Maybe in two more weeks, assuming I get more courage up."

I hope so. :) When you're ready, drop me message.

"I keep meaning to ask you: is there any way to make the current version as the CD 5 version..."

I changed the version of the Tourette article on the V0.5 assessment.

"By the way, do you have a chance to glance over the Tuberculosis FARC?""

I now review the whole article.

"Did I ever tell you congrats on the adminship?"

I think so, but thank you again. :) NCurse work 12:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In regards to your queries of the "reliability of sources" as they relate to CM Punk

A while back I asked if I should replace every single instance of the results page to a link to the DVD of the event in which the incident occurred. It was judged to have been redundant and gave less information as the sources themselves did not give the results and extra information as well as being primary sources. If you can think of any other way to address this please respond.

I have also attempted to address your concerns with the prose of the article, though I am not sure if I have addressed all your concerns. I will keep trying. –– Lid(Talk) 15:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hannity

Thanks so much for your input on the Hannity page. --PTR 18:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources

One more question. Is an editorial a reliable source for a BLP if it's controversial? Re: Hannity Thanks. --PTR 15:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what i figured. You've already been a big help. --PTR 15:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melanoma

If you have time, could you please have a look at the melanoma article? I've worked on it for some months, and some day, I'd like to nominate it in FAC. Thanks in advance. NCurse work 19:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Israel-Venezuela relations

You might be interested in this latest turn of events: [1] [2] Jayjg (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] William the Silent

Hi! Could you please check this article? It is nicely written and has some sources but has no inline citations (only found 1 footnote and 2 external links inside the text). I added some fact tags here and there but gave up; and for beeing a featured article... OK, the status was received long ago (I could hardly find the candidation page because of a renaming: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William I of Orange). I am not familiar with the FAR processs but I know that you are. Thanks! - Serinde 15:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Cite Tags Please?

I've filled all the cite tags you added bar one on the Iron Maiden article. Some with cite tags were removed alongside the NPOV info it correlated with, while most others were filled using their official biography. Could you add cite tags to other statements that need citing please? I'd be very grateful. LuciferMorgan 23:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cites, keeps me busy I suppose lol. Got my work cut out with the Blaze Bayley era Maiden, indeed there's a bit of bullshit in there I have to weed out. LuciferMorgan 00:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for helping Gliding get to Featured Article status. I have learned a lot from you and other reviewers that will help in future work. JMcC 08:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dallas, Texas FAC

I've added 19 references to the Dallas article (and after I eat, I'll start looking for more places).. I also removed a lot of the touristy stuff and rewrote some things to drop the weasel words. Don't know if you're ready to support yet, but figured I'd let you know so you can respond. drumguy8800 C T 03:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backlog

While you're about, do you mind looking at the last couple on the page? We're not getting enough kp/rm to close a lot of them. The hobbit has seen some good work. Marskell 10:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

 For offering your opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Klausutis (third nomination). The article was deleted. "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice." ~ Wm. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV Scene 1. Morton devonshire 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influenza peer-review

Hi Sandy. Since I've now finished with Tuberculosis, I'm trying to get another infectious disease article to FA quality and would appreciate your opinion, especially on formatting and layout issues. This is the review page. Thank you. TimVickers 23:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Commissions Act of 2006

I've reverted on most of the articles, though I've probably missed a couple, and reported it on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sandover, Senate vote, and habeas corpus. Thanks for letting me know about it. Jayjg (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fix it or offer details on how to fix it

We don't leave tags on articles just because someone (you) at one point had an issue with it. Also you have a fundamental misunderstanding of policies. Please read them before quoting them. Arbusto 19:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive me for starting another thread to address your POV pushing on political articles, but you archived my last concerns so quickly[3], pulling my concerns off this talk page. Arbusto 19:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know who is this "we" you are speaking of, but *you* can't remove a POV tag until the issue is resolved. That the person who entered the POV text hasn't corrected it in over a week, and reverts other's attempts to correct it is beyond my control; I have no interest in edit warring. Someone else can do the research to fix the POV text, or it can be reverted to the neutral version that existed before the tendentious edit. At any rate *you* don't speak for "we", you were answered several times of the importance of using reliable sources on biographies of living persons, and the POV tag can't be removed until the POV text is neutralized. Be careful of who you label as "POV pushing", as I had to revert your WP:BLP violations on several articles, thank you. You are welcome to discuss this issue on the article talk page. Sandy (Talk) 21:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"We" in the sense of the wikipedia community. Either fix it or not. You are the only one who has concerns. Arbusto 01:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA!

               Sandy, thank you so much for your support for my RfA. I passed with a vote tally of 61/0/1. I am honored that the consensus was to allow me the added privilege of the admin mop. I appreciate your support and kind words on my RFA! --plange 23:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influenza

Page now nominated as a FAC. Comments and suggestions are welcome on the review page. Thank you. TimVickers 00:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori

As an expert at reviewing articles and handling references, would you consider commenting on the above FLC? I've indicated my concerns about the journal references, but am somewhat out of my depth here. Perhaps you have some ideas of how best to present the actual references used for the article, and also the journal papers that are of historical signficance. Thanks. Colin Harkness°Talk 22:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been traveling, with limited internet access, so am very far behind: will get to it as soon as I can. Sandy (Talk) 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Doublechecking

All the Beatles song articles I've nominated thus far have been by Jonleemk, so it isn't something new. I'm keeping along with the FAs as it's slowly getting something through to the Beatles Wikiproject (check Paul McCartney), and I wish to sustain this momentum. LuciferMorgan 22:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to RS/BLP questions

Sandy, I don't know that I have much to tell you -- you're a solid editor with a good record, which I'm sure will speak for you.

If there's one thing that it's helpful to remember, it's that nothing on Wikipedia is actually that big a deal. If consensus runs against you on some issue, pack up your things and work in some other corner of the project, or take a break altogether. (It drives me crazy too when I'm right and consensus is wrong, but on a good day, I can remind myself that it's not that big a deal -- I'm sure that Wikipedia has on the order of 100,000 bad pages (and a million ok to great ones), and if some group of people stop me from fixing one or two, it may be unfair, but it's not worth the stress, and it's always possible that they're right.

As to your specific questions, I can give you my two cents, but as I've said, you're a really good editor from what I can tell, so I suspect your judgment is probably pretty good on these issues:

1. I understand the WP:RS and WP:BLP are separate things, but they overlap in that BLP calls for being "very firm about high quality references". I'm sorry some of my questions overlap, and might be better placed at BLP, but I'm trying to understand the "highest quality sources" relative to reliable sources. I'm not seeing highest quality sources being used in practice, with respect to reliable sources, and this is a concern on BLPs. Still confused, but at least you've given me some direction for how to proceed in the future. I think (?) it roughly amounts to - no blogs, (some?) opinion may be used if it's attributed, and consensus for any other marginal sources.

  • IMHO, what qualifies as a reliable source is very much up to consensus, within a few broad limits (no self-published sources absent one of the exceptions; limited use of "extremist" sources). If you have a dispute with someone about a particular source where the policy isn't 100% clear, there are a variety of ways to try to get people to opine, but if concensus goes the other way, it's probably a losing battle after that.

2. There is no agreement or consensus above as to enforcement of the highest quality sources on BLPs, and sources agreed by consensus not to be reliable are still being used. The consensus you mention about Media Matters is in the opposite direction of what I see, when accounting for everyone who participated in the discussion here and on other talk pages, including an editor who is traveling right now (PTR). I still don't know where this leaves BLP enforcement, other than contentious. I'm wondering why none of this is more clearly spelled out in some Wiki guideline, other than Jossi's hecha la ley, hecha la trampa.

  • Well, that's a horse of a different color. If you think a majority/consensus is against the use of Media Matters, I think it's worth trying more WP:dispute resolution -- maybe an RFC or a mediation. IMHO, in the specific case discussed -- where Media Matters says that Hannity said "X," and has video showing Hannity saying "X," I'm comfortable concluding that MM is reliable on that point.

3. Arbustoo seems to have found his way to the Hannity article after I edited it; he has been upset since I reverted an edit in which he inaccurately attributed as a direct quote to a living person words never uttered by this person. I now understand that BLP enforcement is variable; is it correct that we must quote living persons accurately, and direct misquotes can be removed?

  • Hmmm. (1) I think that your Shays edit was completely correct under BLP. I also think that you could jump a level from a merely great editor into a stupendous one if you did your best in those cases to "write for the enemy." It's true that Arbusto misquoted Shays, but it's also true that Shays was criticized for comments that appeared to lack decorum. If, instead of deleting, you had written something that accurately and fairly discussed Shays' actual statements, you would at least have the moral high ground, and you and Arbusto might even have found common ground in that case and thereafter. (Qualifier: maybe you usually do exactly that; I haven't reviewed your history that carefully -- if so, good for you!!! Second qualifier: I really mean it that you're a very good editor, so please take my suggestion for whatever you think it's worth). (2) I don't know if Arbusto is wikistalking you or not. My advice would be to just let it go, partially because I've never seen someone accuse someone else of "wikistalking" and have it turn out well for anyone. If you make good edits and go out of your way to be civil even to the people who don't deserve it, it will all turn out all right.

4. If I am understanding correctly the commentary above, it is OK to use editorials, as long as they are attributed as opinion. Is this correct? I have seen many deletions of NYTimes and Wall Street Journal editorial statements—even when correctly attributed—from articles, and have probably deleted some myself, as I understood opinion was never acceptable: is this incorrect? Does it only apply to editorials of "high quality" (e.g.; New York Times)? Can others elaborate on circumstances when it is appropriate to include editorial opinions, and from what sources?

  • In my personal and humble opinion, whether editorials are appropriate is a . . . wait for it . . . case by case, consensus-based issue. In most cases, I think editorials don't add to the encyclopedia, but in some cases they might.

5. Is it ever OK to use a personal letter to the editor from "Joe Bloe", printed in a local paper, as a source for criticism on a BLP? I've deleted those as non-reliable sources. Is it correct that "Joe Bloe's" letter to anytown newspaper doesn't carry the same "reliability" as a NYT or WSJ editorial, and shouldn't be used?

  • I would say that unless Joe Bloe is himself notable, you're right. (Maybe the issue is notability, maybe it's reliability, I'm not sure).

6. When cleaning up the BLPs of *all* of the participants in election campaigns in the August primaries and current elections (not just "things that don't reflect my POV" as claimed by BJKramer), I am no longer clear if I did that correctly. Should I outright delete any content sourced to a blog (that's usually what I do, although I'm not always sure if something is a blog), or should I only remove the blog source and put a cite tag on the text, if the text is not highly defamatory, just unverified? Or do I outright delete anything sourced to a blog on a BLP (or anywhere else)?

  • Well, you're welcome to be bold, but if someone reverts, then you need to try to reach consensus and engage in dispute resolution and all that jazz. I generally think you're right, and you should keep it up, but be sensitive if people object.

7. Are blogs from known "reliable" sources (e.g.; CBS News) ever allowed as reliable sources? I'm asking because I'm not sure what badlydrawnjeff meant by "Our hatred of blogs is one of the major problems with our RS guideline, however."

  • In my observation, most people will allow most industry blogs under the "self-published source by an expert or journalist, working within their field" exception in WP:V and WP:RS, but I'd still apply it case by case.

I hope that's helpful -- please feel free to write me if I can help, and I hope you keep editing. The encyclopedia can use you! TheronJ 03:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have no chance

Nominate the Tourette article in FAC... :) You have no chance to rescue... NCurse work 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If it came to be subjected to serious vandalism, it would have to be protected. I'll abstain on whether that's a good or a bad thing. - Samsara (talk · contribs) 19:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Least if it becomes FA more people will read it, further aiding understanding. LuciferMorgan 18:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I know [4]. :) I'll watch all of those pages, and help wherever I can. Good work! NCurse work 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] scientific citation guidelines

Hi Sandy, I'm sorry if the guidelines I have proposed have annoyed you. I know you think that the physics and mathematics editors want to be subject to a different, weaker citation standard than the rest of Wikipedia, but I assure you (well, I can only speak for myself) that that is not the case. Let me clarify a few things:

  • I am sorry if you thought the guidelines I am proposing have the consensus of Wikipedia. Right now they have a the consensus of two WikiProjects and not of the whole of Wikipedia. I tried to clarify this in the template at the top of the page, but perhaps because I included the large "guideline checkmark", it could be confusing for a reader coming to this page from out of the blue.
  • The guidelines themselves are principally intended to clarify good practice for referencing scientific articles in Wikipedia, not as any sort of a replacement or substitute for WP:CITE or WP:V. Indeed, in the preamble the acknowledge their primacy. I think this is nonetheless worthwhile, as good practice on Wikipedia is not the same as good practice in an academic journal (or, indeed, in writing a textbook). If you read them, I don't think you will find that they are an extreme proposal.
  • The guidelines seem to have attracted some encouragement from outside the WikiProjects, on the guidelines talk page, my talk page, and on WP:CITE archive.

I'm asking that instead of seeing this as an "us against them" issue, that you seriously consider the guidelines to see if we can't come to some sort of consensus. Nobody who knows my editing will doubt that just as you do, I too think thorough referencing is one of the core principles of Wikipedia. –Joke 15:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to most of your points on Wikipedia talk:Scientific citation guidelines there. I have to admit I am finding this all a bit frustrating. You seem to be insinuating (with, among other things, your liberal use of scare quotes) that I have been trying to pass these guidelines off as (a) something that has been vetted by all the science editors on Wikipedia and (b) accepted by the Wikipedia community as a guideline. I only ever meant to say that it should be treated as a project guideline for Mathematics and Physics and that my intent is to submit it to the larger Wikipedia community. I can understand how the title might have misled you, but I had observed that this is how policy proposals were named anyways. If I had named it Wikipedia:Citation guidelines for mathematics and physics and then added the chemists, I would have been in the perplexing quandry of whether to rename it to Wikipedia:Citation guidelines for chemistry, mathematics and physics and so on.
I don't, in fact, think that they will result in less stringent citations or cause problems with FA or GA. I know that you disagree with me on this. In thinking about the citation requirements for Wikipedia over the past month or so, I've noticed that there are very few articles that can be written well with only one or two references, so in practice I don't think that what you would think is a well-referenced article and what the guidelines suggest is a well-referenced article is really that different. –Joke 20:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Regarding journal abbreviations

To me the citations look ok. I'm actually a bit neutral on this point. I just explained what the proposed guidline was saying. It could be that in physics and astronomy this is a slightly more important issue, because some authors have the habit abbreviating even the standard abreviation. E.g. Physical Review D, is usually written as Phys. Rev. D. in journal citations, but many write it as PRD. If you submit an article with "PRD" in the ref. list then it will be automatically changed to Phys. Rev. D. so the authors don't need to change their habits. :) Count Iblis 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re Registered trademark on medication names

(copied from WP:DRUGS Talk)

MoS:TM states, under "General rules":

Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless they are necessary for context (for instance to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).

(emphasis mine). I'd either keep them or indicate the names in parentheses are trade names, e.g.

The classes of medication with the most proven efficacy in treating tics—typical and atypical neuroleptics including risperidone (trade name Risperdal), ziprasidone (Geodon), haloperidol (Haldol), pimozide (Orap) and fluphenazine (Prolixin)—can have long-term and short-term adverse effects.

I prefer using trademark symbols, but they do seem to be getting in the way of readability. Hope this helps!

P.S.: The trade name for atomoxetine is misspelled on the TS article. I've taken the liberty of correcting it. Fvasconcellos 22:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome! Congratulations on the article, by the way – I'm adding my support, and hoping it makes FA (though I don't see why it shouldn't). It's already on my watchlist in anticipation :) Fvasconcellos 22:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
re dashes in infobox – no problem, I'm glad to help. Speaking of dashes, I've removed two you just added for reasons I cited in the edit summary. Hope that's OK, I'll back off now :) Fvasconcellos 02:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ref fixer 2

Saw your note, reminded me about some changes. Time to refresh. Recent edits to handle {{cn}} and a stab at dealing with colons - I think they ought to follow the same logic as semicolons. Added case insensitivity so <REF> is matched - this will catch oddly capitalized Fact templates, however. An older change added support for the {{ref}} template, as in Indian Navy, and the {{GR}} template.

I saw one article that did this<ref>Example</ref><!-- comment -->. Those will have to be fixed by hand. Looks like someone else has AWB doing the same stuff. Gimmetrow 00:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'll stop now

I was trying to sneak in when you weren't watching! There are some very (very) minor points, that aren't worth bringing up in FAC, and I'd feel mean if I did so:

  • numbers as numbers or spelt out aren't consistent
  • "Individuals describe...which they...as if the subject" - very strange construction
  • In the caption: "Samuel Johnson...who had Tourette syndrome, according to the writings of James Boswell." - I'd rephrase that, as I don't suppose Boswell actually diagnosed Tourette's. The later statement is better, but obviously you don't want to write exactly the same sentence twice.
  • "...countries such as Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, India..." - "such as" is a bit odd (like there are other countries that are easily grouped with those listed.

Have fun with the vandals. Yomanganitalk 01:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's spot on - I must be getting tired if I couldn't think of that. Yomanganitalk 01:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you are right - consistency across the article is more important than adhering to the letter of the MoS (maybe "four weeks and 12 months" would look better as "four...twelve" or "4...12" too as it is either end of a range).

[edit] Thanks ever so

for fixing a reference footnote in the Scars article I'm largely responsible for. I didn't bone up on Wikipedia footnote referencing as much as I should've. Though I did get a lot of footnote training when I was a senior in high school and a freshman in college, the whole thing about where to put the footnote numberings wasn't really covered. That sounds like an excuse. I'm sorry. But thank you for the fix. (Krushsister 04:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC))

No need to apologize ! I'm using Gimmetrow's handy new ref fixer, a script which converts refs to conform to where to place ref tags. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 04:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Lieberman

I added to the end of 'Entertainment Industry' section on Sen. Lieberman's page here. Would appreciate an editorial check (my addition is a bit wordy and may stray from necessaries). Thank you.

It's hard for me to tell from this diff what the adddition exactly was, and I'm not exactly sure what you're asking ? I think you added the portion beginning with the five dissenting votes? I'm not certain if that info is relevant in Lieberman's article, if that's the question? Sandy (Talk) 04:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Sandy -- Thank you for a rapid response! Appreciated.
I added to the very end of the existing text, beginning with the first mention of the Communications Decency Act, to the end of that paragraph.
-- begin of cited materials --
old:
He was one of 16 senators to vote against the Communications Decency Act.
new:
He was one of 91 senators to vote for the Communications Decency Act.^[33]^[34]^[35] The five dissenting votes were cast by Senators Leahy, Feingold, McCain, Simon and Wellstone. Senators Dodd, Gramm and Rockefeller were 'necessarily absent' and did not cast votes. The bill was signed into law by President Clinton a week later.^[36]
-- end of cited materials --
What I wanted to see remain were the facts and at least the best citation I gave. Not sure about the rest of it (it is a larger article but the point is well-taken). I think if I were writing the entire article I'd see less a need to defend the facts I'm giving. *The first sentence I offered* is probably sufficient, if it is understood, and accepted as factual, I think.
My correction stands directly opposite the statement made previously, so I thought I'd include lots of citations (three or four of them).
--Chris 05:27, 27 Oct 2006 (UTC)

[edit] congrats

TS is good! Tony 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Second that, and thank you for thanking me :) – I'm glad I could help. Fvasconcellos 15:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GFDL-presumed

As of right now, images so tagged are fine. To recreate this photograph would only involve someone with a bottle of the pills, so if someone expresses some concern about it, it shouldn't be that difficult to replace. Jkelly 16:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TS comments

No problem. The edits are perfect. Colin Harkness°Talk 22:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, I see you've been changing numbers/percentages to words. I think this reads less well. My reading of the MOS is that you are only requested to do this for numbers 0..10, and you should be consistent within a context. I interpret the word "may" in the second guidline as "optionally can". In other words, it is saying don't use words if it takes more than two words. The Guardian style guide gives a preference for words up to nine, digits to 999,999 and then start abbreviating with m, bn suffix. IMO, percentages should always use digits in technical writing. Colin Harkness°Talk 07:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is some confusion on the numbers :-) Yomangani mentioned the problem of consistency in style, I read the MOS on numbers (perhaps incorrectly) and made changes to (I thought) to agree, Tony changed some of them back, and now I'm confused :-) Your proposal sounds good: I'll run it by Tony and Yomangani. Thanks! Sandy (Talk) 12:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Would like to hear from the front lines

Hi SandyG -- At peer review discussion, I posted a query about modifying the "peer review request." Since you are on the front lines of those doing the peer reviews and would benefit most from the request I posted, I think it important to have your opinion regarding this suggestion. If know any of the others doing the peer review, please ask them to give their opinion as well. Thanks. -- Jreferee 23:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platypus

No worries, I won't be upset if you don't get to it - you have plenty to keep you busy I'm sure. Yomanganitalk 00:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed most of your points. I reworded the awkward sentence, but I'm not sure it is any better. The one thing I haven't touched is ""with breeding confirmed to still take place in animals over nine years old", as I think this makes clear that that is the known top end of the breeding age (otherwise it can be read as the first age at which we know for certain that breeding takes place). Yomanganitalk 23:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re Ref fixer

I hardly think that would work, I did a cold reboot yesterday (for an unrelated reason) and no luck. I'm sure you're busy with about a dozen articles right now, no need for you to worry about something so minor – meanwhile I'll rely on my keen sense of observation to fix wayward refs :) Thank you so much for your time and help, I'll drop you a note should I need anything. Fvasconcellos 17:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you might like to know Dr pda (talk • contribs) found out what the problem was (explanation here). Everything's just fine now, and one more editor is armed to fight the foe of poor ref placement... :) Thank you yet again for your help, it was certainly above and beyond the call of duty. Fvasconcellos 21:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re TS FAC

I'm only too willing to help. The only thing I was wondering with the cites is are they for single sentences, or a few sentences of text? I just wish the interests I have had such great coverage on Wiki like you et al have been doing with the health related articles - all the articles I'd be interested in (Metal/Horror) attract a bunch of fancrufty tripe! LuciferMorgan 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the problem you mention. I kind of gave up on trying to help on those articles you're working on, because it seems to be two steps forward, one step backward. Like I told you a while ago, it looks like improving those articles is a tough roe to hoe, because of the edits from others. I don't think you can avoid the fancruft on your articles; I also gave up in many other areas of Wikipedia, and have to deal with a lot of fancruft and vandalism on TS as well. What are we to do ? It's a wiki ... WRT TS, whenever there is a cite after several sentences, that cite typically covers all sentences, because basically, every sentence is referenced unless it's a corollary. Some cites may cover all sentences preceding it, and/or the entire paragraph. Sandy (Talk) 17:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately you're right. Can you suggest anywhere else where my habit of being a pain in the backside review may be actually appreciated other than my areas of interest? LuciferMorgan 17:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The peer review idea is a good one. I'll hang around there alongside the FAC/R room. Good luck with TS, an FA if I ever saw one. LuciferMorgan 18:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR Discussion

It's still escalating this discussion. I feel like stepping out also, because if I explained a hundred times the guy at FAR/FAC etc. wouldn't listen. LuciferMorgan 18:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm joining you in ceasing the discussion. LuciferMorgan 19:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hannity - BLP

Sorry for getting you into this. I've left a message on TheronJ's page. Depending on the answer, I might stop editing on that page as well. I don't mind criticizing Hannity, I have no horse in this race, but I do mind bad writing. An article that uses inference, descriptive language and slanted references is more a news magazine article and not encyclopedic. Once again, sorry. --PTR 01:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TS et alia

Most of the jargon is wikilinked, but for the sake of those who read non-linearly some could be wikilinked later too. I already did that with "comorbid" - another one is "epidemiological" in the "Research" section. BTW, two consecutive sentences there begin "Controversy remains...". Also this sentence seems repetitive in a puzzling way: "One of the most controversial presumed causes, the PANDAS hypothesis, remains contentious."

I saw someone objected about access dates for urls. I don't really see why access dates are so critical. If the source is a journal, the author/name is the citation, the url is just convenience. For other online sources, if the original link goes dead the url should be sufficient to find it in archives, especially with the page title.

I see a few people are using the ref fixer now. Next time I edit the docs I'll add that it uses addLink. Gimmetrow 04:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That may have been me - I didn't object by the way, and think it's a worthy article of FA. The url date does make it easier to retrieve indeed, so therefore makes it easier for editors to find should they need to change the article in the future. It's a minor gripe really, but I like to think my nitpicking improves an article. LuciferMorgan 11:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The date also helps indicate the version the editor consulted, should the current version have changed – something that isn't necessary for journal articles or books. Sandy, I wondered why you used archive.org for many (but not all) of your web citations? Did you really last review those tsa-usa.org links in early 2005, or is that just that newest version in the archive (which tends to be about a year behind)? Comparing the current FAQ with your archived FAQ shows that the latest one has been revised with newer/better information and also the kind of tweaks to the wording you might expect when someone reviews their text. Another advantage to linking to the live version is that it is then easier for someone to browse the rest of the web site and not be stuck in a time-warp, reading out-of-date information. A less web-savvy user might not realise they were not viewing the current site – only the URL gives it away. I'm not aware of any policy/guidance in this matter. There is one article: Wikipedia:Using the Wayback Machine that offers some templates for dead links (such as ref 80). Colin Harkness°Talk 16:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The missing access dates were all to journal articles or books, but not worth worrying about - dates won't do any harm. The infamous TSA (grrrr ... ) changes their URLs as the weather changes, and has been massively revamping their site lately, so linking to the internet archive seemed safest for now (but the internet archive is running a year behind, and the newer press releases aren't archived yet). I wasn't sure which date to use for archived articles: at one point, I put the internet archival date, and then I think I changed them to the date I last saw them: I don't really know what to do there, and wasn't sure on policy either - I'm open to suggestions on all of this ? The little stuff here is killing me :-) And, as if I've got nothing else to do, someone nominated all the daughter articles for GA, and I've got to ce and thoroughly reference them - not something I really have time to do right now <sigh>. Sandy (Talk) 16:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lesch-Nyhan syndrome

I just thought I should bring this medicine related article to your attention, as I feel somebody will nominate it for FAR sometime. I'm unsure if you're bothered or not, but you seem to be someone really passionate about medicine related articles - the improved articles like TB seem real professional, articles a journal could use. This one obviously needs inline cites, and there may be other FA issues you can find. LuciferMorgan 11:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many problems in that article, I've raised it on the Medicine Project and no one has helped so far, and it should be FAR'd some time. The problem with the timing is that User TimVickers is likely to help rescue it, and he just finished Tuberculosis and a few FACs, so I'd like to give him a break in timing before bringing it up. Chagas disease has problems as well. There's so much to do ! Sandy (Talk) 13:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The article reads OK on a first sweep, but has no references! Chagas' disease is in better shape and is more my line, since I've worked on kinetoplastds for about 10 years now. So much to do! TimVickers 16:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I did a lot of work on Chagas a month or so ago, but I stalled when my layperson's knowledge and research ability ran out :-) Lesch-Nyhan needs more urgent attention. Sandy (Talk) 16:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no intentions of nominating it may I add - I feel you and Tim are perfectly able to handle this yourselves, I just wouldn't want it suddenly popping up out of the blue and taking you by surprise, so that's why I felt obliged to inform you. LuciferMorgan 17:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
It's possible that Tim and I are the only editors interested in maintaining the medical FAs. I could help him on Chagas, but can't add anything new, and I can't take on Lesch-Nyhan unless someone helps me. If Tim is ever interested and has time to work on these two, we can collaborate. Thanks Lucifer! Sandy (Talk) 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
At the moment I'm trying to prioritise by disease incidence, so by this measure malaria is roughly 30,000 times more important than Lesch-Nyhan! TimVickers 18:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I may dig into Lesch-Nyhan when I have free time - which means after the New Year LOL ! Sandy (Talk) 18:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FARs

Sorry, still busy. I'll try to look at these tonight. Marskell 14:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image of Georges Gilles de la Tourette

As if you havn't enough headaches at the moment, I think I've found the source of the Tourette photo. The full-size JPG can be found here, which is at the web site of the Bibliothèque interuniversitaire de Médecine, Paris (BIUM). The image can be found in the portrait gallery (only one of him) linked to from the bibliography. The BIUM have a searchable image bank here. Their copyright claim (thanks to Google translate) is "All the images of the bank are © BIUM. Their reproduction is strictly reserved for the private use of the copyist and not intended for a collective use (law 92-597 of July 1, 1992)."

I was interested in using one of their excellent images of Désiré Magloire Bourneville (tuberous sclerosis) and emailed them a month ago to ask about permission. I got no further than a "your email has been passed onto the relevant person" (or the equivalent in French). I intend to post a question over at Wikimedia Commons as I think the US's PD-Art rules apply (which is what your current image is claiming). I think the "F.M.P. Bibliothéque" stamp is "Faculté de Médecine et de Pharmacie": Library of the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy. Colin Harkness°Talk 16:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Colin, I don't speak image copyrights: it just can't work its way into my brain, and I always have to ask Jkelly's opinion. Are you saying it needs to go? I'll drop Jkelly a note. I was worried when another editor uploaded that image from another site, which is known to violate copyright - there's another image at Georges Gilles de la Tourette I can easily switch to. Sandy (Talk) 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if it only comes down to a question of the article appearing on the Wiki main page, I'll fight to keep that from happening: I don't even want to *think* about the kind of coprolalia vandalism that would occur - and the damage to this article - if it ever appeared on the main page, and I had to be dragged kicking and screaming to FAC by other editors because of my vandalism concerns. Sandy (Talk) 17:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying the image has to go. If anything, finding its true origin (rather than just, I found this on a web site) helps. The other image is no better in terms of copyright and if anything is worse since its origin is unknown. I haven't yet had time to ask on Wikimedia Commons. If the reply is favourable, then both articles may end up with excellent images to use – the JPG I found is infinitely better quality than the GIF currently in use. Colin Harkness°Talk 17:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
ah, I see, Thanks so much for the help ! Sandy (Talk) 17:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Posted my query here. Colin Harkness°Talk 17:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Colin - will follow. If I understand it correctly, you're saying we're OK to use the images we have, but you are attempting to get better quality images. I'm very slow on copyright stuff, Sandy (Talk) 18:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the better one is unsuitable then I guess the existing one is even worse. I think it is just a low-resolution copy of the original from BIUM. I've expanded my question on Commons. Don't remove anything for now. Colin Harkness°Talk 19:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The deal here is that we need to know when the creator of the image died. If that was more than seventy years ago, the original is in the public domain. BIUM is almost certainly claiming that they own the copyright to the digital image that they are providing, not that they hold the copyright to the original. In the United States, such claims are not recognised (but that lack of recognition rests entirely on precedent set by a single case). They may be in France -- I don't know. We claim {{PD-art}} on this kind of thing all the time, but it is really up to the uploader to decide whether or not they are comfortable with such a claim (assuming that the creator has actually been dead seventy years). Sorry that this is not a straightforward yes or no answeer, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkelly (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 November 2006.

[edit] Please explain

What is the "scientific citation guidelines" discussion about? I think it would get more people involved if you would explain on WP:MED or something why people should discuss it or why the discussion is important, and what the problem is exactly.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

But take your time, since you obviously have your hands full at the moment ...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
LOL - yes, I do :-)) The issue is an old one which came up a few months ago at WP:CITE, where some math/physics editors argued that standards for citing their articles should be different, amounting to an argument that much of their writing is "common knowledge" and available in standard textbooks. (A few of them got all in a huff because it was suggested some of their articles would need better citation to meet WP:GA.) I disagree with their thinking and reasoning on every point - Wiki is an encyclopedia. If they want separate *internal* guidelines for their own article rating within the Projects, that would be fine and their business and I wouldn't be concerned, but when they label it "science", it applies to medicine, biology, and everything else, so I'm opposed. Besides, it's a redundant and parallel attempt to rewrite a whole lot of other guidelines and policies - if they want to do something internally for their own purposes (knowing that GA and FA require citations), fine, but a new and parallel set of "science" guidelines for citations is the problem, and labeling it as "science" without consulting all areas of science is another problem. I've told them several times that almost every line in most medical articles is cited, but the message isn't getting through. Sandy (Talk) 19:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asperger's Syndrome

Hi, I'm interested in making the Asperger's Syndrome article better. You can help if you want... SunStar Net 19:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, I would have thought SunStar Net would be wiser to lend his editing skills to a more needing article (this article would never be FAR'd at present). LuciferMorgan 21:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
AS barely survived FAR in July: I'm not going back there anytime soon, as there are numerous competent editors at work there now. Sandy (Talk) 21:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourette's

Thanks for the note Sandy. The sentence didn't seem quite right yesterday, but it seems fine today! I was concerned about the referent of "which includes transient and chronic tics", but I can't put my finger on it now. Since you've reverted, all is well. My other changes were along the lines of consistency in using generic, rather than trade, drug names; trying to find a way to note that the trade names may differ by country (lest the article appear NA-centric!); the researchers may have "had evidence", but the subjects "displayed evidence"; "a more neutral view of Tourette's has emerged[,] as a condition" was reworded, because without a comma it is easy to parse incorrectly as "a view has emerged as a", which isn't what the sentence intended. I'm mentioning these only to illustrate that I try not to make copy changes arbitrarily. :) –Outriggr § 22:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[copied from Outriggr's talk page] Thanks again for everything: I was dragged kicking and screaming with this article to FAC, as I was certain it would be killed with vandalism and very reluctant to subject it to a wider audience, but I must say it's been a wonderful process, and all the little tweaks have really improved the article! Sandy (Talk) 23:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you had to worry about the exposure at FAC, but we all know that once this hits the main page, the vandalism will be fierce! (An odd reward indeed, for producing an FA, but it does teach something about Buddhist attachment (oddly, no helpful article to link that to).) Good job on the article. Regards, –Outriggr § 00:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bio peer review

You asked me to let you know when ready. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Peer_review/Prem_Rawat#Edits_completed_as_per_peer_review. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Johnson

I appreciate your efforts to wikify. DGG 06:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi! Could you please have a look at Tony's objection in West Bengal FAC? We need someone not familiar with the topic to copyedit. Now, I know u r busy with TS. Still, if you can manage some time, can u please see it? Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll go through the cooments/request others to do it. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Hello there. I was wondering if you'd received the e-mail I sent via the "E-mail this user" link. I wanted to contact you offline as having the discussion on Wikipedia might result in it getting bogged down with third-party comments. —Psychonaut 21:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I received your e-mail, and responded - please check the settings on your end, and try again if necessary. Sandy (Talk) 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry—your e-mail was apparently flagged as spam (mostly because of Yahoo!'s silliness, according to the SpamAssassin report) so I didn't find it until just now. I'll read and respond. —Psychonaut 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your mail: I understand, I won't trouble you again. Sorry to bother you. —Psychonaut 00:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem - Godspeed. Sandy (Talk) 02:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the Garter

You said the order of the sections doesn't conform with WP:LAYOUT. I don't want to seem dim but...what's wrong? Do you mean the "See Also" is right at the end or am I missing something obvious? Cheers, Yomanganitalk 16:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just wanted to check I was missing anything obvious (Joelito sneaked in and changed in observed and reacted just now anyway). Yomanganitalk 16:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not sneak. I observe and react ;-) Joelito (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You just want me to think I'm losing it ... or more of it, as the case may be ;-) Sandy (Talk) 17:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourette

I've told you! :) Excellent job! NCurse work 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe congratulations are in order! Any word on a date yet? (I'm not familiar with the scheduling procedure) Fvasconcellos 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to both - no date - I do NOT want TS featured on the main page, where it will get KILLED with vandalism. No, no, no :-) OK, I was wrong about the vandalism I thought would occur while on FAC, but it would get killed on the main page. Thanks to both for all the help and encouragement~ Sandy (Talk) 21:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
A gold star. Well done! Take a well earned break... but not before you've had a look at a suggested reformatting of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Reformatting this article for details. Colin Harkness°Talk 23:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Kudos Sandy! FAC moves so fast, I didn't get a chance to comment when it was up. Marskell 01:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll crawl in late and offer my congratulations too. Nice work. Yomanganitalk 01:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Same here. Great job! Gzkn 12:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milgram

I noticed when I looked at the page again. I have removed it. Gracias. Joelito (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thank you

Sandy, your words meant a lot to me (though I almost missed them, not being right at the bottom of my talk page :). Your note leads me to think that maybe you didn't see the whole drama—it wasn't on the FAC page that I made the mountain out of the molehill. It was (mostly) me who incited a reaction, and once my head is clear, I embarass easily. Anyway, at the risk of being one of those users that threatens leaving to get some attention, I'll probably be back very soon (if I'm not already)!

Congratulations on your new featured article, but even moreso, on your equal commitment to quality and to people on Wikipedia. That's a very difficult thing to achieve. –Outriggr § 05:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MRSA

Can you tag this article with the specific Medicine related Project please? This disease/virus (I don't know what to call it) in the UK has had much media attention and is quite rife in hospital wards - many elderly people are contracting it while in hospital and dying. I hope this article comes to the Medicine Project's attention sometime. LuciferMorgan 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Lucifer, I'm traveling and don't have continuous internet access. I've left notes for NCurse and TimVickers; one of them will know how to tag the article. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 15:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I've tagged it with the template (B-class, mid importance). Feel free to change. NCurse work 17:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Alright Sandy, sorry to have troubled you! You sound annoyed with me...thanks for having someone help anyway. LuciferMorgan 22:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Gosh, Lucifer, not annoyed at all - I'm still traveling, and have limited and sporadic internet access: I'm sorry if my replies have been too brief and made me sound annoyed. Best, Sandy (Talk) 15:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article - Asthma

I think that featured article status should be removed from the article entitled "Asthma" and I hope you might know how to do this. Alec - U.K. 15:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made a list of three dozen things that I think should have been mentioned in the "Asthma" article but were not. The article is already longer than the recomended length for articles. Alec - U.K. 17:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship?

Want me to nominate you for adminship, you are one of the most deserving people I know for it. Let me know on my talk page. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda, thanks for asking, but I'm not interested in adminship. Best, Sandy (Talk) 14:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-Soviet War

Work has stalled? Marskell 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have better phrased it by saying that the original author's understanding of the work still needed seems to have stalled. If you're taking it over, perhaps the work will get done now - I'm still concerned about the length and, as you noted, "a great deal of repetition and over-explanation", and the need to better summarize the article. If you're on it, I can strike my remove if you'd like. Sandy (Talk) 22:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Much of the early repetition is now gone. As I note on the FAR, when it gets to actually describing the war it moves at the right pace. The date format needs to be gone over and I did not edit the "Names and dates", because it seemed contentious. I also didn't get to "Miracle at the Vistula". Beyond this, I think it is OK. Give it a read in full and see what you think.
I am flying home to Canada suddenly and I will not be editing, or at least editing very little. Maybe a few days, maybe a couple of weeks. If I stop by to check anything, it will be FAR, of course. Cheers, Marskell 07:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick review?

  • I realize that you're most likely very busy in your WP work and real life, but I was hoping you could please give a quick glance at Sasha (DJ). You were one of a couple editors to object to the prose in its last FAC, so I was hoping you could take a quick look. Even if you just have a chance to just pick one paragraph as a sample, any feedback would be great. I, as well as a couple editors, have done much copy-editing, so I'm hoping its up to FA standards now. I really don't want this to fail another FAC, so even just stating whether or not the prose is good enough to pass would be helpful. Much thanks! Wickethewok 20:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James II

Thanks for leaving the messages -- I was going to do so, but was interrupted. --Zantastik talk 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Tourette syndrome

True, but none of the IP edits have been productive. Protecting the page will save people some time. And by the way, see WP:RFPP; the page was requested for protection there by Michaelas10. Nishkid64 21:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw your requests to unprotect the page. I don't want to get involved again, so I'll let some other admin take care of it. Nishkid64 00:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Sandy

Thanks for correcting me in coprolalia. Sorry for the apparent WP:OR, but I thought the intro needed to say this is a nuthouse case. Anyway, keep me in mind whenever you need to correct Greek stuff. :-) NikoSilver 19:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on Greek stuff (I really wasn't sure on the translations): I wouldn't really say it's a nuthouse case, though. I know some very accomplished and fine people who have coprolalia as a symptom of their Tourette syndrome. When I have time, I'll try to tune up the article to better explain. Regards, Sandy (Talk) 19:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Umm, possibly my English/Medical knowledge doesn't help to explain. I meant the intro needed some kind of hint that this is a non-normal mental situation/state. NikoSilver 21:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1996 United States campaign finance controversy

Hello, regarding the article: If you look at Derex's most recent comments on the article's talk page you will see he had vague concerns about the quality of the the citations and requested the article receive a "peer review". As the article has already had a peer review and been vetted during it's WP:FAC (which it passed as it has been a featured article for 9 months), there is really no other place for the article to go for review than FAR. I just want his concerns quelled once and for all. Regards, --Jayzel 16:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • First, please read the article in question so you understand the issue. I removed the POV tag. There is no issue at dispute. Derex made a bizarre claim that the article is "written to imply that the government basically sold nuclear secrets for a few campaign contributions". Where does he get this from? There is nothing of any sort found in the article. If you can find a quote such as this in the article, please post it and I will be happy to reapply the POV tag myself. He is taking an opinion I wrote six and a half years ago on a different web site (an opinion that I may or may not hold anymore) and applying it to this article in his mind. He is basically applying the POV tag to me and not what is written on the page. Secondly, your comments that the Wikipedians who supported this article did not vett it and take their responsibilty seriously are quite interesting to say the least. Lastly, if researching an article contributor's 6-year-old internet comments isn't stalking, what is? Wikipedia rules clearly state we are to comment only on the article and not the writers. Again, please read the article and check the references. Regards, --Jayzel 16:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I will analyze the review and will leave my opinion/decision later since my time is limited just now. Joelito (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Joelito: I can't detect anything there except a content dispute (and the inappropriate removal of a POV tag), but I defer to your experience and recommendation. Sandy (Talk) 22:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Derex. (Congratulations on the baby !!) I don't condone a POV or OR article remaining featured, but I'm also troubled by editors who expect FAR to serve as dispute resolution because they don't want to go through the dispute resolution process, which is more likely to obligate them to address POV and OR. It seems like an attempt to circumvent dispute resolution. I understand not wanting to tangle with POV warriors, but it would be helpful if you would register your concerns on the WP:FAR talk page, where I raised the question about the appropriateness of the review. Best, Sandy (Talk) 16:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Derex"

I'm sorry, but I cannot allow this comment of yours to stand. I was the one to initiate a resolution to the issue by bringing the article up for review. How can you, with a straight face, say that I am attempting to "circumvent a dispute resolution"? All I want is for the community to review the article and bring to my attention any specific areas which may be incorrect or biased (As Derex's complaints have been very vague and specious), and in return, I have received nothing but a negative attitude, been called a "POV warrior" and even received insults regarding the article's fAC (e.g. Second, the support for the original WP:FAC was quite thin, and the notion that the article was "vetted" in that process is a bit of an overstatement. Talk:1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy#tag. Now, if you continue to refuse to review the article and offer your specific thoughts on it's accuracy and nuetrality, I respectfully request you drop out of this discussion and go about your business. You are accomplishing nothing, but causing acrimoney. At the very least, have the decency to address me directly with your concerns on my talk page. Good day, --Jayzel 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAR is not dispute resolution: Wikipedia has procedures for dealing with disputes. Sandy (Talk) 19:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have weighed in on the situation. My comments may be found in the FAR talk page and in the FAR itself. Joelito (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well reasoned and explained, Joelito - thanks. It also summarized the other NPOV article issues that we've seen on FAR (and that may be back soon, as 3 months is up), which is my concern about taking on these cases over the longer run. I'd feel a lot better about an article losing status if everything possible has been done *first* to resolve the dispute. If the disputes aren't resolved, no one wins, since the article loses status and the POV/OR remains. Sandy (Talk) 22:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical reporting of Tourette syndrome

TIME magazine have an archive going back to 1925. You may be interested in their articles on Tourette Syndrome from 1949, 1957 and 1966. The footnote in the 1949 article says:

About 50 cases (a dozen of them in the U.S.) have been reported since the affliction was described by French Neurologist Georges Gilles de la Tourette in 1885.

The one from 1957 mentions a carbon dioxide treatment. All three concentrate on the problems with swearing. An article from 1982 discussing orphan diseases, gives a figure of 100,000 Americans. --Colin Harkness°Talk 17:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coprographia

That would probably be a better source: [5]

...but I don't have access. Check part of the context in the Google search here:[6]

Maybe someone with access could verify it? NikoSilver 10:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not great either: I'll look for a better source among my literature after the holiday. I'm not too worried about it in the interim. Thanks, Niko! Sandy (Talk) 14:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Citations issues

Meh. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. ;-)

(Conveniently enough, adherence to WikiProject guidelines is an explicit requirement for FAs.) Kirill Lokshin 16:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Roosters FAC

I managed to get a copyeditor to work on the article, and after spending a day on the article he believes that the article is good to go featured. Your concern about the number of references is somewhat valid, but when you look at the article there aren't many places that really require referencing. If you'd like, list those places out and I'll add some in. Hopefully you might now feel compelled to change your vote if you feel that this article is of a much stronger standard. Thanks, --mdmanser 01:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re : V for Vendetta (film)

Got it. I'll need a bit of time to look through this whole thing. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured lists

Oops I didn't realize list had a different process. Maybe something can be added to the header of the page.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I never done any reviews at all but an issue was brought up at peer review. I was hoping this will get a settled opion on the matter. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw you'd moved these list over to FL removal. I've got an issue with the level of inline citations on those lists. What do you think? IMO the criteria for FL body/paragraph text are be very similar to FA requirements. Colin Harkness°Talk 16:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's pretty rough

Oof. Not sure what I have got myself into. You can respond on my talk page which is pretty quiet. --RelHistBuff 13:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi! if you have time could you please check this page? Spanish profanity I tried to nominate the article for speedy deletion but someone is defending it and suggested to take to Rfa. In my opinion the article looks more like a English-Spanish Dictionary of profanities. It is not encyclopedic at all. What do you think?--F3rn4nd0 BLA BLA BLA 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britannica question

Hello again, I sat down recently and read Vault (architecture) which seemed a pretty poor article. After a diversion, where some editors and I discussed the merits of merging some of the very stubby vault related articles, I found that an extensive Vault article is to be found in the 1911 copyright expired version of Britannica. Assuming; 1. I rewrite the stilted 1911 english. 2.We add some swanky graphics 3. we update the article to all the vault related points of interest the 20th century had to offer; is there anything intrinsically wrong in having an article that predominantly cites just one source? I'm really asking, hypothetically, if we brought it to FAC on those terms, could you support it? Cheers --Mcginnly | Natter 22:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V for Vendetta Review

Thanks Sandy for dropping that note.--P-Chan 04:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kroger Babb FAC

Hey, not sure if you keep 'em watchlisted, but I had some questions for you regarding your commentary, so I figured i'd drop a line. Thanks for the input so far. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate some detail if you don't mind. Hit and runs aren't exactly helpful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting approach. If you're in a big hurry, providing a direct link to the FAC always helps with quicker attention: I'm a busy editor, and it has been a holiday in the US. Sandy (Talk) 20:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kroger Babb. Sorry, it's what it looked like, since you had time in other areas. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
After a holiday, I have a lot to catch up on: I tend to go back to FACs after more than just a couple of days, as it's really burdensome to read an FAC where the issues haven't yet been addressed. Sandy (Talk) 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. I ask because I needed some clarification on your issues in particular, as you're the only person with actionable concerns at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
No, Peta and Tony both have actionable concerns: focus on dealing with those issues (they are both respected reviewers), and you'll get there quicker. Good luck, Sandy (Talk) 20:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Tony has unfortunately given me nothing to work with, and I've dealt with Peta's concerns, s/he simply hasn't bothered to check back in. Meanwhile, I've dealt with a few more issues and await your responses over there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TOURETTE SYNDROME EDITS

Sandy,

The information I deleted from the Tourette syndrome site was not reliable information. In addition to having TS, I am a certified expert in the field, having worked extensively with the National Institute of Mental Health; as well as an accomplished attorney. I'm not an ignorant 14 year old out to destroy the credibility of the site; I'm trying, rather, to enhance it's credibility. Anyone with TS will tell you, the dogmatic assertion that "reassurances alone are usually sufficient treatment" is both offensive and factually inaccurate. Please dictate as you wish; I shall leave Wikipedia and seek out a more competent source of information that is not beleaguered by idiosyncratic monologues.

hutchesc

In addition, the cited link requires payment for access, but the article states in relevant part:

"Remembering that children and their families are apt to feel confused or ashamed, emphasize that TS is an involuntary neurologic condition. For many patients, this reassurance is all the management needed."

But the Wiki article says:

"Explanation and reassurance alone are often sufficient treatment;"


Surely you won't argue that management and treatment are synonymous. Treatment is the suppression & curing of disease, while management is learning to live with the same. I hope that you'll correct the article, for the sake of credibility.

[edit] Re: FAR - yikes

Eh. The article is quite old, and has just undergone massive changes; so while we could probably get away with just running a peer review, I don't really think we're losing anything by having it go through FAR, to see if there are any other issues that need to be fixed. Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You!

The Editor's Barnstar
For cleaning up the citation mess I created on the page USS Wisconsin (BB-64) I hearby award you The Editor’s Barnstar. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 01:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your expert advice sought

Hi Sandy

I've just started a stub for one of the topics of my PhD dissertation: Eye movement in music reading. I've inserted two inline citations already, copying the system I used in my 1a articel. But alas, they don't appear at the bottom of the article.

Can you advise me of the best method of inline citation?

Tony 06:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. It appears that Yomangani did the trick. Tony 14:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Thorpe

Hello Sandy. With regards to the Fair Use images, is there any strict limit on how many one can use. I feel that they are not replaceable with free images as they depict important historical Thorpe races which cannot be otherwise recreated. Could you have a look at the changes I have made to see if I am on the right track? Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BInguyen, I don't really know the answer to that question: whenever I'm in doubt about Fair Use, I ask Jkelly (talk • contribs). Sandy (Talk) 14:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/n/User_talk%7ESandyGeorgia_arch6_ace8.html"